@ marcfrans

Between you and me, I'm not quite sure whether I'm currently debating kappert or the cat.However,assuming it's kappert 'itself',I am now prepared to,(how shall I say?), "smoke the peace pipe","bury the hatchet" and "let sleeping dogs lie".Hence...

@ kappert

In a previous thread you suggested that "vivid discussions" would eventually lead to a "Compromise/Agreement".Well,here's your chance to prove me wrong and yourself right.

Kappert,do you now agree with me that while wars of aggression (eg you might cite: Paleface Wars) are morally "wrong",defensive wars (you might cite: American native wars) are sometimes necessary and morally "right"?  

@ Atlanticist

Do not underestimate kappert's 'smarts'.  Assume for a moment that he was informed about reality, and that he got a choice between living in a democracy, where paleface-values are dominant (say the US or Canada) and a caudillo-culture (say Bolivia) where "native"-values dominate today.  Do you doubt that he would choose paleface-values?  I do not doubt it.  So, his 'pose' is just uninformed parroting (of perverse western self-hatred), or it is deliberate contrarianess.  Either way, it is nonsense.  

Have you noticed that he is a 'racist' too?  After all, on what grounds does he deny the Tibetan people their right to self-determination?  Would it be on principled 'moral' grounds (like free will or free choice, democracy, etc...) or would it be on 'looks'  or on 'might'?   What do you think is the underlying principle guiding him in justifying the brutal occupation of Tibet by a totalitarian neighbo(u)r?  Enough said.

Before the arrival of "palefaces" on the scene the only threat to the "natives" were other "natives",or are you going to tell me you fall for the old "Noble Savage" theory?

If,as you say,"palefaces" were the biggest threat to native Americans then two things are immediately apparent:

1 The "natives" chose to fight the palefaces and lost.

2 Had the "natives" chosen to adopt your philosophy of pacifistic surrender and the palefaces had chosen to ignore their olive branch,the "natives" would still haver lost.

btw

If war is ALWAYS wrong, why do you fail to criticize  the "natives" for choosing (their) option #1 in preference to (your) option #2.

"The pattern of migration into Tibet thus has historical parallels with traditional Chinese mechanisms for expansion,and must be regarded as the biggest threat to the integrity of Tibet".

http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact2.html

Meaow! (Sheh-sheh) Did I hear you say?

Oh, (Boo sheh),don't mention it.

@ marcfrans re: absurd moral relativism

Since I posted details about that "Free Tibet" propaganda website, I have stumbled across another website which gives a totally different picture of a "different reality" and appears to debunk all that Chinese "occupation" of Tibet nonsense.I'm racked with guilt over this and wonder if I should seek forgiveness from kappert's cat,but I still don't know the little moggy's name.What should I do?

Oh,sorry,nearly forgot.The name of that new website is:

http://users.metronet.co.uk/cultv/champions.htm

kappert comes across to me as the Margaret Atwood of the BJ.

Atwood: "I hope that people will finally come to realize that there is only one 'race' - the human race - and that we are all members of it".

Atwood: "War is what happens when language fails".

Atwood: "This above all,to refuse to be a victim".

note: No Atwood quote or kappert explanation tackling the tricky question as to how one "above all", "refuses" to be a victim,after "language fails",WITHOUT finally and reluctantly resorting to war.

Pure kappert,poor kappert.

http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html

Hanson article:

"Another attempt to justify Israel's occupation..."

Really?  I mean,really! I don't think so.Read it again and you'll discover that what it does is to highlight the total absurdity of Gandhi-ism,past and present.But if "occupation" is your pet hate,here's a thought.You appear so smitten by all things Far Eastern so it would do much for your Karma (and keep me a lot calmer) if you chose to read a little more about THIS occupation. see: http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/facts1.html and to paraphrase Hanson,"Clearly,kappert could do far more for world peace by leaving his/her teaching post in Europe and proselytizing against violence in the field,perhaps either Waziristan,Tehran or Tibet".

Chief Seattle:

We are talking about the same Chief Seattle who gave that famous speech,right? Or are we?

The speech which was " reputedly delivered in the 1850's to Isaac Stevens,the govenor of Washington Territory,(which) took on a life of its own in the late 20th century when SEVERAL DIFFERENT VERSIONS,many with an emphasis on the environment,surfaced".The speech that was "first published in a Seattle newspaper in 1887 by a pioneer who CLAIMED he had heard Seattle (or Sealth) deliver it in the 1850's.NO OTHER RECORD OF THE SPEECH HAS BEEN FOUND,and Isaac Steven's writing DO NOT MENTION IT".***

You mean THAT Chief Seattle,do you?

*** excerpted from a web synopsis of the book,"Answering Chief Seattle" by Albert Furtwangler.

Kappert's  cat:

Are we allowed to know the cat's name?

@ Kappert

The essential point of the Hanson article is NOT about 'who did not respond to whose letters', but rather that one must consider the NATURE of the opposing forces or persons.  Ghandi's pleading with Hitler was of course useless in stopping the holocaust and world war 2.  Because those 'events' resulted from the nature of Hitler and nazism.  Are you now seriously comparing Bush with Hitler, because Bush did not respond to a silly (propaganda) letter from Ahmadinejad?  If you are, you are really even in worse mental 'shape' than I already feared.   How could any response by Bush change the nature of Ahmadinejad?  How could it turn him into a 'democrat' in Iran, or how could it remove his desire to destroy Israel, or to make the whole world islamic?

@ Atlanticist

Indeed, it is another fascinating article from Hanson.  It is also interesting to learn that the fifth grandson of Ghandi has apparently NOT learned anything from the history of the past century.  His grandfather was incapable of understanding that the succes of his movement did NOT rest on his method of "nonviolence", but rather on the fact that the opposing force (the British colonial government) proved to have a 'conscience'.   Against someone like Hitler or Saddam, nonviolence would not and did not work.   Obviously the old Ghandi did not understand that.  How else could one explain his futile attempts to 'reason' with Hitler through correspondence?

So, now we know that the grandson of Ghandi still does not understand that reality.  Just like Kappert does not understand it either, because it is an observable reality in life that clashes with a pre-set ideological dogma. 

Our 'curse' is to have to live with the knowledge that such ignorance (as displayed by the old and the young Ghandi) is now prominent in Academia today.  This refusal to recognise the nature of the enemy - indeed this refusal to even recognise the existence of genuine enemies - will undoubtedly (again) exact a terrible price from our civilisation in the future.  Optimists will say that we will be able to overcome it.  Others will look at the past and..... 

I in no way intended misleading anybody.I phrased my response incorrectly.I should have said, "Hitler 'responded' to Gandhi's letters by first ignoring them,and subsequently going to war in spite of Gandhi's naive and futile attempts to prevent war"

Got it?

We'll talk again,later.Meanwhile,read that victor Hanson article again and open your eyes.Finally,I'll leave you (for now) with an old children's nursery rhyme.It could teach you as much if not more about the world than the Hanson article.

If all the world were paper and all waters ink,

If all the trees were bread and cheese,

What would we have to drink?

Au contraire.Hitler DID respond to Gandhi's letters.He went to war in spite of them,thereby recognizing (and dismissing) Gandhi's pious platitudes for the nonsense they were and remain.  

OK. Then here is my follow up question.

Are the teachings of Muhammad fully compatible with the teachings of Jesus and Lao-tse?

And before you answer that question I suggeat YOU visit your local mosque and ask the resident Imam that same question.

Why (not)?

Would you care to elaborate on that answer?

Thank you.

If it's having that effect on you,just imagine how kappert is feeling right now ;-)

Trust me!

Re: Kappert,Hanson & Ghandhi's letters to Hitler:

kappert wrote: "right and wrong are constructions..."

To which you responded," Then you have destroyed any argument you present and have presented..."

Kappert's response was as follows,"Wrong, (wrong???) ...you will have vivid discussions and eventually a mutual compromise/agreement".

Really?

Question: Did "vivid discussions" between Gandhi and Hitler result in a "mutual compromise/agreement",or did WWII happen anyway?Did it prevent the Holocaust?

Answer,Yes,and No,respectively.

Gandhi: "It is quite clear that you (HITLER) are today the one person in the world who can prevent war..."

[Gandhi's first letter to Hitler].

"We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland,NOR DO WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE THE MONSTER described by your opponents"..."BUT your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave NO ROOM FOR DOUBT that many of your acts are MONSTROUS...".

Etc., etc., etc.,

Please,do NOT be tempted to respond to this post.          ;-)

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011608.html

Marcfrans,I think you'll "get it".Same warning against "temptation" applies.

Patience,Atheling,patience...

"...it does not make much sense to switch religions.Second,Taoism is a philosophy and not a religion...a philosophy of harmony between mankind and nature seems to me a worthy goal to achieve".

Agreed.

So,kappert,tell me,are the teachings of Lao-tse fully compatible with the teachings of Jesus? I ask this question because you have previously cited Jesus,along with Gandhi and Lao-tse, as prime examples of men of peace,who sought "harmony between mankind and nature".I suppose what I am really asking is,can a Christian,like myself,embrace the Taoist ethos without first renouncing his/her Christian faith?

Thank you.

More facts:

Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in what it was in 1976.

But it is not just DC that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. While DC points to Chicago's ban to justify its own, Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982.

Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. Similar experiences have been seen with other bans, such as those in Ireland and Jamaica.

What is also interesting is how the Supreme Court has rewritten the question posed by DC. DC originally asked that the question be: "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." The new question is: “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

What is most striking about this revised question is that the court appears to be questioning the city's claim that the ban comes "nowhere close to disarmament of residents. The District's overwhelming interest in reducing death and injury caused by handguns outweighs respondent's asserted need . . . ." DC adds that they don't believe that the regulations that lock up and require the disassembling of guns does not "prevent the use of a lawful firearm in self-defense." Of course, this is highly debatable because under DC law as soon as a rifle or shotgun is made operational it becomes illegal.

But taking DC claims as accurate, locked guns are simply not as readily accessible for defensive gun uses. In the U.S., states that require guns be locked up and unloaded face a 5 percent increase in murder and a 12 percent increase in rapes. Criminals are more likely to attack people in their homes and those attacks are more likely to be successful.

Since potentially armed victims deter criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded actually encourages increased crime. If the phrase "keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes" was chosen for a purpose, it might be that gun lock laws raise their own problems that limit people's ability to use guns for defense."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

"Wrong...you will have vivid discussions and eventually a mutual compromise/agreement".

Well,kappert,it looks like you and I are going to test THAT little theory to destruction... 

Thanks,but from the looks of things,it doesn't look like kappert is going away soon...

Fortunately,it looks like I have Lao-tse on my side...

According to the "old man",quote,

"Failure is the foundation of success...". 

Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission

Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let's consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!

Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html

Sign Free Dominion Against the HRCs Petition
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html

Trying to engage kappert in a rational debate is like trying to nail Jello to a tree, it's not going to work out for you.

Just saying. 

He'll go away faster if ignored.

Back on topic, Ezra Levant, bless him, shined a light on the Stalinesque Canadian HRC.  He's a lesson for Europeans, those that aren't brain dead socialist sheeple still standing.

The question at hand is: can Europe save itself in time?

To avoid repetition allow me to rephrase that last question.

You have chosen to follow the teachings of Lao-tse in preference to the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur'an.What were the "inputs" which were responsible for producing kappert the Taoist rather than kappert the Muslim?

Thank you.

"I put brackets on 'combat zone', as the war was declared by the U.S."

So? What does it matter? The laws of land warfare do not make any distinction according to who started it. All belligerents have exactly the same rights and exactly the same obligations. The US invaded Afghanistan, yes. Do the Afghans have a right to resist foreign invasion? Of course they do. Do others have the right to help them? Of course they do. But if they want to be treated according to the universally accepted rules of warfare, they must also observe those rules when they fight. By the way, the Taliban prisoners - who had been members of a duly constituted armed force, etc - were treated fully and scrupulously in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and were released once hostilities were over.

"Before the U.S. started to intervene, Afghanistan was not a combat zone."

Perhaps you should refresh your knowledge? How many governments functioned in that country? Look up "Northern Alliance"?

"... you could arrest 200 million American citizens!"

You may want to expand on this a little - it does not make much sense like this.

Peter Kiss

"I do not call on following Buddhism or Islam.I do encourage  to study religions in order to understand the different and basic ethical questions".

OK,HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND.

What are the "basic and ethical differences" between Islam and Taoism?

i.e. Without repetition of your final paragraph.

Atheling makes an excellent/obvious point.If "right" and "wrong" are mere "constructions", Guantanamo Bay is "right" to me and "wrong" to you.Debate over.

Thank you for the correspondence.I'm delighted to see that you are finally in "debating mode".

First,a correction.At no time have I expressed the opinion that  good and evil are "easy" concepts to wrestle with.But I do retain the view that good and evil exist.You on the other hand have persistently denied a personal belief in their existence. 

If you wish to debate with me the "rights" and "wrongs" of the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy,including Guantanamo Bay,that's fine with me.All I ask in return is:

* First,you accept the concept of "right" and "wrong" is a reality.

* Second,you are open to enter into discussion and criticism of other governments around the world,with respect to  THEIR foreign and domestic policies. (see below)

Favourite kappert quote: "Sorry,I'm boring you...it may alert for ANY human rights abuse IN THE WORLD".

* Third,you are prepared to answer at least one of my previous questions,without prevarication. (see below).

Topics for discussion will include but shall not be restricted to the following:

a) Sharia law vs Western liberal democracy.

b) Islam vs Taoist philosophy

Do we have a deal?If so,let me start the ball rolling by asking you a question I have posed to you in the recent past.

"Should I ever decide to renounce my Christian faith,why should I choose to follow the teachings of Lao-Tse rather than the teachings of Islam's Prophet,Muhammad?"

Thank you.

You are so grossly off topic. Can't you find another site more appropriate for your anti-American drivel? It's getting redundant, boring and stupid.

How does Gitmo fit in here?

Levant is a Canadian citizen, being screwed by Canadian bureaucrats (although he seems to be giving them a few shrewd blows).

The people in Gitmo were caught with weapons in their hands in a combat zone, without uniforms, without belonging to a duly constituted armed force, and without a chain of command. (You must satisfy all these conditions to be treated as a prisoner of war.) They were lucky - in other conflicts against other enemies they would have been stood against a wall and shot on the spot. Quite legally, too - the laws of war allow it.

Peter Kiss

Ezra Levant's ordeal in front of this Stalinist court has been playing out for years across Europe. Human Rights Commissions are an assault on freedom of speech. Anyone ok with that is a fool who has surrendered their basic liberties. 

Hey, kappert, Gitmo prisoners captured on the battlefield or engaged in war against the US are not our citizens, they do not get the protection of the US Constitution. It's that simple. They remain at Gitmo under military rather than civilian authority as they should.  Why you even think that Gitmo belongs with the topic at hand is truly stupid. Get real.

I see that Etymology-in addition to Logic- isn't your strongest subject.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaqldqBKCZU

Can Ezra file his own complaint for being offended ?

"...any would-be plaintiff would have to finance his own lawsuit, be subject to well-known rules of court, and have to pay the costs of any failed nuisance suits."

Because the plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign United States territory at the time their alleged RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Erg. de. A.) claim arose, they do not fall with the definition of 'person'.
(United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia)

I was really shocked to find that in addition to numerous "hate speech" laws the Canadian government actively bans books and other publications.  What a pathetic country.