General Discussion

I would suggest that your opinion about non-violent action leading to harm is a matter of perspective. Gandhi chose peace over violent revolt and yes, there was harm done by the British in the short term in his country. But I think you might agree that in the longer perspective he gained a much greater good.

And when I suggested that others (who don't share my perspective on peace) should consider other options, I meant that sincerely. I recognize that others (including you), feel that violence is justified in certain circumstances. I was speaking about those folks, not myself. I'm not pretending, merely suggesting that others consider alternatives.

By even if one takes violence off the table, that doesn't mean there aren't other options to consider. There are many paths to peace. I was also suggesting that there could be many novel ways to end conflict, which don't involve military action.

Yes, you're correct. I, personally, wouldn't need to consider violent options. I believe that there is always a non-violent way to end conflict. But that doesn't mean that I'm so narrow-minded as to think that all other people think the same way... although I do think that if others considered non-violent action first, it would make the world a better place.

Thanks.