• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Peace Activist Etiquette

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed
 

nonothing

Well-known member
So then why invade Iraq? was that not punching them in the nose?....It was originally over WOD's ....if it was for a collect punching of the nose,Afghanistan would of been the only target......The invasion of Iraq was a bad move and is still costing the entire world......How many times can these people keep changing the reasons for this invasion,so the sheep will follow.....It is amazing how many times CNN alone had to change their introductions to fit the changing reasons. .By the way,what is the latest reason being given for invading and staying in Iraq,does anyone even know?.....

Your right liberty,defending is different then attacking....Sounds to me though you prefer the bigger bomb theory.....soon who has the biggest will no longer matter.....the answer to hate is not found in proactive attacks that kill the innocent....but will be found in words.....I never in my life thought I would see an american politician claim boot stomping people like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela a good Idea
 

P Joe

Well-known member
nonothing said:
So then why invade Iraq? was that not punching them in the nose?....It was originally over WOD's ....if it was for a collect punching of the nose,Afghanistan would of been the only target......The invasion of Iraq was a bad move and is still costing the entire world......How many times can these people keep changing the reasons for this invasion,so the sheep will follow.....It is amazing how many times CNN alone had to change their introductions to fit the changing reasons. .By the way,what is the latest reason being given for invading and staying in Iraq,does anyone even know?.....

Your right liberty,defending is different then attacking....Sounds to me though you prefer the bigger bomb theory.....soon who has the biggest will no longer matter.....the answer to hate is not found in proactive attacks that kill the innocent....but will be found in words.....I never in my life thought I would see an american politician claim boot stomping people like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela a good Idea

Where in all of that do you see anything about Iraq?? That came out a few years back. Waaaaay before Iraq was thought of.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
P Joe said:
nonothing said:
So then why invade Iraq? was that not punching them in the nose?....It was originally over WOD's ....if it was for a collect punching of the nose,Afghanistan would of been the only target......The invasion of Iraq was a bad move and is still costing the entire world......How many times can these people keep changing the reasons for this invasion,so the sheep will follow.....It is amazing how many times CNN alone had to change their introductions to fit the changing reasons. .By the way,what is the latest reason being given for invading and staying in Iraq,does anyone even know?.....

Your right liberty,defending is different then attacking....Sounds to me though you prefer the bigger bomb theory.....soon who has the biggest will no longer matter.....the answer to hate is not found in proactive attacks that kill the innocent....but will be found in words.....I never in my life thought I would see an american politician claim boot stomping people like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela a good Idea

Where in all of that do you see anything about Iraq?? That came out a few years back. Waaaaay before Iraq was thought of.


We owe our military a huge debt for what they do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed


My point is go ahead,strike back at the those who did this......Go into afghanistan and remove bin laden.....but by going into Iraq for reasons of WMD's,is that not,according to this numbered itinerary of violence,a punch in their nose?????
 

P Joe

Well-known member
nonothing said:
My point is go ahead,strike back at the those who did this......Go into afghanistan and remove bin laden.....but by going into Iraq for reasons of WMD's,is that not,according to this numbered itinerary of violence,a punch in their nose?????

You're twisting it.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
P Joe said:
nonothing said:
My point is go ahead,strike back at the those who did this......Go into afghanistan and remove bin laden.....but by going into Iraq for reasons of WMD's,is that not,according to this numbered itinerary of violence,a punch in their nose?????

You're twisting it.

you expect anything less from a LIBERAL :D :D
 

Steve

Well-known member
NoNOthing:
My point is go ahead,strike back at the those who did this.

okey you really missed the lesson.....

The Peace activist is saying not to repond to any violence,....from any source.

we are saying that to ignore "unprovoked" violence leads to more violence against US....

By ignoring the Iranians in 79....they continue to attack...now it is the Brit's they are targeting...

How many times will "we as free people" turn the other cheek and ignore thier bad behaviour?
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Thing is Steve I never used the word ignore..I will from now on use the words "non violent means" so there is no mistaking my point.....

The writer of this posted first page said
8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

the attackers were found to be in Afghanistan and were hunted after the attacked the USA,and I can understand the need to punch back at that point....But is it not a similar circumstance in which the USA attacked Iraq...There was no real threat or first strike by Iraq,as a matter of fact the USA made the first strike by invading.....so I am under the understanding that Iraq would be the ones being attack..Which brings me to point 4

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

So in this person theory,The USA started a violent approach and there fore had to be taken to task by what ever means necessary by the Iraq people to protect themselves? steps 5 to 7 accordance with the said theory.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making.



So what this writer truly is saying about the USA is (again i must quote his/her words)

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

So can one come to conclude from what this writer has written,that the USA attack on Iraq is unacceptable and must be dealt with? Do you as an american support unprovoked and unfounded violence?


Violence will for the short term rally support,but the only answer to stopping violence is education......If the people around the world were educated on how helpful and positive the american people and country can be.To understand that they are not about changing other countries life styles or religion...That if giving the power they wont use it against others,then the world may change......

Being from another country who has been shown that side of america,I have learned to respect and trust the USA...The neighbors to the south try to sneak in for pity's sake,they know how it is there to .....

The job of educating the world about north america falls on north America ...Instead of pummeling countries into the ground,they should be taught to trust and accept the help that could be offered to better their own countries....

I understand its a daunting task,but with out the knowledge of a true America,terrorists words will always be believed over that of North American leaders..


[/b]
 

Steve

Well-known member
Nonothing
But is it not a similar circumstance in which the USA attacked Iraq...There was no real threat or first strike by Iraq,

Maybe you could explain to me about the "whole" gulf war? ...remember the one where Saddam invaded Kuwait? not just the last phase....

Was that not the "first strike"?


after that your assumptions take the wrong side again....

The only way you could conclude your assumption, was to ignore Saddam's prior bad acts....and "blame America" for his violence.
 
Top