GoofyFish ends every post I have seen with "Peace," as if that accomplishes something.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
So said the Romans over 2,000 years ago.

More recently, Gandhi wanted to promote peace through cowardice and appeasement. Had the world heeded Gandhi's words, we would all be Nazis today.

Then there is the infamous "Peace in our time" cowardly appeasement by Neville Chamberlain. You can google Neville Chamberlain and see a picture of him waving the nice little piece (peace) of paper signed by Adolph Hitler, promising to make nice.

Those who promote "peace" should be expected to leave their residence doors open, never locking them. Ditto for their car doors.

Trust people. Yeah, right.

So, should we all promote war? Death to all?

Those who promote "peace" should be expected to leave their residence doors open, never locking them. Ditto for their car doors.


what the fuck are you talking about?

GoofyFish ends every post I have seen with "Peace," as if that accomplishes something.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
So said the Romans over 2,000 years ago.

More recently, Gandhi wanted to promote peace through cowardice and appeasement. Had the world heeded Gandhi's words, we would all be Nazis today.

Then there is the infamous "Peace in our time" cowardly appeasement by Neville Chamberlain. You can google Neville Chamberlain and see a picture of him waving the nice little piece (peace) of paper signed by Adolph Hitler, promising to make nice.

Those who promote "peace" should be expected to leave their residence doors open, never locking them. Ditto for their car doors.

Trust people. Yeah, right.

I completely agree with you!

Sieg heil! :runaway:

http://perspectives.com/forums/themes/default/violent-smiley-093.gif:jason: :xctd:

hmm I agree with you, except Ghandi did not promote weakness. He bargined always using the combined power of millions of people. I was certainly not cowardly to face weapons with non-violent methods.

nietzschefan, but he was dealing with the British, and for all of that, they do have a higher standard in dealing with people than Hitler and the Nazi's, I do not think Ghandi would have gotten very far in dealing with Hitler and the Nazi Regime in Germany.

Yes your right about that, nonviolence is a good tool to combat injustice in so-called democracies however.

There are very few people in the world who will attack a man who's armed to the teeth ....with swords, knives, handguns, rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, grenades, atom bombs,........ People just don't fuck with a person who's armed like that.

Baron Max

GoofyFish ends every post I have seen with "Peace," as if that accomplishes something.

peace, is something to accomplish.

peace, is something to accomplish.

Peace will never be accomplished in the human existence because if there are 10 billion people at peace, but only one who is "evil", then "evil" one will win.

The only way the peaceful people can win is by turning against their ideals of peace and using "evil" to fight "evil". In which case, there is no peace.

Baron Max

there will never be world peace unless you get rid of some people, and obviously that's wrong

If everyone was peaceful, there would have been no Nazi Germany. Hence, no Nazis.

there will never be world peace unless you get rid of some people, and obviously that's wrongSyria Will Prevail?! The Syrian flag? Norseman? Are you another Roman or for real? I am pro Syria myself! A secular Arab government that has not kissed the filthy feet of zion! Long Live Assad!

no I am syrian. 100% pure

You can google Neville Chamberlain and see a picture of him waving the nice little piece (peace) of paper signed by Adolph Hitler, promising to make nice.And just exactly what was the long term benefit of fighting WWII??? The Europeans ended up with Stalin instead of Hitler. The Asians ended up with Mao instead of Hirohito. Is there some warped book of values someplace that explains why that was an improvement, so that it was worth the lives of somewhere between twenty and sixty million people?

I understand that sometimes you have to fight a battle to preserve freedom. But I also understand that you have to choose your battles wisely. It does not seem to me that the battles of the twentieth century were chosen wisely. And so far the twenty-first is off to an incredibly bad start as well.

I understand that sometimes you have to fight a battle to preserve freedom.

Why? Isn't peace more important than freedom?

From your post, you seem to think so, which is why I asked the question of you. You would have been content to allow Hitler to rule Europe ...as long as there was peace, right?

Another thing that's interesting in what you said ..."...to preserve freedom." Does that mean only one's own freedom or to preserve the freedom of others, too? I.e., would you permit friends to help others preserve their freedom?

Baron Max

Which freedom? GBW "freedom"? :rolleyes:

Which freedom?

Freedom for the militant Iraqis to kill other free Iraqis! See? Ain't freedom a wonderful thing? :D

We also need to preserve the freedom of people like What-his-name Cho so he can be free to go around killing other free people in colleges. Ain't freedom a wonderful thing? And shouldn't we fight war to keep and preserve those freedoms?

Baron Max

Like I said, there is no freedom in America. There is only freedom when you bow and kiss the many asses of America's powerful and rich.

People look to america as an example of how to run their country, that's why they are unsuccessful. What country has seriously benefited from America's 'peaceful spread of democracy'?

nietzschefan, but he was dealing with the British, and for all of that, they do have a higher standard in dealing with people than Hitler and the Nazi's, I do not think Ghandi would have gotten very far in dealing with Hitler and the Nazi Regime in Germany.
Harry Turtledove did an alternative history story on just this topic.

During WW2 the Germans took India. Ghandi tried his usual tricks. When the people went on strike, the Nazis went house to house and started killing them until they returned to work. Then they seized Ghandi and had him shot.

madanthonywayne,

I have heard something about that, but back in High School we did a discussion in world history class on the subject, that was in the 60ty and the hippies in school were doing their anti war thing, and the teacher, decided to have a debate on the subject, and Ghandi was brought up by the peaceful hippies, and I ask the same question, and offered the same proofs that the Nazis and Hitler would have done the same to him a they did with any dissident, concentration camps and then either a guillotine, firing squad, or the gas chamber. But for dissidents it was usualy the Guillotine, the Gestapo liked it because it sent a message.

Ghandi was brought up by the peaceful hippies, and I ask the same question, and offered the same proofs that the Nazis and Hitler would have done the same to him a they did with any dissident, concentration camps and then either a guillotine, firing squad, or the gas chamber. But for dissidents it was usualy the Guillotine, the Gestapo liked it because it sent a message.
Peaceful resistance only works when dealing with a civilized opponent. It was the virtue of the English that allowed Ghandi to defeat them. Hitler would have had no such problem.

Harry Turtledove has written several alternative history novels, the one I cited was just a short story (it didn't take the Nazi's long to deal with Ghandi).

His most famous book is Guns of the South in which Neo-Nazi's supply the south with machine guns via a time machine so they can win the civil war. He also wrote a series in which aliens invaded in the middle of WW2 forcing the axis and allies to work together against the aliens.

GoofyFish ends every post I have seen with "Peace," as if that accomplishes something.

If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
So said the Romans over 2,000 years ago.

i prefer this quote better "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" a peace earned in blood is not a lasting peace. goofy is quite right to wish peace upon others; the only way to ever truly win over your enemy is by greeting them with open arms and reaching a compromise which leaves both parties satisfied.

You should take a look at this thread, vslayer...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1369340#post1369340

i prefer this quote better "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" a peace earned in blood is not a lasting peace. goofy is quite right to wish peace upon others; the only way to ever truly win over your enemy is by greeting them with open arms and reaching a compromise which leaves both parties satisfied.

You know the Native Americans tried this very same thing and look where they are. Same with Chamberlain and Hitler. Open arms and appeasement only end up stalling a war. War is just a natural state for mankind. It is a driving force. Why? Becuase when it comes down to it violence is the ultimate authority from which all other authority is derived.

im not talking about appeasement, im talking about diplomacy and negotiation. working out a plan which benefits both

vslayer

"fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

Guess what? if you don't fuck for virginity, no more virgins.

If you a don't fight for peace no more peace.

vslayer

Please show were that has ever worked unless all parties were interested in keeping the peace? Hitler wasn't interested in having peace until he had achieved all of his aims, Britain under Chamberlain wanted peace at any cost, who achieved his goal, not Chamberlain, the war came anyway, and at a far more costly price in lives and treasure, and in the end Hitler still didn't achieve what he wanted either.

i prefer this quote better "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"
Two virgins fucking can produce 12 or more virgins for a net gain of ten virgins. So there you go.

You know the Native Americans tried this very same thing and look where they are. Same with Chamberlain and Hitler. Open arms and appeasement only end up stalling a war. War is just a natural state for mankind. It is a driving force. Why? Becuase when it comes down to it violence is the ultimate authority from which all other authority is derived.

Uhh not exactly. Natives in NA were a multitude of individual tribes. Some fought fiercely, some allied with european powers for technology/trade rights and some were given no option at all, depending on the power ratio when they met the white man.

For instance the natives of newfoundland were so aggressive that the vikings abandoned colonies in North America.

French and Huron were so intertwined that intermarriage was quite prevalent, creating a whole new "band" of people, the Metis.

United states and say....the Lakota people, are what you describe. In Canada some native bands have massive amounts of land and almost complete autonomy.

i prefer this quote better "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" a peace earned in blood is not a lasting peace. goofy is quite right to wish peace upon others; the only way to ever truly win over your enemy is by greeting them with open arms and reaching a compromise which leaves both parties satisfied.

"Peace in our time." - Neville Chamberlain

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

America joined many allies and won World War II.
The Nazis were vanquished for good. I mean, except for the Democrat Party, that is. Except for them.

Why don't YOU go over to Iraq and greet those lovely terrorists with your "open arms". They'll soon cut your head off, and the mean world IQ will be the better for it.

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

GoofyFish ends every post I have seen with "Peace," as if that accomplishes something.

peace, is something to accomplish.

A psychopath, say someone like, oh one of the homosexual mass murderers whose numbers are disproportionately high, punches a pacifist in the face as hard as he can.

The pacifist responds by embracing the homosexual mass murderer (Randy Kraft to name but one). The homosexual mass murderer then kicks the pacifist in the groin, as hard as he can, and when the brilliant pacifist falls to the ground, the homosexual mass murderer proceeds to kick and stomp him repeatedly, in the face, in the back.

Pacifists gather and all speak gently to the homosexual mass murderer.
They implore him to make nice.

This sort of reminds me of the Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

If you have no clue as to how brutally Kitty Genovese was murdered over a period of more than 30 minutes, as dozens of cowardly New Yorkers looked and listened on, without even lifting a finger, then Google her name.

"Peace" is the mantra of ignorant cowards.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other." --George Orwell
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence
encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel accepting the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize

“There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent.” - Elie Wiesel

Homosexual Mass Murderers

Juan Corona - California
Randy Kraft - California 16 to 67 men
Jeffrey Dahmer - Milwaukee, WI 17 boys, murdered, dismembered and eaten
John Wayne Gacey - Chicago, IL 27 boys, strangled and buried under his house
Ronald J Dominique - Houma, LA 23 men and teenage boys

adherents dot com forward misc forward hsk dot html



Although incidents of serial killing are widely reported in the media because of the heinous and unusual nature of these crimes, there are actually very few serial killers relative to the general population. Research into this phenomenon is ongoing, and a small industry has sprung up around the practice of "profiling" serial killers in order to assist in their apprehension. But, law enforcement officials agree that each serial killer is unique. Society does not currently have sufficient knowledge to predict serial killing before it occurs and thus prevent it from happening.

Serial killers and their victims include people from all races, cultures, nationalities, economic background, educational levels, genders, and sexual orientations. Because serial killers are so rare, it is impossible to use any demographic indicator as a predictor. There are no "rules" and all apparent trends have been broken. But some general observations can be made.

Serial killers are nearly always men (93%). Furthermore, of the relatively few female serial killers, one third of them worked in partnership with males.

In the United States, serial killers are predominantly white. This makes sense statistically, because about 80% of the population is white. According to some sources, whites are over-represented and African-Americans are under-represented among serial killers, but this depends on how one defines a "serial killer." The more celebrated, headline-grabbing serial killers are generally white, but if one counts all perpetrators of multiple homicides, including drug- and gang-related killings, then African-Americans account for between 20% to 30% of all multiple perpetrators, according to statistics compiled by the FBI. African-Americans comprise about 13% of the total U.S. population. Asians, who comprise probably under-represented among American serial-killers. Asian serial-killers are extremely rare in the United States, but Asians comprise only about 4% of the U.S. population so, statistically speaking, one would expect few Asian serial killers. There have been some high-profile Filipino serial killing and murder cases. Filipinos comprise a relatively newer and less affluent immigrant population relative to other major Asian groups in the United States.

Although the proportion of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experience is high (over 43%), the total number of serial killers is too small to make statistically relevant statements about whether homosexuals are over- or under-represented among serial killers. [Click here for source, related studies and statistics.]

Also, it should be noted that many of the homosexual serial killers on this list were not active members of the Gay & Lesbian cultural community.

Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals, but they became widely known due to the nature of their crimes or the identities of their victims, not because they in any way represent serial killers generally.

Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there would not need to be very many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers for them to be over-represented. But with such small overall numbers, and with no universally agreed upon definition of a homosexual, it would be impossible to determine the relative frequency of homosexuals among serial killers. Unlike gender and race (clearly ascertainable), there are no physical or genetic tests for sexual orientation. It can only be determined by behavior and self-identification.

Some serial killers engaged in sex with both males and females, which would prompt some people to classify them as bisexuals. Their actual identity would then be argued about by various biologists, gay writers, and others, who would classify their status as a variant of homosexuality, a distinct classification, or repressed homosexuals. Such hair-splitting is well beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it say, all of the individuals listed here as "homosexual serial killers" can be classified as homosexual as the term is generally used.

Homosexual serial killers have most frequently chosen young boys or gay men as their victims, although some have victimized females as well. Most of the killers have raped their victims either before or after killing them, although in some cases they have killed after consensual homosexual sex. There have been heterosexual serial killers who have targeted gay victims (e.g., Colin Ireland), but this is very rare.

But more importantly, none of the serial killers listed here represent typical homosexuals, who, like the general population, are almost never involved in violent crime. The exact nature of each individual's feelings, attitudes, and behavior with regards to sex is unique, in the general population as well as among serial killers. Legally, all or nearly all of the homosexual serial killers on this list would be considered sexual deviants because of the extreme and violent nature of their acts -- not simply because of their homosexual orientation. It must be emphasized that violent sexual deviancy is exhibited by heterosexual serial killers as well.

No ethnic, religious or cultural group promotes this sort of violence. But in a free society, no culture is entirely free from violence, despite their best efforts. Kristi Degn eloquently wrote a letter to the editor in response to a writer who felt it was okay to single one culture out as perpetrators of violence:

In his letter "Man Is God Here" (Forum, Aug. 25, 2000), Dennis Kostecki wrote, "In my dating days here, I dated six women. All were from this culture. All were abused by their former husbands. Every one! It seems to me this culture promotes the degradation and abuse of their women for reasons only they know and understand."

Pinpointing the blame for abuse on any one "culture" is irresponsible and weak. Abuse is no respecter of culture or demographics. It is no respecter of gender, marital or relationship status.

Our statewide domestic violence hot-line number is 1-800-897-LINK. Perhaps Mr. Kostecki would be interested in knowing that calls received at this number are not from one "culture" only. Further, Mr. Kostecki's statement is narrow-minded in relation to a problem which is a national concern.

See JPEG of Homosexual Mass Murderers:



Of the 95 perpetrators in these 90 stories, at least 43% engaged in homosexuality... Of the 217 victims, at least 68% were victimized by homosexual perpetrators, and at least 67% were boys... Furthermore, both multiple perpetrators and multiple victims were associated with homosexuality. In the three stories where two or more killers were implicated, the rapes were homosexual. In 69% of the 13 stories involving more than one victim, the perpetrator engaged in homosexuality. Another 11 stories involved a charge of attempted murder. In 64% of those cases, the perpetrator engaged in homosexuality.

When all other cases of child molestation from the Lexis-Nexis search are added to these stories, there were 2,181 perpetrators in the 1,914 distinct events whose sexual proclivities could be characterized by the sex of their victim: 41% engaged in sex with their own sex, the remaining 59% with the opposite sex (another 118 perpetrators violated at least 190 children whose sex was not given). Of the 5,630 underage victims of these molestations, 61% were victimized by individuals who engaged in homosexuality. And those who performed homosexual seductions were quite one-sided: 3,386 of their victims were boys, only 60 were girls.

Mod note: Thank you for your crazed rant. Thread closed.