It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is War And Violence Always So Wrong?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:36 PM
Inspired by this thread detailing the unprovoked force used by police and riot squads in London during the G20 protests, I got thinking. Are violent means ALWAYS so wrong - from war on a global scale to small localised protest? My motive for writing this is not to suggest that violence is good, and before any ATS mods jump the gun, I'm certainly not suggesting we all go and get violent. I'm just interested in putting a new perspective out there. ATS seems to be universally pacifist - the sentiment of which is applaudable.

But how about this:
Violence is in our nature. Today, we praise ourselves wherever we have been able to ignore or overcome this primal urge. But I'm going to suggest that it's not violence or war itself which is wrong, but the motivations therein. I watched the film 'Changeling' recently and in it, Angelina Jolie's character says to her son: "Never start fights, always finish them". Now I'd say that's a philosophy I tend to live by. Whenever I've fought someone, it's always been in self defense. I feel it's my right to use sufficient force against someone who's attacked me - but never to throw the first punch. On a grander scale, I'd have gladly signed up and fought in WWI or II, but would rather go to prison than fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not the notion of war itself that I deem improper, but the justification for participating.

I suppose what I'm really getting it with this post is protest and revolution. If we're really honest with ourselves, we know that the time has come for 'someone' to stand up against the NWO - not just a few thousand unarmed people protesting, but a sufficient civilian force. And yet, the majority of truthers, patriots and dissenters still maintain that we should never get violent, at least not until the Establishment has cast the first stone. Well I say they've already cast the first stone - in fact, they've been casting stones at us for decades whilst we look up wondering which tree just dropped a nut on our head. Again, peaceful means are preferable, but if people get frustrated to the point of violent revolution, is that really so wrong? After all, they're merely fighting for their own liberty, in self defense. Such revolutionaries surely wouldn't be evil in the same way that - say - George Bush and Tony Blair were, despite the fact that both are using violent means to achieve their own ends.

Another interesting point to make is that soldiers in Afghanistan talk about the strange kind of addiction they have to the front line of battle. They know the dangers, and may even disagree with the war, but deep down something makes them hungry for it. Riot squads controlling peaceful protests demonstrate that same 'bloodlust'. So I ask - when such a thirst for battle is so deeply entrenched on our human psyche, how can we ever engage our enslavers peacefully? I mean, even if we were determined to remain peaceful, our enemies wouldn't be. Will we just stand there, arms folded, whilst the batons crash down upon our heads?

Ultimately, I'm a believer in information being our strongest tool. But in a Totalitarian state (which is fast on its way), is the pen really mightier than the sword? In a Totalitarian state, it wouldn't even matter if everyone's 'awake', we'd be physically, forcibly suppressed until the time when one pacifist decides to break line.

What are your thoughts?

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:40 PM
You know whats funny? If the G20 protesters get their way it will be the same story except the police will be called the "Worker's and Peasant's Militia" or the "People's Police". Nothing will change and in fact it will be even worse.

They are nothing but Commies, Anarchists, Socialists, and sheeple kids looking to stir up trouble to instigate another October Revolution, I could care less if the Gendarmerie ran them over with AMX light tanks.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:49 PM
I am as close to be a pacifist as you will get in this world, and people have absolutely destroyed my life, and they knew it would be easy.

So i do not know if being as soft as i was is really that good. When you see what the police did in g20, we know all the violence was down to them, and they have come out trumps again.

So what is the right answer. All i know is the police would have loved for those people to turn violent, and it would of made the serialkillers in the police day if that happened, as they can claim it was justified what they did.

London is virtually a police state now anyway, so what good would violence do anyway, and the protesters where right to not fight back.

The problem comes is when police dress as protesters and start violence, and then they declare that the protesters are scum.

what is the answer, to the police who want more power, the general public just cannot win, as the control system is in place, and the media is totally on there side.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:52 PM
This isn't about the specific politics of the protesters involved. Likelihood is that I don't see eye-to-eye with most of them, politically. Point is, all freedom-lovers agree that anyone should have the right to protest. When that right is not granted, is a violent type of recourse really so immoral?

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:54 PM
War and violence are inherently wrong.

There are times when war and violence are necessary when defending against evil tyrannical regimes, or when simply defending one's self, fellow citizens, family or friends from people(s) who threatening them with imminent harm.

War and violence in the context of protest and revolution should always be defensive and a last resort. It does little to advance your cause with violence, unless those that you are protesting against are first violent without cause or reason against the protesters unjustly. Without the ability to assemble the power to effectively fight back with both numbers and weaponry then retaliatory violence devoid of good strategy is both foolish and perhaps suicidal.

A revolutionary war in these times would be virtually impossible to win. There are other ways and that would require a great plan and a vast population to support it. Sadly the human nature and predisposition toward war and violence would likely prevent a successful outcome.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Cythraul

Not sure, london is a police state now, and you see that from what happened in london and what happened in france with the nato thing. The peopel in france have much more freedom at that summit.

The question about violence, is what would it solve anyone to do it, except bring police more power and control. Who benefits from people rioting, not the peaceful protesters.

So do you think violence brings any benefits to the suppressed, do you really think that them throwing there lifes away possibly is some sort of answer, as i do not. Plus i am glad that the protesters are showing that it was the police who where the thugs, shame the mainstream media, do not have the balls to tell it as it is.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
unless those that you are protesting against are first violent without cause or reason against the protesters unjustly.

...which they were. I'm saying exactly this - violence in self-defense is justified. Do you think the public have had the first stone cast against them yet, or is it yet to happen?

Originally posted by andy1033
So do you think violence brings any benefits to the suppressed, do you really think that them throwing there lifes away possibly is some sort of answer, as i do not. Plus i am glad that the protesters are showing that it was the police who where the thugs, shame the mainstream media, do not have the balls to tell it as it is.

I'm glad too. Like I said, peaceful means are preferable. But like you said, the peaceful credentials of the protesters has gone largely unnoticed due to media propaganda. I'm just wondering - if there are people who believe that revolution is the only preserve our freedoms, and are willing to lay their own lives on the line, should they be deemed immoral, evil or wrong for doing so?

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:12 PM
It's a sad commentary on humanity, but while hurtful and destructive, war with all its negatives, also has a few positives.

War is the engine of advancement. War is responsible for more technological advancements than any other engine in history.

War is the engine of advancing ideas. Those who are more advanced in their war making abilities are often more advanced in their concepts under which a people can live.

War purifies an almost constant, rancid human condition. Cultures stagnate, enabling the weak to permeate a society and advance a self-destructive behavior by their ideas.

The more advanced a culture, the more degradation of their society. Common, universal virtues are pushed aside by those weaker elements to introduce concepts and ideas that appeal to the more baser forms of human indulgence.

For example, the ability to conduct war successfully is more important than social programs, education, agriculture, commerce, transportation, labor, housing, or human services that advanced civilizations place so much value on.

The reason? Without the ability to conduct war successfully and efficiently, none of these other elements of a society would even exist, or, not for long as that society will fall to another society who will war against them and take these elements from them.

The security of the shield will be of short benefit if the other arm is not skilled with the sword.

There are things much worse than war. Deslolation, destruction, injury, bondage, tyranny, oppression, famine, captivity, and eradication.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by Cythraul
I agree with your position, and plight. I was raised the same way, not to start a war, but to finish it.

The sad truth is war has been thrust upon us whether you agree or not. The casualties mount in hospitals, in prisons, and in positions of hopelessness and fear. Millions around the world are injured by, propaganda, starvation, ignorance, chemicals, bom8s and bullets. Misguided by false and misleading mindsets in order to kill ourselves.

I for one have thought long and hard about all the possible actions that could be taken in the defense of humanity. It is not enough to educate people about how terrible they are being treated by their governments, religions, and institutions of all kinds. It is not enough to show a prisoner that he resides in a prison of his own device, with little or no personal power to extricate himself.

Yes, it truly is in our nature to defend ourselves from immediate physical attacks, but are very slow to respond to generational warfare that is being witnessed today. We always use the excuse its someone else's job to do this or that, and in the meantime our common enemy moves closer, step by step, inch by inch. It has the subtleness of a snake on the prowl, silent, deliberate, and with a mission. It has now reared its ugly head and exposed itself, not only as a snake, but a snake with enough venom to do us all in. What do you do?

Do you play a game with the snake like a Hindu snake handler, or is chess more in line with your way of thinking. Once you have the snakes neck in your hand, will you release it into the wild once again so that it can hunt once more? The American Indians, knew how to deal with snakes.

I for one do not support violence or mindless slaughter, that is what the snake wants. I do not support revolution because we will eventually end up where we are today, and the snake knows it.

The only question is, who possesses the machete, and will use it?

top topics


log in