Originally posted by: sean wookie

Originally posted by: Warbler
I saw a trailer for a new tonight, it is about flight 93. That is the fourth plane that was taken over by terrorists on 911. That plane was headed most probably for the White House. The only reason the White House stands today and 100's more didn't die on 911 is because the people on that plane fought back. Were they wrong?

This is a very simple question when your life is in danger it's okay to fight.

OK first, let me say that the idea of doing such a film is quite tasteless, and I could not belive they were doing it when I saw the previews.

Regarding this example, it made me think for a while. It's hard to say how justifiable it would be, as they were clearly fighting to save their own lifes. I belive that, on this case, the whole action was beyond the violence/non-violence issue. Imagine that the pilots were unconscious, wouldn't the passengers do something as well? Regardless of what is imposing the threat, they did the one action they had in mind, stopping the plane from crashing.

Now, we have come across a line that divides the violence and non-violence, what we have been arguing about. First, what I have been claiming all this time, that violence should never be used, should be valid for BOTH sides, and if one of those breaks this "rule", no matter which one, it becomes the wrong side. Now, you guys have claimed that it is impossible to prevent the others from doing harm, and when they do harm, we should reply with a greater harm to stop it. Is it really impossible to stop it?

Think for a while. Imagine an hypothetic country that never, ever atacks any country, unless it is being atacked (and NO this country does NOT exist in real world). It is not too hard to imagine why would a country have such a policy, right? I mean, most of us here would actually have that policy. We would rule our own countries this way, right? And yet, why dosen't every country do that? Mind their own business, being friendly with other nations, getting busy with their own things instead of trying to overcome the world and do harmful things to its own people or any other people? Why would anyone be a tyrant, a blood-shedding ruler?

Peace is teorically possible, there is nothing forcing us to be violent. What is it then? Money? Quest for power? And for what? Don't you guys agree that it is possible to make sure we have countries that only do good? How do we acomplish that? One way could be by killing all the evil doers who are currently in power. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Idi Amin Dada (which was ignored by the world but oh well) all those bad guys. Kill em all. Get an army, move into the country, depose the tyrant and install a democratic regime.

Oh but wait. You guys said that there will always be a Hitler being born in a sea of Gandhis. The human kind will never be pure. So, by killing those, you are only bringing violence into the world, but making these "nails" shorter, not ever completely cut. It's a strategy, and a valid one if you think about it. But not 100% effective, and guaranteed to bring death and pain to the whole world.

My idea is to focus on peace. That's why I always speak against companies that profit from war, countries and leaders who do the same, and fundamentalist leaders who use religion in order to get their personal agenda done (which is, mostly, ALSO war profit related, but I rather not go into that now). My idea is to BELIVE we can achieve the hypothetical country, and prevent the evil doers from getting into power in first place, by making sure its people is educated and independent enough to diplomatic fight those.

Take the rise of the nazi germany. Most Germans back then were iliterate and starving, with their own pride hurt by a previous violence act, which, to THEM, would justify their war. We can avoid this kind of situations we we FOCUS our minds on peace.

Taking the analogy of countries and leaders, the same can be done to people. We can prevent violence on tough neighborhoods on our cities, can't we? And some had some progress, take New York City as an example. Isn't it possible to build a better world, no matter how big or small this "world" is? FOCUS on peace.

So, back to the example you gave, of that 9-11 flight. Could it be justifiable, under those circustances? Maybe. Hard to think of what Gandhi or Jesus would do in such situation. Probably try to negociate or reason. Could they be successful? Maybe, maybe not. Was violence successful on that case? Partially, but they were not able to save their own lifes. But what I want to focus is not on that particular moment in history, but on ALL the moments that culminated on that morning of september 11, 2001. On why the situation escalated into that, and how can we focus on PEACE from now on, so things like that don't happen in the future. And I'm sorry to say that by making wars we will NEVER achieve success.

We might as well be doomned, and frankly, the whole situation bring me to consider that a worldwide suicide is the solution, but since I have hope on what I belive is right, I'll keep fighting for it. Not with my fists, but with my words and acts.

And that is all I have to say about it at this moment.