Did not expect someone to nab my reply
optissima
My claims? My claim is, as I said before, is that violence should not be ruled out as a final option. That's it. I never said we were at that point. You're desperate to paint me as a violent person because I am willing to defend people from killers who control who they get to kill.
To entertain you, I volunteer in my communities in person and develop support systems within them. Violence now is not the conversation.
Sure! I used to be nonviolent, then I saw that the other side still chose violence. Then I tried to reason, and they still chose violence. Then I pled, and they still chose violence. Then I watched my friends and family die. When I asked for help, I was smugly told they were nonviolent and watched me die with a smile on their faces, thinking that because they only allowed it to happen and didn't feel the blood on their own skin they sidestepped their own morals safely.
Yes please sit back and do nothing that's what they want. Your take is an illogical loop and no matter how much your take is yours, it's still a bad take. I hope you're around in a few years and get to see that 4 year point, and that you feel your nonviolence only approach is still fine as they kill and enslave thousands.
You haven't been. You're not nonviolence if you support doing nothing when senseless violence occurs. It's not 1776, no one said it was, and to use that as your reference point shows you have ignored all change since then.
Nonviolence is not "dont hurt me" it's about trying to bring an end to violence.
Virtually all of your examples involve US hegemony instigating and winning, the same group doing the current stuff. Why does a war ending count as becoming less evil if it's always by the same instigator and they keep winning, jumping from conflict to conflict? Have you considered that the evil keeps winning and suppressing the good through compliance or murder?
What is we compare the most intense 25 years of the 20th to the current 25 and label the instigators?