Violent or Pacifist Revolt?
Nouvembre
09-10-2006, 05:26
Which do you think is more effective? I say it depends on the situation.
Sometimes :mp5: , sometimes :fluffle:
It does depend on the situation.
Usually, pacifist revolts work best when those in power are already losing that power, are reluctant to remain, or are unwilling, for whatever reason, to use brutal force to crush the revolt.
Otherwise, violent revolts are necessary to change things significantly.
Free shepmagans
09-10-2006, 05:41
Violence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To paraphrase a fictional character: Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is wishful thinking at its worst.
It may not be pretty and there will be a loser but there will also be a clear victor.
Markreich
09-10-2006, 06:06
Which do you think is more effective? I say it depends on the situation.
Sometimes :mp5: , sometimes :fluffle:
Antidisestablishmentarianism for all !!
The Black Forrest
09-10-2006, 06:18
Interesting.
I wonder what would be the situation today if the Palistineans had taken the pacifist route?
In most democracies voting and political action are enough to change anything. Many times people do not have the patience the unbending will or the persistant unified vision for this however.
Neo Undelia
09-10-2006, 06:21
Interesting.
I wonder what would be the situation today if the Palistineans had taken the pacifist route?
People would sympathize with them and not think of them as terrorists?
Yootopia
09-10-2006, 07:22
Interesting.
I wonder what would be the situation today if the Palistineans had taken the pacifist route?
They still wouldn't have a scrap of land to this day.
The Black Forrest
09-10-2006, 08:10
They still wouldn't have a scrap of land to this day.
Questionable since Israel would be viewed as the villain since there wouldn't be suicide bombings to draw favor to them.
Questionable since Israel would be viewed as the villain since there wouldn't be suicide bombings to draw favor to them.
Israel doesn't give a shit how it's viewed; it knows that there are enough people in the US that'll support it no matter what.
Free shepmagans
09-10-2006, 09:01
Israel doesn't give a shit how it's viewed; it knows that there are enough people in the US that'll support it no matter what.
Yup, me for example. Israel could nuke D.C. tomorrow and I'd probably defend them.
Turquoise Days
09-10-2006, 09:23
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Anabasis/flowerchucker.gif
*nods*
Cabra West
09-10-2006, 09:29
To paraphrase a fictional character: Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is wishful thinking at its worst.
It may not be pretty and there will be a loser but there will also be a clear victor.
Turning a blind eye to the fact that naked force has created more issues throughout history than any other factor, of course.
Why look for long-term solutions, anyway? You never know when you might feel like a little naked violence, and the pretext to solve an issue is so handy after all.
The Black Forrest
09-10-2006, 09:41
Israel doesn't give a shit how it's viewed; it knows that there are enough people in the US that'll support it no matter what.
It "gives a shit" when the US government is getting crap from the people about giving money to a brutal government.
They don't have that issue when we keep getting news reports of women and children are blown up in a pizza joint, a bunch of girls killed in a club, etc.....