Freedom groups and protests ineffective - too many groups

Recently I began a thread named "What is making us NOT fight back". It grew and seemed to get some folks motivated, including myself.

I have looked into several groups in my area that are so called 'freedom fighters'.

I joined a couple, but I found something disturbing.

There are too many separate groups. One of the ones I joined, (www.freedomforceinternational.org...) had 5 members in my area. I will be quitting them after I explain why to them - all these groups are trying to raise their numbers, when in fact we should be joining all these groups together as a single entity, just like the single government.

If there is ever going to be a chance of our voices being heard without violence, these groups must come together and become one group against a one government.

Then, they must tackle one item at a time - domestic spying, immigration, ect.

You feel there is something wrong with our "single" government and yet you want to form ONE group? Should we all share one religion as well?

How is one group going to cause no violence vs. many groups? I would think if you created one large group against one other large group, you'd be more likely to have violence.....perhaps even civil war...no??

Part of democracy and freedom is to be able to have the ability to have more than one group...as many as is wanted or needed. This country is no longer a democracy because there really is only one party that shares two faces. If you want one group against the evil politicians in power, you are as bad as they are!


Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 25-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

No, I don't think we need ONE group I guess. I agree with what you are saying, but I think there are too many small, ineffective groups.

I guess what I am doing is trying to find a way to actually succeed in doing something good. I have looked into protest groups, and other organisations and they all seem to have only a few people and trying to recruit more.

I want to be apart of something already formed and being active in being a large voice.

I guess that is what I am really trying to say.

Ok your problem is that:
Your divided
When you unite its only briefly before you break apart because no one adresses the others problems that arrise out of fear
You only adress one problem at a time and allow more to fester and take over, as in you solve on or attempt to but ten more pop up.
You are unable to admit that others have problems, you like to focus on YOUR problems and not everyones problems.
Whenever the enemy roars you run like rats to a haven, you never have the guts to unite then hold the ground you have taken. Instead I see people breaking and running in every direction immaginable when they attack, you only hold your line long enough to make a public debue then run away after it stops.

We do need a one powerfull group, however its the problem of who controls it or how its run. Now currently we only have bickering fools who do not unite, they must be removed and more confident leaders appointed along with serveral thousand other things that need to be done.
However, as one person pointed out: When you have two large opposing groups, war usualy ensues. To me at least I would rather have war than to give up the hope of freedom by having divided groups not united ones. Let me translate that for you:
Freedom but have to suffer a war to have it=I am willing to put up with it because it would have reason (other things pending at the same time).

VS.

Never seeing freedom because we are divided and getting our rears kicked at every turn.