• one man's meat is another man's poison.not everyone benifit from peace.look at America,without war our economy suffers.
  • MLK was assassinated because of racial hatred & control. Jesus was killed because of political power masquerading as religious conformity. Gandhi was, I think, killed by a radical who didn't want two political or religious sides to work together. I'm not sure about the Kennedys, but I think they were assassinated for political reasons. . In a nutshell, because of the old games of wielding power over "the others", arising from fear, learned hatreds (which you could look at as fear of others), perception that life is a zero-sum contest. People aren't taught love and the unity of all humanity, so they can be prey for hateful political parties or religious sects. . The only way I can think of for humanity to get past this is to have a just, fair world, where people aren't driven by political repression or horrible poverty into lashing back at others.
  • People advocating peace and non-violence pose a great threat to people who think violence is an option for their actions. Thus, they tend to attack them and kill them.
  • Evil exists in the world, and it is embodied in those who would take another life..murder, assassination, whatever...murderers kill for thrills, for revenge, for "passion"..assassination is a political is done to prevent those who would bring us out of the darkness into the light from doing just that..evil thrives in the underbelly of society..where no light shines, where darkness prevails..where cowards reside.
  • We just weren't ready for it....?
  • We didnt assasinate them, other non peaceful people did.
  • Peace is a threat to the powers at be. The human species hasn't evolved to the point where we can achieve absolute peace. This planet's default setting is chaos and mayhem, be rid of the powers at be and this is what we will get. I would say a few more thousand years if mankind survives, then maybe reachable.
  • The devil's work.
  • peace is not in the interest of the brings such terrible bad things with it such as civilisation, dialogue, culture...why should we want all that crap?
  • Because for Peace we need War. Without a common enemy human nature does not want us to unite.
  • Some people fear change. Even when it's for the better.
  • peace if bad for profit
  • You can add Lincoln and an attempt on Reagan to that. I think the particulars of motivation change but the constant is the assassin being misguided and bitter.
  • The Devil doesn't want peace and he influences people to kill others and these folks were just some of them.
  • WE? WE didn't. Except for Jesus, it was some a--hole with a gun!
  • Because War is a Racket:
  • Peace is something that God wants. That is why the powers of evil oppose it. But I would hesitate to put Jesus in your group. His mission was different from the political missions of the humans you mention. Jesus came, not to bring peace necessarily, but as he said "a sword". He came to die for the sins of the world and to call people into relationship with God by His sacrificial death. His life and death set up a situation of polarisation- you were either with Him or against Him. That is the "sword" he brought. Yet, for those who are with Him, who accept His death as sufficient to pay for their rebellion, their shortcomings, He gives a peace that the world cannot give- peace with our God and Father. The end of the war between humans and their Creator. And don't forget....Jesus rose from the dead to prove that what He claimed was true and that even death was subject to Him.
  • Jealousy.
  • Because there are always GROUPS and humans are COMPETITIVE. Every person stereotypes. It is how humans organize information. Stereotyping labels people as being in Group A as opposed to Group B, C, or D. Humans are naturally competitive. So when different groups and competition combine, you get a mess of racism, sexism, agism, and all the other -isms.
  • people cannot stand chance and peace is a massive change
  • Okay... I'm going to be what might sound quite cynical, but I think is ultimately realistic... With the exception of the Kennedy's (which, although nice politicians, maybe, I would NOT place in the same category as the others), the people in that list - MLK, Gandhi, and Jesus - all have one thing in common ASIDE from wanting peace: the most important and powerful thing that each of them did was an act of violence, namely, their martyrdom in the face assassinations or execution. Jesus has been extremely significant, but it is important to keep in mind that he was fairly inconsequential during his lifetime. He did not promote non-violent (or any kind of) resistance, and really was not very concerned with the liberation of his people from Rome - or, at least, there's very little, if any, evidence to suggest that was among his concerns. He was largely concerned with spreading a broader message of peace, and of bringing reforms to a rabbinical Jewish tradition that he viewed as thoroughly corrupt. But, politically, he was fairly insignificant during his time - at least, certainly, less politically significant than MLK or Gandhi. Then again, Jesus may have been massively politically significant had modern worldwide mass media - television, radio, newspapers (and literacy!) - been widespread as they were for MLK and Gandhi. Gandhi, although he is often given credit for India's liberation, owed it all to violence. Britain was devastated by the end of WWII, and absolutely could NOT have held the massive subcontinent of India by military force. It didn't have the military resources, its people were unwilling to be party to MORE casualities, and it couldn't turn to its allies in a world climate of self-determination and anti-imperialism. People forget that there were also many very violent, terrorist factions in India that fought brutally for India's liberation (not affiliated with Gandhi). These were such that they could not easily, by the end of WWII, be suppressed by Britain any longer. What Gandhi did was provide Britain a "noble" way out that avoided what would have been a lot more bloodshed before India's INEVITABLE liberation (given the circumstances). His non-violent resistance was a great PR front - for both India's resistance to British rule, and for Britain's willingness to save face and grant India liberation when it really had no choice in the matter. That might sound cynical, but really, it's hard to argue with the facts. Although my case is somewhat weaker for MLK's true importance to the success of the American Civil Rights movement, I would argue, on similar grounds, that militant black freedom fighting organizations, combined with an already spontaneously growing distaste for segregation and inequality among many of the growing, better educated urban populations, led to the successes of that movement. People like to paint a pretty picture - that "peace" and "non-violence" have really solved things. We like to believe human nature is good enough, at heart, that such things can move us, and really affect change. But in the process, we revise history, cleaning up the "unpleasant" facts - that violence was as crucial to the success of our most noble and moral movements and developments as it was to our least noble and most evil. If humans were moved by peace and non-violence, we would be angels, but if we were angels, there would be no need for non-violence resistance movements at all. One needs to ask if this "non-violence" idea, however pretty it is, would have worked against the likes of the Nazis. I think no one would seriously suggest that non-violent resistance should have been followed by the Jews, or the people that Nazi Germany warred with - it would not have melted their icy hearts, it would only have made it easier for the Nazis to KILL THEM. And as ridiculous as it sounds, Gandhi ACTUALLY was so full of this bizarre, counter-intuitive and counter-factual idea that non-violence is the answer - ALWAYS - that he actually advocated non-violence on the part of the Jews and the British in the face of the Nazis. He offered non-violence as a method of combating the difficulties Jews faced in Germany, stating: "If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy... the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror." I can't think of anything more stupid, ridiculous, ignorant, and frankly, insane, let alone insulting. I'm not Jewish, but it insults me as a human being. I would hope it would insult everyone equally as human beings.
  • "We" don't. But people who don't want peace tend to shoot at thing to solve their problems.
  • People tend to assume the same view as the peaceful protesters. The idea that peace is good and human nature will overcome only works if everyone shares this view absolutely. Unfortunately many believe peace can not exist without violence. The problem is that some people are not willing to ignore the grey areas which exist between the black and white idea that is peace and violence. Peace is good... when it does not interfere with profit. Peace is good when it does not force people to sacrifice their way of life. Peace is good when it does not interfere with a person's thirst for revenge. Peace is good when the person listening has the mental capacity to believe in it. Peace is good... when it is convenient. These great people calling for peace were and will be assassinated because they are huge catalysts for change. They advocate peace where it does not exist. The change itself indicates that something is wrong with a culture. It is criticism to traditions which people take to heart. This is why these speakers are so well known and why they pose such a threat to the 'traditional ways' of so many violent Conservatives. The assassins of these great people are just a few of many people unwilling to break from their traditions because they are unable to believe their way is wrong. Change incites violence. Peace requires change Peace comes from fighting for what is right. Violence comes from defending what is wrong.
  • I have never assassinated anyone, ever.
  • i say it our natural to kill battles,war and murdering will never stop in the face of earth until the last human die

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy