It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Quauhtli
It's interesting thinking about this BLm fiasco in terms of your question.. The govt has been very quiet about what is going on in Oregon right now.. Under Obamas reign it was quiet about it in 2014 as well..
If Trump were to be elected, I wonder how the govt would react to this sort of thing... Probably completely different if you ask me..
My answer would be after the govt makes a really big mistake, one along the lines of storming into a situation like the one in Oregon right now and killing a bunch of citizens.. Then it would become more acceptable than it is now at least.. If it did happen, it could easily become a runaway situation.. There are a lot of Americans who are itching for that fight, even though it probably wouldn't have anywhere close to the outcome they're looking for..
originally posted by: Puppylove
With recent events, this becomes an important question. Civil unrest is a growing problem in the US, and with things like the patriot act, bank bailouts, and so much more, it seems like an issue that will continue to keep growing.
With a government controlled not by the people but outside forces in the form of corporations and special interests. The legal ways of fighting against corruption are becoming more and more futile as time moves on. Will frustration created by this cause more armed civil unrest in the future?
Our nations founders made it clear that there are and will be times when revolution is necessary. That such was the case is built into the constitution. We even have the second amendment protecting the citizens rights to remained and armed organized populace partly for this express purpose.
Now I'm not saying we should take up arms yet, but I want to know when it moves from being automatically considered to be terrorism to take up arms to actually full filling the rights and duty set forth by our forefathers to protect the citizenry from a government that's no longer for the people.
This seems to be and important line to define. When is it terrorism, and when is it our duty to each other in defense of house and country?
There comes a time where protesting, lawsuits, and other less violent means become laughable to a truly entrenched political force, and are about as effective as spinning in circles screaming "I'm a fairy lalalala!!!!"
When is revolution not only acceptable but the duty of every citizen in defense of the foundations the country was built upon? At what point do those in power cross the line, and at what point does the futility of peaceful means of resistance require taking up arms?
Are you of the belief armed resistance and revolution is never acceptable? Where do you draw the line?
1. what about a peaceful way? Start reading Gandhi for instance, he made India independent from the Brits in a peaceful way.
Gandhi’s act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government and prohibiting them from collecting their own. His disobedience set off a mass campaign of non-compliance that swept the country, leading to as many as 100,000 arrests. In a famous quote published in the Manchester Guardian, revered poet Rabindranath Tagore described the campaign’s transformative impact: “Those who live in England, far away from the East, have now got to realize that Europe has completely lost her former prestige in Asia.” For the absentee rulers in London, it was “a great moral defeat.”
All protest actions, campaigns and demands have both instrumental and symbolic dimensions. Different types of political organizing, however, combine these in different proportions.
In conventional politics, demands are primarily instrumental, designed to have a specific and concrete result within the system. In this model, interest groups push for policies or reforms that benefit their base. These demands are carefully chosen based on what might be feasible to achieve, given the confines of the existing political landscape. Once a drive for an instrumental demand is launched, advocates attempt to leverage their group’s power to extract a concession or compromise that meets their needs. If they can deliver for their members, they win.