NationStates Jolt Archive

or how terrorists are some of the last few people to actually care about the world.

Mao said with "power comes from the barrel of the gun.". Never has this been truely than in the modern world. You have people on the left on the right walking down the middle road, all of them are the same really. They protest about things, they are happy about things, they really dont care about things.

You have people that stand outside US embassy's waving banners and protesting about the war on iraq. Those people really believe nothing and are doing nothing. You don not enact change by debating idealogy with your oponent, but rather you enact that change by knocking him to the ground and constantly stamping on his face over and over.

It's simple really, if you will not kill a person for your belief your belief is really not worth all that much, you are not enacting to make it happen. Throughout all history peaceful protests have never succeeding in any change.

You have examples like Ghandi, but the only reason people paid him attention was due to the extremists blowing shit up.

People all over the world dont care though, they are happy with there lifes, After all who would want to risk there own life by going out and standing up for what they belief in, taking the direct action, the only action that can result in change. There is no backbone in the people of the world anymore just a general lazyness.

People look at terrorists as monsters that commit carnage, but infact they are the last of the people that actually care. Will to stand up for, fight for, kill for what they believe in. Ultimately taking the action that is needed to change humanity onto a better course.

You can't respect average people, you can't really view them as anything pure insignificance scurrying around, happy as long as what is happening does not effect them, occasionally you get the people protesting such and such, or something equally inane, but those people dont matter either, they dont care, as apathetic as the rest of the masses.

Terrorists, freedom fighters the world over you can respect there idealogy though, the will to commit to a belief the will to fight for what they see as being right. The masses of people could learn alot from that.

Dont like who is in power, voting does nothing, nothing at all about that, shooting the bastards however does. It makes a point and a statment more so than a vote ever could. If you dont like how the world is, dont protest about it enact the change. Put the beat down on the corruption in the system, but ultimately do something that you are able to respect yourself for.

Direct action is the only action. There is no other, no grey area. Either stand and fight or stay in the happy apathetic world.

Political change though, it does not come from a cross on a slip of paper, but from the graves of those you disagree with.

Yes, average, peace-loving, law-abiding citizens are the scum of the Earth and terrorists and vigilantes are the true pillars of society. :rolleyes:

Well.

...

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Actually, he said "From the barrel of a gun flows political power." The way you say it implies that the gun is power's sole source, while the way he actually did merely states the obvious; that force is one source of political power, but not necessarily the only one.

or how terrorists are some of the last few people to actually care about the world.

Mao said with "power comes from the barrel of the gun.". Never has this been truely than in the modern world. You have people on the left on the right walking down the middle road, all of them are the same really. They protest about things, they are happy about things, they really dont care about things.

You have people that stand outside US embassy's waving banners and protesting about the war on iraq. Those people really believe nothing and are doing nothing. You don not enact change by debating idealogy with your oponent, but rather you enact that change by knocking him to the ground and constantly stamping on his face over and over.

It's simple really, if you will not kill a person for your belief your belief is really not worth all that much, you are not enacting to make it happen. Throughout all history peaceful protests have never succeeding in any change.

You have examples like Ghandi, but the only reason people paid him attention was due to the extremists blowing shit up.

People all over the world dont care though, they are happy with there lifes, After all who would want to risk there own life by going out and standing up for what they belief in, taking the direct action, the only action that can result in change. There is no backbone in the people of the world anymore just a general lazyness.

People look at terrorists as monsters that commit carnage, but infact they are the last of the people that actually care. Will to stand up for, fight for, kill for what they believe in. Ultimately taking the action that is needed to change humanity onto a better course.

You can't respect average people, you can't really view them as anything pure insignificance scurrying around, happy as long as what is happening does not effect them, occasionally you get the people protesting such and such, or something equally inane, but those people dont matter either, they dont care, as apathetic as the rest of the masses.

Terrorists, freedom fighters the world over you can respect there idealogy though, the will to commit to a belief the will to fight for what they see as being right. The masses of people could learn alot from that.

Dont like who is in power, voting does nothing, nothing at all about that, shooting the bastards however does. It makes a point and a statment more so than a vote ever could. If you dont like how the world is, dont protest about it enact the change. Put the beat down on the corruption in the system, but ultimately do something that you are able to respect yourself for.

Direct action is the only action. There is no other, no grey area. Either stand and fight or stay in the happy apathetic world.

Political change though, it does not come from a cross on a slip of paper, but from the graves of those you disagree with.

And modern terrorists have changed what?
O yeah now we are more into their country then we were before, and killing them.
I guess power comes from the barrel of the gun.
Weve got new shiny automatic weapons and stryker vehicles, they got old kalishnokovs and roadside bombs.

Dont get me wrong i understand what your saing, but is anything worth believing enough to die for remains the question.
Some things yes, like standing out in front of a car to save your child. And people do things like that. but that is more about being selfless then dying for something you believe in ( like religion )

Dying for democracy though. Hmm i dont know if id do that unless death was liberation, in which case fuck yeah id die for something like that. Because ultimately death would be freedom of whatever horrible situation id be in, so might as well die to try and make the future better so others dont have to go thru such things.

Without the actions of Zionist terrorists against the British Empire in the 1920s the state of Israel might not today exist.

* The Rep of Komokom wonders about the validity of a thread advocating terrorist action, etc, etc, etc ...

Without the actions of Zionist terrorists against the British Empire in the 1920s the state of Israel might not today exist.

I dont kno that israel should exist......

i understand the muslim extremists.
They trully believe in what they believe.
They are in extreme poverty and they need help.
Im sure that if they were in a much better environment they wouldnt have to resort to such tactics to gain attention.

But what their accomplishing at this point is slowly to turn everyone against their cause. Religious leaders are pissed at sadr, the entire iraqi council is pissed at him. Thats just one man i understand its not the movement.... But the better off they get the more the movement will slowly dissipate..imo

If it werent for rebels, the united states never would have formed either.....

*snip*


Nice try, Bin Laden. Aren't you afraid they'll trace your IP?

Yes, average, peace-loving, law-abiding citizens are the scum of the Earth and terrorists and vigilantes are the true pillars of society. :rolleyes:To be fair "average peace-loving law-abiding citizens" are the ones who turned Jews over to the SS. In accordance with the laws of Germany at the time of course. All completly legal.

One word.
Gandhi.

* The Rep of Komokom wonders about the validity of a thread advocating terrorist action, etc, etc, etc ...
* The Dictatorship of Doasiwish joins the Rep of Komokom in wondering, and proposes a peaceful protest against this thread.

It's simple really, if you will not kill a person for your belief your belief is really not worth all that much, you are not enacting to make it happen. Throughout all history peaceful protests have never succeeding in any change.


And if your belief is "thou shalt not kill"? It's not worth much unless you are willing to kill to make the point?

Interesting.

And to think that I thought that the women's movement, civil rights movements, etc. had all managed to make great strides through peaceful means.

Aparently I was wrong.

I guess those things never happened.....

Seems to me that it's far more important to be willing to die for one's belief than it is to kill for it.

So what you'r saying, is that if you aren't ready to kill a person over what you think is right, then you don't really care. So just because I've evolved beonde the age of four, when it's still ok to handle diffrenses in that manner, I don't truly belive.

Well if that is the case, then thank god for that! Cause there is nothing that irritates me more than those yellow-bellied terrorists, that don't even have the currage to answer for what they have done. I meen... In the U.S. they've got schoolkids running arround doing the same thing. How hard is it to kill a bunch of civilian people if all you have to do is kill you'r self afterwards.

Tsk. Tsk. Terrorists aught to grow up, and handle there problems as such.

And if your belief is "thou shalt not kill"? It's not worth much unless you are willing to kill to make the point?

Interesting.

And to think that I thought that the women's movement, civil rights movements, etc. had all managed to make great strides through peaceful means.

Aparently I was wrong.

I guess those things never happened.....While I think the idea that you should always be ready to kill to support your beliefs is silly. I think the idea that the women's movement (Suffragettes, direct action against rapists) and the Civil Rights Movement (Watts riots) were entirely peaceful is untrue. Do you not count the struggle against apartheid as a civil rights struggle?

While I think the idea that you should always be ready to kill to support your beliefs is silly. I think the idea that the women's movement (Suffragettes, direct action against rapists) and the Civil Rights Movement (Watts riots) were entirely peaceful is untrue. Do you not count the struggle against apartheid as a civil rights struggle?

I wasn't trying to argue that these movements in all of their incarnations were completely non-violent. However I would argue that most of the advances came through non-violent means. In the case of Apartheid it was largely external pressures that caused the change. And I might even argue that in the US it was often the violent response to peaceful protests that caused the biggest shifts in public perception leading to changes.

The televised assaults on marches. The murder of MLK. The police response at the Chicago Convention. The shootings at Ohio State. Even in India, the military reponses such as the Amristar Massacre were huge turning points. All of these things did more to further causes than the peaceful protests themselves.

So I might go so far as to argue that the initial premise of peaceful process being largely useless may be true, however if you can goad your opponent into violence by such means then you probably will find success.

And this would contradict the premise that it is those willing to kill for their point of view who will always succeed. In many cases, the propensity for violence is a movement's undoing. Of course, if you can convince the majority through peaceful means then you will also effect changes. This, however, usually takes a hell of a lot longer.

Violence is ugly and I think it ought to be avoided if at all possible. That said, I think the author has hit on an uncomfortable truth. Was it possible to 'win' WWII without violence? Would the suffragettes have achieved their goals and within a reasonable timeframe without violence? Likewise the civil rights movement?

It ain't nice to contemplate, but we're not perfectly rational beings yet. All of us have the potential for violence and terror.

The thing is that without violence, we would'nt need violence. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Some problems can not be fixed with violence. Some beliefs are hypocrisy if you react with violence. It is that way for christianity, it is that way for most religions. If people only protest with violence then there will always be chaos, and that chaos won't end unless some one decides to be peaceful about problems. Wars can't be won with peace, but many other things can, Ghandi recieved the attention because of the sheer number and that they did nothing to engage any violence. Peace and violence each have their own uses in protest, but ultimatly violence won't solve any problems, only create more.

Peace and violence each have their own uses in protest, but ultimatly violence won't solve any problems, only create more.
I guess it depends on how long you're willing to wait to achieve your goals. I understand that this is dangerous territory - are your goals valid? How do you measure if a price is worth paying?

One thing that Peasant Peons brings to the table is an uncomfortable truth: this is in fact the mindset of some of the terrorists. Rather than dismiss it as idiocy, we should attempt to understand how it is that someone can hold this as a valid viewpoint.

As long as you don't make the effort to know and understand your enemy, you will conotinue to be surprised by his actions. Too many people have said that terrorists 'hate freedom and democracy', and patted themselves on the back for being free and democratic. This does not begin to describe the terrorist mindset and serves only to encourage future mistakes of enemy intent. One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle - Sun Tzu

The thing is that without violence, we would'nt need violence. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

The point is that it's all a question of degree - how different is what you're fighting for from what exists, how much do you want the change and is it something that can be achieved through violence. The example of the anti-war protests is a bad one:
1. They were fights against, rather than for, something.
2. They were anti-war protests, by definition likely to attract mostly peaceniks.
3. The main aim, of stopping the Iraq war, was always unachievable, however, the protests have been successful in a number of ways: the UK, in particular, will think (and is thinking) twice about joining the US on another adventure and the entire nature of warfare has been changed. A massive amount of any war effort now is to minimise civilian casualties. It's not perfect, but it's far better than carpet bombing and napalm. This change is not because of the innate goodness of the warmakers, it's due to the anti-war movement since the 60s.

As a result, violence was never really going to be a part of it (even the veteran "anti-globalisers" who previously loved a good scrap with the cops decided that would be a bad idea). However, for someone in Iraq, who was directly affected by the war and its results, violence was more likely. Between the insurrectionists on one side, and the volunteer cops and Kurdish troops on the other, many did so.

For most people on the left, what we have in the West today is close enough to what we want to have consigned violent activity to the wastebin of history. The afore-mentioned example of protestors vs. cops isn't violence in any real sense, in the past, bombs and guns would have replaced batons and padding. The violence of the reaction in the past usually provoked violence - the oppression of radicals and revolutionaries was an example of how far from what they wanted the state was. In this case, violence would be likely to change society for the worse, which is rarely used as a tactic these days outside of the odd nutjob like Tim McVeigh. The example of the Baader Meinhof in Germany - they said the police were oppressive and engaged in terrorist actions, the police became far more oppressive because of that. They were hoping to inspire popular revolt against the oppressive cops, they didn't. Bad tactics, resulting in a worse situation than there was before they started.

Vas.

For most people on the left, what we have in the West today is close enough to what we want to have consigned violent activity to the wastebin of history. Not in all cases. The Poll Tax riots being a good example. And the fact that the BNP are on the record as saying that Anti Fascist Action were the reason they gave up street tactics.

Terrorism is different though. I don't think it's a particuarly effective tool. It's elitist and not particuarly discriminating about who it targets.

Yes, average, peace-loving, law-abiding citizens are the scum of the Earth and terrorists and vigilantes are the true pillars of society. :rolleyes:


I dont believe I ever said such people were scum, It is more along the lines that they no inherant worth deadweight and flotsam. They are the people that dont care about the society they live in, they dont act to change it to improve on it. They are content with the inate selfishness of the self just to be happy with what is, rather than what could be.


Actually, he said "From the barrel of a gun flows political power." The way you say it implies that the gun is power's sole source, while the way he actually did merely states the obvious; that force is one source of political power, but not necessarily the only one.

I could not find a definate version of the quote, google came up with what I used first, The message is the same though, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. It comes from direct action not from handing out leaflets and waving placards. Dont like the political system you are in, sorry your vote is worthless is what it means. Change only comes from a movement and uprising of force, not from the pen but from the sword. Action is the only force the rest goes into irrelevance, if you have one group waving banners and the other group cracking skulls. It is not hard to see which ideology is going to win through. Which is the more caring one, the one willing to enact and fight for change, rather than the for show fashion statement of how cool do I look protesting some shit I know nothing about.



@trpnout.- Its not about dying for your beliefs, really that is the last thing you want to do if you possibly can. It about making the people who stand in the way of your beliefs no longer stand in the way. Take the action to remove them from being the problem they are. If you have to die for what you belief its a harsh choice. You can have a victory in your death but ultimately it is a failure since you can not see what good you have achieved. For a full on change of society in the modern world, the only way it would really happen would be by a vanguard enacting a gorilla war, but from the 20th century the chances of it working is not high, there was a few sucesses, But many failures like the, RAF, red brigage, action directe. The point is though, those people were willing to try, They cared about society enough not just to sit back but instead go out and fight for what they believed in, a conviction most people do not have.


@ Brutanion. maybe read the first post, I mentioned ghandi.


And if your belief is "thou shalt not kill"? It's not worth much unless you are willing to kill to make the point?

Interesting.

And to think that I thought that the women's movement, civil rights movements, etc. had all managed to make great strides through peaceful means.

Aparently I was wrong.

I guess those things never happened.....


A pacafist in a war, is merely another corpse inline to be buried, thats what current society is, a war everyday. People being oppressed and not caring about it as long as they have there shiny items to keep them satisfied.

The womens movement, civil rights movement, All came from acts of violence, not peaceful protests. You had people fighting for what they believed in. In all cases it was the direct action that brought about the long term change. People realizing stuff was not right and instead of sitting back and accepting it like the modern world, rising up and fighting against the injustice.



For most people on the left, what we have in the West today is close enough to what we want

And there in lies the problem on not caring anymore, The modern left is an empty hull and husk of what it used to be. Seeing the so called left protesting agains the war was sickening. So quickly too forget about the roots, fighting in the spanish civil war and such. Fighting agains the injustice, rather than complaining about it when someone else chooses to fight against because the left no longer cares about people, about equaility. Anti globalisation nothing more than a fashion statment. The left really did die out in the western world around the 70s and 80s what is left today is just a mockery. Its people without beleifs. People who dont care enough to enact there beliefs. Apathy.

And there in lies the problem on not caring anymore, The modern left is an empty hull and husk of what it used to be. Seeing the so called left protesting agains the war was sickening. So quickly too forget about the roots, fighting in the spanish civil war and such. Fighting agains the injustice, rather than complaining about it when someone else chooses to fight against because the left no longer cares about people, about equaility. Anti globalisation nothing more than a fashion statment. The left really did die out in the western world around the 70s and 80s what is left today is just a mockery. Its people without beleifs. People who dont care enough to enact there beliefs. Apathy.Middle class nihilist bollocks. Get back to your community and prepare for activism.

Middle class nihilist bollocks. Get back to your community and prepare for activism.


I am neither middle class, nor do I put much faith into nihilism, so more or less a worthless, assine, bollocks post on the part of yourself no?. Construction is a much better solution that destruction for no reason. But if you wish to build a better world a better society, you cannot do so on corrupt foundations. You have to tear down the rotton core of what allready is there.

Its the conviction your beleifs are right, protesting against a corrupt injust government does nothing, never has never will. Blowing it up like tim has a chance for something better, a chance for change. At least it shows effort. The OKC if viewed anyway, should be viewed as an act of love towards society. A person cared enough to try and do something about. That is more than most people ever will do, an act of extreme compassion.

I am neither middle class, nor do I put much faith into nihilism, so more or less a worthless, assine, bollocks post on the part of yourself no?. Construction is a much better solution that destruction for no reason. But if you wish to build a better world a better society, you cannot do so on corrupt foundations. You have to tear down the rotton core of what allready is there.

Its the conviction your beleifs are right, protesting against a corrupt injust government does nothing, never has never will. Blowing it up like tim has a chance for something better, a chance for change. At least it shows effort. The OKC if viewed anyway, should be viewed as an act of love towards society. A person cared enough to try and do something about. That is more than most people ever will do, an act of extreme compassion.Bobbins. Your fetishisation of terrorism is the same as those 70's middle class wadicals, who sat round at dinner parties saying that "Cuba is like, rilly cool because they're like all peasants and stuff. It's so ethnic". What precisely do you think your supposed ultra-radical stance does to improve the lot of working class people in the here and now?

----"or how terrorists are some of the last few people to actually care about the world.Mao said with "power comes from the barrel of the gun.". Never has this been truely than in the modern world. You have people on the left on the right walking down the middle road, all of them are the same really. They protest about things, they are happy about things, they really dont care about things.You have people that stand outside US embassy's waving banners and protesting about the war on iraq. Those people really believe nothing and are doing nothing. You don not enact change by debating idealogy with your oponent, but rather you enact that change by knocking him to the ground and constantly stamping on his face over and over.
It's simple really, if you will not kill a person for your belief your belief is really not worth all that much, you are not enacting to make it happen. Throughout all history peaceful protests have never succeeding in any change.
You have examples like Ghandi, but the only reason people paid him attention was due to the extremists blowing shit up.People all over the world dont care though, they are happy with there lifes, After all who would want to risk there own life by going out and standing up for what they belief in, taking the direct action, the only action that can result in change. There is no backbone in the people of the world anymore just a general lazyness.
People look at terrorists as monsters that commit carnage, but infact they are the last of the people that actually care. Will to stand up for, fight for, kill for what they believe in. Ultimately taking the action that is needed to change humanity onto a better course.You can't respect average people, you can't really view them as anything pure insignificance scurrying around, happy as long as what is happening does not effect them, occasionally you get the people protesting such and such, or something equally inane, but those people dont matter either, they dont care, as apathetic as the rest of the masses.Terrorists, freedom fighters the world over you can respect there idealogy though, the will to commit to a belief the will to fight for what they see as being right. The masses of people could learn alot from that.Dont like who is in power, voting does nothing, nothing at all about that, shooting the bastards however does. It makes a point and a statment more so than a vote ever could. If you dont like how the world is, dont protest about it enact the change. Put the beat down on the corruption in the system, but ultimately do something that you are able to respect yourself for.Direct action is the only action. There is no other, no grey area. Either stand and fight or stay in the happy apathetic world.Political change though, it does not come from a cross on a slip of paper, but from the graves of those you disagree with. "

Yes in a third world uncivilized country you are probably right, that is the only way to have your voice heard. But over in Europe and north america , australia ect..... you will only get your ass kicked for thinkinng you can pursaude someone through force, so good luck to you, jack ass.

Bobbins. Your fetishisation of terrorism is the same as those 70's middle class wadicals, who sat round at dinner parties saying that "Cuba is like, rilly cool because they're like all peasants and stuff. It's so ethnic". What precisely do you think your supposed ultra-radical stance does to improve the lot of working class people in the here and now?


The stance is simple, you forget that a large part of the problem is infact the working classes and kept content and happy. Modern day sporting events, ancient roman gladitorial events its all the same thing.

If you dont try to change anything, then nothing will improve in the here and now, nothing will improve in the long run, there will be no change, merely continued increased opression and exploitation.

For there to be a change, people have to care. That is the idea of the revolutionary vangaurd. For something to happen someone has to try and go for it. Those 'wadicals' depending on which groups of people you speak of at least tried to enact change. They fought against the odds for what they believed in, I doubt they hardly admired people for being peasants. The only thing it has for it is the equality of the people, it still a suffering over all. You can have the equaility without that. But it involves the struggle and the fight to take back from the enemy. Waving a sign denoucing the evils of a mega corporation, does nothing not a thing, shooting the bastards that work for it and taking there wallets however does. Thats the difference and the commitment. That is what seperates the people who care and love humanity from those that just dont really give a damn as long as they can say, I am ok jack.

The stance is simple, you forget that a large part of the problem is infact the working classes and kept content and happy. Modern day sporting events, ancient roman gladitorial events its all the same thing. You think people who live in poverty are happy? How can you claim not to be middle class when you look down on those ignorant working class thickos who like football.

If you dont try to change anything, then nothing will improve in the here and now, nothing will improve in the long run, there will be no change, merely continued increased opression and exploitation.I'm not saying don't try and change things. I'm saying don't try to hold up people like Bin Laden as some kind of revolutionary heroes.

For there to be a change, people have to care. That is the idea of the revolutionary vangaurd. For something to happen someone has to try and go for it. Those 'wadicals' depending on which groups of people you speak of at least tried to enact change. They fought against the odds for what they believed in, I doubt they hardly admired people for being peasants. The only thing it has for it is the equality of the people, it still a suffering over all. You can have the equaility without that. But it involves the struggle and the fight to take back from the enemy. Waving a sign denoucing the evils of a mega corporation, does nothing not a thing, shooting the bastards that work for it and taking there wallets however does. Thats the difference and the commitment. That is what seperates the people who care and love humanity from those that just dont really give a damn as long as they can say, I am ok jack.Ah, you're a vanguardist. That explains a lot. These poor working class plebs. They're just not capable of leading themselves without some nice middle class students to tell them what's what.

The emancipation of the working classes is the job of the working classes alone

You think people who live in poverty are happy? How can you claim not to be middle class when you look down on those ignorant working class thickos who like football.
I'm not saying don't try and change things. I'm saying don't try to hold up people like Bin Laden as some kind of revolutionary heroes.
Ah, you're a vanguardist. That explains a lot. These poor working class plebs. They're just not capable of leading themselves without some nice middle class students to tell them what's what.

The emancipation of the working classes is the job of the working classes alone


I dont believe I once mentioned Bin Ladin, the guy has a bad reputation but he is at least trying. Fighting to free his country from the elite corrupt moral lacking royal family. He cares enough to try, more than most people do, yet he is hated for that, quite easy when those in power control the media though, can quite really demonize anyone. I would not hold him up as a revolutionary hero, but he is doing something, that is more than most, the chance for change would could go either way is an improvement over the continually stagnation.

Please, I never once insulted the intelligence of the working class that is something you did. Look at history what was the point of the roman games? Modern sporting events exist for the exact same reason, when a person throws there passion, anger, hate into a game, they have nothing lefted for anything else, hate the opposing team, dont even care who the real enemy is. Oh, I am niether a student or middle class ( deva vu?), so perhaps something else rather than those ad hominen. The point of the vanguard is never to tell people what to do, niether is the point of it too lead them. Its exists merely to shatter the coma of everyday life, break people free from the banial mindless brainwashing. Give them something to fight for, show who the enemy is. People forget the main point of class war, at the end its no longer about working, middle, elite class. Its about equailty. No matter where a person comes from, if he cares enough to act, more the better, more than most people ever will.

Equailty for all, is something all have the right to fight for. To limit it too something like your class is allready a defeat, no scope.

Not in all cases. The Poll Tax riots being a good example. And the fact that the BNP are on the record as saying that Anti Fascist Action were the reason they gave up street tactics.

I wouldn't really classify those as "violent" in the same context of the Baader Meinhof or N17 (in Greece), though. A riot is usually not a tactic, per se, it's more reactive than that. In most cases, despite the media distortion, the Poll Tax riots were deliberately provoked by the cops. A riot is only "violent" in any real sense if it goes beyond smashing windows and throwing things at a cop who'd quite happy club you half to death.

As for AFA vs. the BNP, AFA were most effective when they didn't need to be violent. Alice Nutter, from the Chumbas, told me about how they used to form a human chain across the street and face down the fascists. That said, again, I don't regard giving a few swift kicks to a skinhead who'd happily kill you in your sleep as being "violent" in the same context as above. For me, it falls under the same category as smashing someone's window because their house is on fire - committing a "crime" to prevent a worse crime.

Terrorism is different though. I don't think it's a particuarly effective tool. It's elitist and not particuarly discriminating about who it targets.

And this was a lesson well learnt by most aspects of the left. There was a long time when "propaganda by deed" was far too popular. History has proved this to be largely counter-productive.

Vas.

I wouldn't really classify those as "violent" in the same context of the Baader Meinhof or N17 (in Greece), though. A riot is usually not a tactic, per se, it's more reactive than that. In most cases, despite the media distortion, the Poll Tax riots were deliberately provoked by the cops. A riot is only "violent" in any real sense if it goes beyond smashing windows and throwing things at a cop who'd quite happy club you half to death. I don't think you can solely base the class analysis of the value of a riot on who started it.

As for AFA vs. the BNP, AFA were most effective when they didn't need to be violent. Alice Nutter, from the Chumbas, told me about how they used to form a human chain across the street and face down the fascists. That said, again, I don't regard giving a few swift kicks to a skinhead who'd happily kill you in your sleep as being "violent" in the same context as above. For me, it falls under the same category as smashing someone's window because their house is on fire - committing a "crime" to prevent a worse crime. Hmm, Alice was in the notorious "Leeds AFA" group who later turned out to be controlled by Searchlight (Paul Bowman, also ex of Class War though they will no longer have anything to do with him, was one of the main Searchlight assets behind this). Leeds were kicked out of the national organisation so I wouldn't take their members views as representive.



And this was a lesson well learnt by most aspects of the left. There was a long time when "propaganda by deed" was far too popular. History has proved this to be largely counter-productive. Agreed.

The Unabomber used violence and look how popular he is now. Nuff said.

As for AFA vs. the BNP, AFA were most effective when they didn't need to be violent. Alice Nutter, from the Chumbas, told me about how they used to form a human chain across the street and face down the fascists. That said, again, I don't regard giving a few swift kicks to a skinhead who'd happily kill you in your sleep as being "violent" in the same context as above. For me, it falls under the same category as smashing someone's window because their house is on fire - committing a "crime" to prevent a worse crime.

So, by changing the definition of "violent" you can justify just about any violence. "Swift kicks" are justified because of who the target of said kicks are.

In those skinhead's view then... their violence is justified because they feel their targets only "get what's coming to them".

Ends justify the means. I believe that is what peons is arguing.

I dont believe that it's ever really worked out like that. Improper "means" more often than not cause public backlash and invalidates any "ends" achieved.

To be fair "average peace-loving law-abiding citizens" are the ones who turned Jews over to the SS. In accordance with the laws of Germany at the time of course. All completly legal.

And? Are you saying that law-abiding citizens in general are no better than terrorists and vigilantes? Or are you actually posting without actually saying anything at all?

Peaceful protesting does nothing...

It gives the snipers practice.

So, by changing the definition of "violent" you can justify just about any violence. "Swift kicks" are justified because of who the target of said kicks are.

In those skinhead's view then... their violence is justified because they feel their targets only "get what's coming to them".

Ends justify the means. I believe that is what peons is arguing.

I dont believe that it's ever really worked out like that. Improper "means" more often than not cause public backlash and invalidates any "ends" achieved.

Exactly. Thats why anti-fascists are just another hate group sitting at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
They justify their violence by saying "its only skinheads" and "they deserve it" while decrying the fascists for saying "they are only [insert racial/religious group]" and "they deserve it".

And? Are you saying that law-abiding citizens in general are no better than terrorists and vigilantes? Or are you actually posting without actually saying anything at all?I'm saying that kneejerk legalism (of the law is always to be obeyed type) is as wrong as Peasant Peons fetishisation of terrorism without any analysis of what lies behind it.

Exactly. Thats why anti-fascists are just another hate group sitting at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
They justify their violence by saying "its only skinheads" and "they deserve it" while decrying the fascists for saying "they are only [insert racial/religious group]" and "they deserve it".And supporters of the Iraq war say "it's only Saddam and he deserves it." (The obvious difference being that antifascists put their own necks on the line and most supporters of the Iraq War on here are armchair soldiers who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of other people).

I'm saying that kneejerk legalism (of the law is always to be obeyed type) is as wrong as Peasant Peons fetishisation of terrorism without any analysis of what lies behind it.

Yes, preferring a world full of law-abiding citizens as opposed to a world full of people killing for their causes is such a kneejerk legalistic approach to the world.

And supporters of the Iraq war say "it's only Saddam and he deserves it." (The obvious difference being that antifascists put their own necks on the line and most supporters of the Iraq War on here are armchair soldiers who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of other people).

The difference being Saddam has killed tens of thousands of people and oppressed millions more. But then again, such slight differences are hard to pick up I suppose.

Yes, preferring a world full of law-abiding citizens as opposed to a world full of people killing for their causes is such a kneejerk legalistic approach to the world.I would say that on balance the amount of people killed by lawabiding citizens (Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, the Inquisition) are a higher number then those killed by the activities of terrorists worldwide.


The difference being Saddam has killed tens of thousands of people and oppressed millions more. But then again, such slight differences are hard to pick up I suppose.And it that case you feel the end justified the means, no? (And fascism has killed a fair few people over the years, in case you'd forgotten).

I would say that on balance the amount of people killed by lawabiding citizens (Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, the Inquisition) are a higher number then those killed by the activities of terrorists worldwide.

Yes, you are right. What was I thinking? We should all start killing anyone we disagree with for a better and safer world. Thanks for opening my eyes.

And it that case you feel the end justified the means, no? (And fascism has killed a fair few people over the years, in case you'd forgotten).

I have no idea what you are talking about here. And people of every race and religion have killed a few people over history too so we should just exterminate everyone and be done with it. Is that your solution?

Yes, you are right. What was I thinking? We should all start killing anyone we disagree with for a better and safer world. Thanks for opening my eyes.Where did I say that?


I have no idea what you are talking about here. And people of every race and religion have killed a few people over history too so we should just exterminate everyone and be done with it. Is that your solution?No, my solution is that we actually start looking at practices and what lies behind violence rather then seeing legal violence as good and illegal violence as bad.

To be fair "average peace-loving law-abiding citizens" are the ones who turned Jews over to the SS. In accordance with the laws of Germany at the time of course. All completly legal.

Yes, but to be fair, "Law Abiding Citizens" who DIDN'T turn Jews over to the SS were liable to be shot as traitors, deported to the Camps, or forcibly sent to the Russian Front (after 1942).

It was a different time then- although, I imagine if the Government of any Western Country today suddenly decided that all Arabs or Asians were "Security Risks" there'd be no shortage of people willing to hand them over to the Authorities for "Re-Education" or "Deportation".

Don't laugh, it could happen...

Give it up Holy Word--Tygaland seems to be the kind of person who can only consider yes/no extremes. If it's not this way, then it must be definition by that way--no room for shades of gray or nuance. If there's no room for that in his/her (sorry, don't know) world of conception, then any discussion of this type is fruitless.

----"No, my solution is that we actually start looking at practices and what lies behind violence rather then seeing legal violence as good and illegal violence as bad. "

Get over it, legal violence is here to stay under the guise of 'good violence' along with illegal violence remaining as well 'illegal violence'. If you don't like following the laws of your land then notify your local constable or police and tell them about it. I hear they have great sympathy for people like you (ask for powdered soap).

This is the same argument that has been spewed for years for understanding the violent tendecies of others. If you truly need to understand why Mcveigh did his thing or why my friend shot and killed her ex husband then you must first understand that one was insane and the other utilized a justifiable defensive act under a justifiable law against any person that wants to do you harm. I know, I know you dont think any violence is justified anymore than another right? Well apparently civilized society's around the world will disagree wtih you, therefore you are wrong in the eyes of the law.

You have to laugh your ass off when you hear someone whining about how illegal violence is looked down upon while legal violence is endorsed. Usualy the only people that complain about such are the ones on the recieving end of legal violence, therefore don't bring the pain down upon yourself through your improper actions. Respect (for human life, and the law) not only from one side but from every side solves this problem. See my friend respects her ex much more now that he has worms flowing through his decaying corpse, than when he had blood flowing through it. See it works.

So by your defination the violence of the SS was good violencee.
[quote]
This is the same argument that has been spewed for years for understanding the violent tendecies of others. If you truly need to understand why Mcveigh did his thing or why my friend shot and killed her ex husband then you must first understand that one was insane and the other utilized a justifiable defensive act under a justifiable law against any person that wants to do you harm. I know, I know you dont think any violence is justified anymore than another right? Well apparently civilized society's around the world will disagree wtih you, therefore you are wrong in the eyes of the law. Prove McVeigh was insane. And by your argument anyone who would be a target of a fascist goverment is utilising a justifiable defense- after all they are people who want to do them harm. How does it feel to have directly contractdicted your own logic?

You have to laugh your ass off when you hear someone whining about how illegal violence is looked down upon while legal violence is endorsed. Usualy the only people that complain about such are the ones on the recieving end of legal violence, therefore don't bring the pain down upon yourself through your improper actions. Respect (for human life, and the law) not only from one side but from every side solves this problem. See my friend respects her ex much more now that he has worms flowing through his decaying corpse, than when he had blood flowing through it. See it works.Or follow rule one- try not to get caught. And yes I've done a lot of things you'd definately call a crime, and I don't feel guilty for any of them.

My list of people who've used illegal violence for you (Tygaland considers all of them thugs, let's see if you do):

The Suffragettes

Nelson Mandela

The Italian resistance to Mussolini

The American side in the War of Independence.

I have read and I have not seen a single reference to the idea of dying for a cause, but not necessarily with gun in hand or bombs strapped to ones body.

People have always been frightened and unnerved when normal people like themselves will accept obscene amounts of brutality, and continue to remain peaceful. Gandhi is indeed an example of this. I'm very sorry Peasant peons, but you are completely incorrect about his mass tactics. People were blown away that India would rise up against authority, that 250 million people in any way could be organized to do anything ever, and that it was peaceful. The Brits had been dealing with extremists for years. They just shot them. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." You kill others, others kill you. But when the British troops would kill young Indian men moving to cross through checkpoints that they weren't allowed in...and they just kept ambling closer, no fear, no anger, just walking, it unnerves people.

The Buddhist monks in Vietnam would walk into public squares and light themselves on fire in protest. The Vietnamese were blown away by it. Americans nearly wet themselves when they heard it happened.

The civil rights movement in America was mostly made up of thousands of blacks and black civil rights sympathizers watching as their friends were spat on, burned, beaten and insulted for hours as they tried to sit in the white section of a restaurant.

Yeah, on this one people are going to get touchy, but I will show you the ultimate example of how one person's sacrifice has touched the entire world forever. Jesus of Nazareth died on a crucifix in about 30 AD. And that was just a single man. Since then, through peaceful acts, 2 billion now worship that example and millions have died for His cause. Has all of it been peaceful, no. But wouldn't you still be unnerved to watch powerful men in their prime accept beatings, whippings, scorch marks and continue to sit peacefully.

Guns just have more guns rained down on them. We don't care who in the heck the terrorists are, just kill them. They aren't martyrs to us. But remember the ones who have died without struggle. There are missionaries in Arab countries that are picked up every year, taken by the government and killed for spreading the Word of God. They know they have a very good chance of dying. They also don't care.

What does that say to you? Violence makes more violence until someone stops the chain. They die and do not fight back. They allow themselves to suffer and die at the hands of others, still quietly saying their message to their followers.

We pay attention to the bodies of protesters at Kent State. We pay really good attention to Tiananmen Square. We paid good attention to the monks that ran into the Coliseum and begged that the slaughter stop, only to be killed themselves.

Maybe I'll follow these people. It would be an honor. There is no honor in being a murderer. There is honor in saving the innocents while at war. There is no honor in being a terrorist. There is honor at fighting against all odds for a cause, even if the entire world tells you it's hopeless. There is no honor in wading in blood to "glory". There is honor in recognizing that true glory has nothing to do with fighting, but with doing good and right.

Nietzsche didn't have it right friends. There are no supermen of the human race above morality. It is the moral that receive respect. A dictator only receives fear. And fear, though powerful, has no power like respect has.

May the Lord our Father bless all the families of those who have died in this way.

May God bless each of you as well,

-R. S. of UC

So, by changing the definition of "violent" you can justify just about any violence. "Swift kicks" are justified because of who the target of said kicks are.

In those skinhead's view then... their violence is justified because they feel their targets only "get what's coming to them".

Do you agree that sometimes it's necessary to use violence to prevent worse violence? The heyday of AFA was the heyday of brutal racist violence. AFA were a reaction, a largely successful attempt to end the activities of the skinheads.

Do you think a policeman has the right to use violence to prevent a crime or to apprehend a criminal? Do you think an individual has the right to use violence in self-defence? If you believe violence is justified in certain specific cirumstances, then you're really arguing about where you draw the line, not about violence in principle.

Vas.

Peaceful movements have changed history. In the last two centuries western European society has abolished slavery, extended equal rights to religious minorities, created welfare systems that radically improved ordinary peoples lives, and emancipated women, all peacefully. The emancipation of women is probably one of the biggest revolutions in world history and it was achieved almost exclusively through non-violence. All these changes came about because reformers spent decades peacefully working to educate and inform public opinion so that it realised the necessity for redressing injustice and inequality. Resorting to violence requires alot less work and discipline and intelligence, but ultimately it only breeds more violence.

Hmm, Alice was in the notorious "Leeds AFA" group who later turned out to be controlled by Searchlight (Paul Bowman, also ex of Class War though they will no longer have anything to do with him, was one of the main Searchlight assets behind this). Leeds were kicked out of the national organisation so I wouldn't take their members views as representive.

Not too big a fan of this kinda stuff. Do you disagree that AFA were most successful when they didn't need to be violent, that through force of numbers alone they made the BNP back down? Do you not agree that, if an organisation no longer needs to fight its opponent, it's won? If so, then the history of this stuff makes no difference.

VAs.

Peaceful movements have changed history. In the last two centuries western European society has abolished slavery, extended equal rights to religious minorities, created welfare systems that radically improved ordinary peoples lives, and emancipated women, all peacefully. The emancipation of women is probably one of the biggest revolutions in world history and it was achieved almost exclusively through non-violence. All these changes came about because reformers spent decades peacefully working to educate and inform public opinion so that it realised the necessity for redressing injustice and inequality. Resorting to violence requires alot less work and discipline and intelligence, but ultimately it only breeds more violence.

Rubbish. There's no way you can disconnect social developments in Western Europe from its history of wars. Who was the first woman elected to the British Parliament?

Vas.

----"Prove McVeigh was insane. And by your argument anyone who would be a target of a fascist goverment is utilising a justifiable defense- after all they are people who want to do them harm. How does it feel to have directly contractdicted your own logic?"

Wrong , I obviously am talking about laws inside of one country not in your little world of globalism, I give 2 shits about what another country does, as long as they do not force anything upon another free country.

----"Or follow rule one- try not to get caught. And yes I've done a lot of things you'd definately call a crime, and I don't feel guilty for any of them.
My list of people who've used illegal violence for you (Tygaland considers all of them thugs, let's see if you do):The SuffragettesNelson MandelaThe Italian resistance to MussoliniThe American side in the War of Independence."

How do you know what I would call a crime? I only consider crimes that involve forcing/taking anything opon/from a another person that did not have a cause for that effect under the eyes of the law in that fair society, as crimes. Thiefs in my eyes even the ones that might steal a car stereo should be put to death or have thier hand chopped suey and recieve the label of economic terrorist(the middle east actually has something right). That goes for the kenneth lay types all the way to the person stealing your figurine's out of your front yard. The idea that something of someone elses should be yours is defunct.

I do not consider laws that are thier to protect yourself from yourself as being very valid with me because they are only built on perceptions of what is ideal for one person or one group of people and perceptions are not always ideal for another. Thats why I agree with freedom of choice even in freedoms I disagree with (abortion). The people and groups that you mention are all bands of people that wanted to break away from thier respective country's oppresion in the name of more personal freedom (not to control anyone elses freedom).

Anarchists in general, especially here in America (I live in a city that is the breeding ground of Anarchist's) are a lost cause. They represent in the same way the commies or religous right wing wackos are represented, they are all allowed the freedom to protest until they use force, then they get thier asses handed to them either by the law or by another citizen. As it has been and always will be and should be.

Do you agree that sometimes it's necessary to use violence to prevent worse violence? The heyday of AFA was the heyday of brutal racist violence. AFA were a reaction, a largely successful attempt to end the activities of the skinheads.

Do you think a policeman has the right to use violence to prevent a crime or to apprehend a criminal? Do you think an individual has the right to use violence in self-defence? If you believe violence is justified in certain specific cirumstances, then you're really arguing about where you draw the line, not about violence in principle.

Vas.

Violence to prevent a crime that is being committed. Different from violence to prevent a crime that might be committed sometime in the future because, well.. he's a nazi and they cant help themselves from committing crimes.

Im not arguing about violence in principle. You would draw the line that violence is appropriate against certain people because of who they are.... sounds very very racist, hate group mentality to me.

----"Im not arguing about violence in principle. You would draw the line that violence is appropriate against certain people because of who they are"

So do you think it is right to use violence against criminals if your a police officer to stop a crime or a citizen using self defense? Yes or No? I will admit I am a bigot to criminals.

----"Im not arguing about violence in principle. You would draw the line that violence is appropriate against certain people because of who they are"

So do you think it is right to use violence against criminals if your a police officer to stop a crime or a citizen using self defense? Yes or No? I will admit I am a bigot to criminals.

Yes, violence to protect or defend is justified. What has been argued before is that violence against "skinheads" is justified because they are "skinheads". How can you argue for that?

I am assuming, then, that Peasant Peons would applaud dropping a nuclear device on Iraq, because that would certainly put an end to that particular war.

And show all of Bush's fuzzy feelings of caring.

I have read and I have not seen a single reference to the idea of dying for a cause, but not necessarily with gun in hand or bombs strapped to ones body.

People have always been frightened and unnerved when normal people like themselves will accept obscene amounts of brutality, and continue to remain peaceful. Gandhi is indeed an example of this. I'm very sorry Peasant peons, but you are completely incorrect about his mass tactics. People were blown away that India would rise up against authority, that 250 million people in any way could be organized to do anything ever, and that it was peaceful. The Brits had been dealing with extremists for years. They just shot them. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." You kill others, others kill you. But when the British troops would kill young Indian men moving to cross through checkpoints that they weren't allowed in...and they just kept ambling closer, no fear, no anger, just walking, it unnerves people.

The Buddhist monks in Vietnam would walk into public squares and light themselves on fire in protest. The Vietnamese were blown away by it. Americans nearly wet themselves when they heard it happened.

The civil rights movement in America was mostly made up of thousands of blacks and black civil rights sympathizers watching as their friends were spat on, burned, beaten and insulted for hours as they tried to sit in the white section of a restaurant.

Yeah, on this one people are going to get touchy, but I will show you the ultimate example of how one person's sacrifice has touched the entire world forever. Jesus of Nazareth died on a crucifix in about 30 AD. And that was just a single man. Since then, through peaceful acts, 2 billion now worship that example and millions have died for His cause. Has all of it been peaceful, no. But wouldn't you still be unnerved to watch powerful men in their prime accept beatings, whippings, scorch marks and continue to sit peacefully.

Guns just have more guns rained down on them. We don't care who in the heck the terrorists are, just kill them. They aren't martyrs to us. But remember the ones who have died without struggle. There are missionaries in Arab countries that are picked up every year, taken by the government and killed for spreading the Word of God. They know they have a very good chance of dying. They also don't care.

What does that say to you? Violence makes more violence until someone stops the chain. They die and do not fight back. They allow themselves to suffer and die at the hands of others, still quietly saying their message to their followers.

We pay attention to the bodies of protesters at Kent State. We pay really good attention to Tiananmen Square. We paid good attention to the monks that ran into the Coliseum and begged that the slaughter stop, only to be killed themselves.

Maybe I'll follow these people. It would be an honor. There is no honor in being a murderer. There is honor in saving the innocents while at war. There is no honor in being a terrorist. There is honor at fighting against all odds for a cause, even if the entire world tells you it's hopeless. There is no honor in wading in blood to "glory". There is honor in recognizing that true glory has nothing to do with fighting, but with doing good and right.

Nietzsche didn't have it right friends. There are no supermen of the human race above morality. It is the moral that receive respect. A dictator only receives fear. And fear, though powerful, has no power like respect has.

May the Lord our Father bless all the families of those who have died in this way.

May God bless each of you as well,

-R. S. of UC
thank you for this post, rs

peaceful protest changes the world
violence only changes the man at the top

----"Yes, violence to protect or defend is justified. What has been argued before is that violence against "skinheads" is justified because they are "skinheads". How can you argue for that?"

I would not argue for hurting anyone or anything without justification (even when hurting skinheads or any other hate group). Skinheads and the KKK are right in thier 'own minds' just as a anti-gun or a gun nut a anti-abortion or pro-lifer are all right in thier 'own minds'. But if we are talking about a skinhead, a thief or any other person on person criminal that has taken or harmed or killed someone already in life, then I could careless what violence is brought down upon them at anytime in thier lifes (assuming they never paid any debt to society for that previous act of hate in prison or with some other reprimand). Forgiveness is for the weak, unless that weak one deserves an all out torture.

That also goes for someone that stole something as a 16 year old 30 years ago (but never got caught), they should die, die, die, and maybe then think about a little mercy with a machete to the wrist.

I caught a 120 lb. south korean trying to steal my brothers stereo in a shopping center parking lot in broad daylight last year, when I went to move my golf clubs out of site from the back window of my car. I picked him up and threw him to the ground 5 times before I put him in a choke hold to whisper in his ear and tell him that I was going to kill him for what he did (plus he had a screwdriver in his hand for the first 3 seconds I made contact, police said I could of justified killing him for having a weapon and coming towards me) the little bastard looked like a superball the next time I threw him into the ground by how fast he responded into a flat out sprint. Even the police officers that took my report said that whatever someone does to one of these punks is never enough, because when its left up to the police, they have to let them out within 24 hours without any physical reprimand and they go right back to stealing. So moral of the story is, is when someone does anyone wrong and you are a witness to this wrongdoing, kick thier ass real good then let the police take them to jail, just to ensure that they are having an even worse day than the person they took advantage of.

I am assuming, then, that Peasant Peons would applaud dropping a nuclear device on Iraq, because that would certainly put an end to that particular war.
hehe, that was exactly what I was going to say!

Where did I say that?

You didn't, just like I did not say all law-abiding citizens were above reproach. What I did say, in reply to the OP, was that his idea of a world where only people who were willing to kill for their cause were of any value was not one would be interested in creating.

No, my solution is that we actually start looking at practices and what lies behind violence rather then seeing legal violence as good and illegal violence as bad.

I didn't say anything about "legal violence" or "illegal violence". I said I would have greater faith in people who obeyed the law than someone who felt they had to kill for their cause.

Give it up Holy Word--Tygaland seems to be the kind of person who can only consider yes/no extremes. If it's not this way, then it must be definition by that way--no room for shades of gray or nuance. If there's no room for that in his/her (sorry, don't know) world of conception, then any discussion of this type is fruitless.

Not true Incertonia. Perhaps you could give me some examples that drew you to this conclusion?

My list of people who've used illegal violence for you (Tygaland considers all of them thugs, let's see if you do):

The Suffragettes

Nelson Mandela

The Italian resistance to Mussolini

The American side in the War of Independence.

*shakes head* The Holy Word, you truly disappoint me. Under the definition of thug that I posted on another thread these people are indeed thugs. If you read what I posted I clearly stated that USING THIS DEFINITION they were thugs. I did not say I personally thought they were thugs.

Do you agree that sometimes it's necessary to use violence to prevent worse violence? The heyday of AFA was the heyday of brutal racist violence. AFA were a reaction, a largely successful attempt to end the activities of the skinheads.

Do you think a policeman has the right to use violence to prevent a crime or to apprehend a criminal? Do you think an individual has the right to use violence in self-defence? If you believe violence is justified in certain specific cirumstances, then you're really arguing about where you draw the line, not about violence in principle.

Vas.

Exactly, but people only want to discuss the areas that suit themselve. In answer to your examples:

Police using violence to aprehend a criminal: Fine by me. Police should be able to use reasonable force to aprehend a criminal who resists arrest.

Individual using violence in self-defence: Fine by me provided the level of violence is not excessive but sufficient to ensure the person escapes harm by the attacker.

I draw the line at self-appointed groups who see it as their job to dispense "justice" outside the law.

Violence is ugly and I think it ought to be avoided if at all possible. That said, I think the author has hit on an uncomfortable truth. Was it possible to 'win' WWII without violence? Would the suffragettes have achieved their goals and within a reasonable timeframe without violence? Likewise the civil rights movement?

It ain't nice to contemplate, but we're not perfectly rational beings yet. All of us have the potential for violence and terror.

Well said... 5 stars.

*shakes head* The Holy Word, you truly disappoint me. Under the definition of thug that I posted on another thread these people are indeed thugs. If you read what I posted I clearly stated that USING THIS DEFINITION they were thugs. I did not say I personally thought they were thugs.I askedSo you do consider the Suffragettes to be thugs and idiots. Thanks. That's all I was asking.

Based on the definitions I posted, yes.

So, using definations that you acknowledge you chose, in response to a question about whether you considered them thugs or not you answered "yes".

I asked

So, using definations that you acknowledge you chose, in response to a question about whether you considered them thugs or not you answered "yes".

There in lies the qualification..."based on the definitions" referring to the definitions posted. I did not say "based on my definitions". Because the thread you lifted that quote from was a legal discussion (despite your repeated attempts to get me to deviate from that line of discussion) and not a moral one I avoided your attempt to get me to comment on my moral views by qualifying my statement. You need to read the whole post, not just the words you want to see.

You have no idea what I think about the Suffrogates or the resistance to Mussolini. Only my interpreatation based on a definition. Nice try though.

There in lies the qualification..."based on the definitions" referring to the definitions posted. I did not say "based on my definitions". Because the thread you lifted that quote from was a legal discussion (despite your repeated attempts to get me to deviate from that line of discussion) and not a moral one I avoided your attempt to get me to comment on my moral views by qualifying my statement. You need to read the whole post, not just the words you want to see.

You have no idea what I think about the Suffrogates or the resistance to Mussolini. Only my interpreatation based on a definition. Nice try though.
Pff. I specifically asked if you considered the Suffragettes to be thugs, not the law. If you responded by answering a question that hadn't been asked that's not my fault.

Pff. I specifically asked if you considered the Suffragettes to be thugs, not the law. If you responded by answering a question that hadn't been asked that's not my fault.

I didn't say it was your fault. But, you should have read the entire answer rather than jumping in with both feet.

the biggest difficulty for protest to overcome isn't the question of peaceful or violent, though it needs to be born in mind that the more harm there is floating arround the more likely everyone is to be injured by it and the more harm anyone causes the more there is floating arround, but the very mixed and thus likely to be ignored message that is sent by continuing to create a market for what is objected to. the most effective form of protest would be simply to connect the dots and refuse to support the incentives that create the market for such things as war for oil, the clear cutting of forrests and so on.

if you drive a car to carry a sign to object to war for oil, well connect the dots. if you build a wood fraimed house, somebody somewhere is going to cut down a tree.

there is a politics of pandering to vested corporate interests and it certainly is an emence source of incalculable harm to just about everything. fallowing its destructive example as a means of objecting to it makes little sense.

whether you're a government or a protester, sending a mixed message is sending a mixed message. and likewise whether you tear up a everything that is worth a dam for short term and short sighted pseudo gain, or tear up a bunch of retail outlets or even wholesale distribution centers to protest their economic practices, win, loose or draw, if you tear up a bunch of crap, you're gonna have a big pile of torn up crap.

i'm not saying i have all the answers and i'm not saying there isn't a time when more direct, forceful and unambiguous action is called for. but i am saying that if you want a message to be heard, it doesn't help to muddy the waters with policies and priorities that contradict your stated desires and intent.

tyrannts are not born in a vacume. or rather they are born by the vacume created by our own lack of self dicipline. the are created by the incentives and markets our actual individual priorities, the ones we might not admit to ourselves or even know that we have, or some popular and dominant mythology hides from us that it is what it is having us actualy practice, collectively create.

it may be an uphill battle to be honest with ourselves and honestly connect the dots, but we cannot expect protest alone, no matter how peaceful OR violent, to do the job without doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

I draw the line at self-appointed groups who see it as their job to dispense "justice" outside the law.

The "law" is just someone else's line. In the case of AFA, I do not defend random attacks on "innocent" skinheads (and I'm not denying that such stupidity did happen). However, there's a big difference between a shaven headed individual sitting having a few drinks in a pub, and a swastika-tattooed moron walking down the street with a baseball bat and shouting "Kill all pakis". The purpose of AFA is to counter the violent activities of skinhead gangs - to counter violence with violence when the authorities are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it (often because they agree with it). In that sense, I support their actions, just as I regularly criticise the actions of the police despite them being "within the law" - such as against non-violent protestors.

Vas.

or how terrorists are some of the last few people to actually care about the world.

Mao said with "power comes from the barrel of the gun.". Never has this been truely than in the modern world. You have people on the left on the right walking down the middle road, all of them are the same really. They protest about things, they are happy about things, they really dont care about things.

You have people that stand outside US embassy's waving banners and protesting about the war on iraq. Those people really believe nothing and are doing nothing. You don not enact change by debating idealogy with your oponent, but rather you enact that change by knocking him to the ground and constantly stamping on his face over and over.

It's simple really, if you will not kill a person for your belief your belief is really not worth all that much, you are not enacting to make it happen. Throughout all history peaceful protests have never succeeding in any change.

You have examples like Ghandi, but the only reason people paid him attention was due to the extremists blowing shit up.

People all over the world dont care though, they are happy with there lifes, After all who would want to risk there own life by going out and standing up for what they belief in, taking the direct action, the only action that can result in change. There is no backbone in the people of the world anymore just a general lazyness.

People look at terrorists as monsters that commit carnage, but infact they are the last of the people that actually care. Will to stand up for, fight for, kill for what they believe in. Ultimately taking the action that is needed to change humanity onto a better course.

You can't respect average people, you can't really view them as anything pure insignificance scurrying around, happy as long as what is happening does not effect them, occasionally you get the people protesting such and such, or something equally inane, but those people dont matter either, they dont care, as apathetic as the rest of the masses.

Terrorists, freedom fighters the world over you can respect there idealogy though, the will to commit to a belief the will to fight for what they see as being right. The masses of people could learn alot from that.

Dont like who is in power, voting does nothing, nothing at all about that, shooting the bastards however does. It makes a point and a statment more so than a vote ever could. If you dont like how the world is, dont protest about it enact the change. Put the beat down on the corruption in the system, but ultimately do something that you are able to respect yourself for.

Direct action is the only action. There is no other, no grey area. Either stand and fight or stay in the happy apathetic world.

Political change though, it does not come from a cross on a slip of paper, but from the graves of those you disagree with.

You are an idiot.

You are an idiot.
but he has a point to some extent-there is such thing as constructive rioting