[Mustang1]

Tricks Tricks:

Incredible battle. The Stalingrad and Bastogne for Canadians.

True.

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

The soldiers of that "civilized democratic nation" murdered nonviolent protesters.

You call that freedom?

Again....civil disobedience and not an invading nation who was sent packing with pen and paper. Google not working today?

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

Didn't work that way in India.

Wasn't a nation invading either.

[Streaker]

Regina Regina:

Streaker Streaker:

The soldiers of that "civilized democratic nation" murdered nonviolent protesters.

You call that freedom?

Again....civil disobedience and not an invading nation who was sent packing with pen and paper. Google not working today?

You're pretty stupid, aren't you?

For all intents and purposes, Britain was an invading nation - certainly not a welcome one - whose soldiers killed the locals when the locals had the nerve to demand their freedom.

Anyhow, setting aside your juvenile hairsplitting, soldiers don't give people freedom and all-too-often do quite the opposite.

[hurley_108]

Streaker Streaker:

Regina Regina:

Streaker Streaker:

The soldiers of that "civilized democratic nation" murdered nonviolent protesters.

You call that freedom?

Again....civil disobedience and not an invading nation who was sent packing with pen and paper. Google not working today?

You're pretty stupid, aren't you?

For all intents and purposes, Britain was an invading nation - certainly not a welcome one - whose soldiers killed the locals when the locals had the nerve to demand their freedom.

Anyhow, setting aside your juvenile hairsplitting, soldiers don't give people freedom and all-too-often do quite the opposite.

Streaker's right on the money. The phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword" could also be put "the mouth is mightier than the fist" or "the idea is mightier than the fight." Gandhi was a writer and a speaker. The press brought his message back to England and the people there turned to support Gandhi over their own government. Do you think England would have capitulated without a free press?

Every time the struggle did or threatened to become violent on both sides, that weakened, not strengthened, the Indian position. The sword was weaker than the word. Was there action an not just words in Gandhi's struggle? Yes, but outright violence was to be avoided at the cost of his own life.

So stop picking apart a phrase and hanging on the narrow, explicit meanings of the words therein, and look at the broader idea being expressed.

[Thanos]

I would have laughed my ass off if Ghandhi had tried to use that non-violence crap against the Nazis, Russians, or Japanese. All of them wouldn't have acted as benevolently as the British did, who by the way were leaving India and their other colonies anyway because garrisoning the empire was too damned expensive for their shattered post-WW2 economy to afford anymore. The fascists or communists would have had his head on the end of a pike within nanoseconds of arresting him and then it would have been game over for the so-called non-violence movement.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

Who?

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/histor ... allard.htm

Widely recognized for turning the leafs from a perrenial championship team to a perrenial joke.

Make it hurt if you can please.

But we'd lose so many jokes!

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

You're pretty stupid, aren't you?

For all intents and purposes, Britain was an invading nation - certainly not a welcome one - whose soldiers killed the locals when the locals had the nerve to demand their freedom.

Anyhow, setting aside your juvenile hairsplitting, soldiers don't give people freedom and all-too-often do quite the opposite.

Smart enough to see right through you and your passing knowledge of cliché history.

Also smart enough to know the British EIC arrived there in 1757 which is the beginning of British Raj after the Battle of Plassey. I’m also aware of the multiple armed movements that were crushed such as in1857. After WWII the British Empire was in decline and it was obvious they couldn’t continue on as they had nor could they afford to as was the case in others who became part of the Commonwealth. Considering they continued within the British Commonwealth it can hardly be seen, except for you, that the invaders were sent packing with the power of pen and paper alone as you’ve suggested. After being there193 years it’s actually quite difficult to still consider them invaders anyway………unless it bolsters your already weak theory.

Google still not working for you eh?

[Regina]

Since your search browser must worn out by now and you can’t provide any real life examples of your theatrical quote, I’ll provide you with a couple examples in recent history to mull over and deflect. Fairly significant events and easily remembered but I’m sure you’re just waiting to flood this thread with examples to sway my opinion.

Neville Chamberlain was the author of the Munich Agreement in 1938. This sternly crafted agreement lead to the invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium, France which started WWII and where millions were killed.

Following the assassination of Rwandan President Habyalimana in April 1994, members of his ethnic Hutu faction took to the streets wielding machetes, clubs and guns. Civilians identified as ethnic Tutsi were killed on sight. Within days, hundreds of bodies were seen floating down the Kigara River into Lake Victoria. In retaliation, the U.N. Security Council penned a resolution designed to expose the problem to the world. The world's response was "it's not our problem." Days later, all 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers were pulled from Rwanda. Free of opposition, the Hutu extremists went on a killing spree unseen since Nazi Germany. After 2 more U.N. resolutions and 800,000 murders the killings came to an end when armed Tutsi rebels attacked and defeated the Hutu extremists in June 1994. 800,000 Tutsi were killed on Hutu swords because U.N. chose to pick up its pen and abdicate responsibility.



Ahhhhhh.....that mighty pen and paper.