katy wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.


Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

Cheers
Marty

Marty,
There was plenty of bloodshed when India changed hands...he preached
pacifism but the reality was that there were factions that were plenty
bloodthirsty...

That was mostly in the north, relatively limited. If a more violent
leader had come along and organised the Hindi as well as Ghandi and led
a violent revolt against the English the bloodshed would have been
massive. For a small taste have a look at the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,
when India didn't really exsist as a single political entity.

Cheers
Marty