and what exactly did they reach? look at india today! there are still the untoucheables and one of gandhi's main goals was to get rid of them. gandhi would puke right into his own grave if he could.
even more than the ...( 2 months ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
even more than the RAF who reached NOTHING. They did get rid of beeing a colony of the British empire, which led to a totaly new definition of the Commonwealth WORLDWIDE! For comparison 1921 1/4 of earth's surface were British colonies with no real independence.
whom do you mean ...( 2 months ago by dirkovic89)
whom do you mean when you talk about "indians"? hardly the majority of the indian people. as i said, getting rid of the castes was gandhi's most important goal, because this would have led the way towards a modern and free india, but he failed socially and politically. great man, nevertheless, but he reached nothing. by the way, i didn't say that the raf reached anything. but personally i prefer to strike back somebody who strikes me.
tsss, but when I ...( 2 months ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
tsss, but when I tell you, regarding the same argumentation and that i.e. Lenin and his followers never made a better society with social equality, humanity and peace, but quite the opposite as it was intended, when I say now that Lenin "reached nothing", then you say?... Ghandis main aim was to abolish British administration and to acquire independence. He and his supporters accomplished that impossible seeming matter. 6 months later he got killed.
...the opposite of ...( 2 months ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
...the opposite of what was intended...I intended to say, lol.
you can tell me ...( 2 months ago by dirkovic89)
you can tell me that the sovjets failed, i kinda agree with you on that. but to abolish the british rule was what gandhi wanted in order to reach a new society. his dream was what he lived in his own house and in india nothing like this came to be. they got rid of the british but no further than that. after gandhi's death there was no all-indian sympathy-carrier any more, who could unite muslims and hindus by nearly starving himself to death and the indian society got stuck!
If you imagin ...( 2 months ago by Diogenes2077)
If you imagin Gandhi and the RAF as well wanted to live in a way they considered right,I think they reached it. Perhaps they also wanted people to accept that we ´re not living in Leibniz´ "best of all possible worlds" and when we look at such vids and post this comments, I´d say they reacht that too. And when you think teir goal was to make this not only a better world but the best for everyone to live in, they failed, because this is a goal not one man can achive. It´s for all of us.
Well, India has ...( 2 months ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Well, India has still big problems. But in the bigger cities your main concern of castes is maybe not that important any more. And a economy growth of about 8% tell me that India could rise in a couple of decades.
Mal Farm der Tiere ...( 2 months ago by Germanator93)
Mal Farm der Tiere gelesen?
Actually, RAF ...( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
Actually, RAF achieved a great deal by simply being. Their attempts have fueled the spirits of many others.
With what?( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
With what?
Their actions.( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
Their actions.
Well, as you beeing ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Well, as you beeing a Brit I thought you probably feel satisfied with the 'action' that muslims deliver from time to time. Do you convert to islam, now? Laying bombs is never a solution.
Auszüge! ...( 1 month ago by Blinki18284)
Auszüge! Interessantes Buch! Aber ich bin antiautoritärer! Ich bin kein Stalinist, also nicht das dogmatische Feindbild, dass du vor Augen hast! Ich bin für Demokratie! Aber nicht die Scheindemokratie mit Ausbeutung durch die Oberen! Nicht alles endet schlecht!
A Brit? I've never ...( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
A Brit? I've never identified myself with that label. Anyway, onto your question. The purpose of certain muslim groups active today are quite different to those of RAF. You mention religion, that's one of the reasons I'll never be able to stand in solidarity with these muslim groups. Pacifism is never a solution. Accepting the status quo is never a solution.
Thats your opinion. ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Thats your opinion. I dont like Communism either. Thats why I never let myself be subjugated by bombs and terror. Pacifism can be a solution. But its the much harder way.
That's my opinion? ...( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
That's my opinion? Be Clear about what you're talking about please. It's a fact that the purpose of muslim groups active today are different from those of the RAF. Accepting the status quo has never done anything for anybody, it's defeatist. And I don't think pacifism is a very clever decision if you're going to be challenging the state on a day to day basis, not nowadays.
Of course the ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Of course the purpose is different. Lets forget about this analogy. The idea of terror is different from the idea of a revolution. In a revolution the major part of the people wants change and a leader or a government doesnt follow the will of the people. The RAF and most socialist movements of students etc. never had the acceptance of the german worker class. And so they faught just for themselfes. Terror is the means of a minority against the will of most people.
If the state was a ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
If the state was a dictatorship where pacifism leads to nothing you had NO chance to do the same as the RAF on the other hand. Because nowadays the possible means of a rich country to collect data and to analyse are enorm. 1977 the BKA had identified the flat where Schleyer was hold just by analysing data. The message with the info got lost in the administration circle and wasnt verified till Schleyers death. This data-collecting method called "Rasterfahndung" is not allowed today in G.
You're right about ...( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
You're right about Baader Meinhof. Their actions marginalised the everyday german. However, I think your definition of terrorism is plain wrong. Most first world governments are terrorists in my eyes. Not only do they terrorize anyone who doesn't conform to their needs in their own territory they also terrorize others states abroad. Of course, being a part of such a state means that I am complicit just by participating in it. This is why actions must take place.
Yeah. But what " ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Yeah. But what "actions"? When you kill Blair now, you achieve nothing at all. When you form a movement of lets say 100000 people not willing to lose their children in stupid war-adventures and all of them i.e. pay no taxes any more or just a value minus the percentage of the military-budget. Then the state has the opportunity to bring 100000people in jail or to overthink their policy. And this leads to solidarity with people who think the same and also stop to pay for war. Only a proposal.
Because this needs ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Because this needs perhaps more backbone than to fuze a bomb. I mean if you stand up and say: "Bring me in jail, but I wont pay for war anymore. But if you bring war to your own country in order to stop the war elsewhere. Perhaps a war your own country doesnt even fight, like the RAF. Then everybody asks himself the simple question what kind of a peacekeeper you are.
It's not Blair ...( 1 month ago by MuzakConcrete)
It's not Blair anymore, it's Gordon Brown (ex-chancellor). Of course nothing would achieved by killing Brown. They'd just mourn his death and create another head. I absolutely agree that there has to be mass movement. The only way we can achieve a mass movement is by spreading the word, re-politicizing people, getting people believing that things could be different. That is what governments do not want because then a change can happen, a major change. A thinking society is a dangerous one.
Yeah, I know of ...( 1 month ago by drMerkwuerdigliebe)
Yeah, I know of course, but he was responsible for the participation in Iraq. Alright, but when the state can stop you of doing unviolent movements your too weak for change or the issues you want to have are not important enough. But when violence results of weakness it doesnt change things either but is also pitteous for many others.
For comparison 1921 1/4 of earth's surface were British colonies with no real independence.
Ghandis main aim was to abolish British administration and to acquire independence. He and his supporters accomplished that impossible seeming matter.
6 months later he got killed.
but to abolish the british rule was what gandhi wanted in order to reach a new society. his dream was what he lived in his own house and in india nothing like this came to be. they got rid of the british but no further than that. after gandhi's death there was no all-indian sympathy-carrier any more, who could unite muslims and hindus by nearly starving himself to death and the indian society got stuck!
Perhaps they also wanted people to accept that we ´re not living in Leibniz´ "best of all possible worlds" and when we look at such vids and post this comments, I´d say they reacht that too.
And when you think teir goal was to make this not only a better world but the best for everyone to live in, they failed, because this is a goal not one man can achive.
It´s for all of us.
And a economy growth of about 8% tell me that India could rise in a couple of decades.
Do you convert to islam, now? Laying bombs is never a solution.
Pacifism is never a solution. Accepting the status quo is never a solution.
Pacifism can be a solution. But its the much harder way.
Accepting the status quo has never done anything for anybody, it's defeatist. And I don't think pacifism is a very clever decision if you're going to be challenging the state on a day to day basis, not nowadays.
The idea of terror is different from the idea of a revolution. In a revolution the major part of the people wants change and a leader or a government doesnt follow the will of the people.
The RAF and most socialist movements of students etc. never had the acceptance of the german worker class.
And so they faught just for themselfes. Terror is the means of a minority against the will of most people.
Because nowadays the possible means of a rich country to collect data and to analyse are enorm.
1977 the BKA had identified the flat where Schleyer was hold just by analysing data. The message with the info got lost in the administration circle and wasnt verified till Schleyers death.
This data-collecting method called "Rasterfahndung" is not allowed today in G.
When you form a movement of lets say 100000 people not willing to lose their children in stupid war-adventures and all of them i.e. pay no taxes any more or just a value minus the percentage of the military-budget. Then the state has the opportunity to bring 100000people in jail or to overthink their policy. And this leads to solidarity with people who think the same and also stop to pay for war. Only a proposal.
But if you bring war to your own country in order to stop the war elsewhere. Perhaps a war your own country doesnt even fight, like the RAF. Then everybody asks himself the simple question what kind of a peacekeeper you are.
Of course nothing would achieved by killing Brown. They'd just mourn his death and create another head. I absolutely agree that there has to be mass movement. The only way we can achieve a mass movement is by spreading the word, re-politicizing people, getting people believing that things could be different. That is what governments do not want because then a change can happen, a major change. A thinking society is a dangerous one.
Alright, but when the state can stop you of doing unviolent movements your too weak for change or the issues you want to have are not important enough.
But when violence results of weakness it doesnt change things either but is also pitteous for many others.