Do you think that ACTIVE PEACEFUL RESISTANCE is more effective than armed resist

Question: Do you think that ACTIVE PEACEFUL RESISTANCE is more effective than armed resistance!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

The problems with active peaceful resistance, otherwise known as satyagraha and ahimsa, are dependent on the context of the consciousness of the practicioner!.

To a person who is intellectually dedicated to the principle of nonviolence, it makes sense to adopt triage - that is, logical necessary compromises to principle in order to preserve physical survival!.

To the person who has grabbed hold ("graha") of the truth ("satya") they see things rather differently to the merely rational person!. Ahimsa means something different!.

Read Gandhi and look closely at his life to get a feeling of what I mean!.

So the aforementioned is basically a way of saying, It depends!. The Dalai Lama and Gandhi produce fairly good results with their satyagraha, do they not!? Whereas it is questionable whether Martin Luther King and Tolstoy's merely rational versions of nonviolence were as effective!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I certainly think active non-violent resistance is preferrable to armed conflict, and it served well in Gandhi's life in South Africa and India as well as in the civil rights movment in the US!. I am not so sure that Hitler's annexation of most of Europe and his campaign of genocide would have been stopped without armed resistance!. Your question, like most important ones, cannot be answered with a yes or no as there are too many shades of gray!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

What is interesting (and Gandhi noticed this,) is that the internal transformation is more powerful even than the external "effectiveness!." Weapons are the weapons of cowardice and they breed cowardice!.

I am no longer a pacifist (I got stuck the first time a "gang" came after my "date,") but my world view is deffinitely different for having been one!. I believe in changing myself to meet conditions rather than changing conditions to match my whims!.

Thanks for the question!Www@QuestionHome@Com

What would be the resistance!.!.!. it's always against something that want to take, or is it you don't want to give!.
For instance, France didn't resist when Hitler took over, French are by nature pacifist!. Although did they have a debt from other lives way before to pay!.!.!.even in the medieval times!.!.!.All have a reason to be!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If the people you are resisting are civilized or somewhat reasonable, peaceful resistance or protests work best!.
In the case of Dictator Arroyo and others who don't give a flit about what the people want or need, armed resistance seems the only answer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

That would depend on who you are resisting!.
Resisting authorities in an open society would be best as an active peacful manner!.
Try that in a nation like Iran when the fanatics are bearing down on you with weapons of personal destruction!. Even Burma!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes because using vilence anf force just cause more violence and force, and the problem turns into a bigger problem and dangerous for everyone!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i would say in places like the united states, yes

in other places like the middles east, definitely not

it all depends on whether the people you're resisting
can think rationallyWww@QuestionHome@Com

It depends!. Peaceful is great and when it doesn't work, you gotta rough somebody up!.Www@QuestionHome@Com