It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is armed struggle necessary to gain Freedom?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I was watching this You Tube Video, some fragments of this video support armed resistance.



It kept me thinking can freedom be achieved thru peaceful means? In today's world would a peaceful struggle lead to achieving the goal? Or do Govt. and high powers only understand the voice of armed struggle? Or are both needed. Both peaceful protest and armed struggle have their pros and cons there is no denying that.

We have seen throughout the history how peaceful measures and armed resistance go hand in hand to attain Freedom. But what about now? Have we learn't anything new from our history?

I have seen numerous threads on ATS which have many times hinted for armed struggle in USA. So ATS what is your opinion on this?

Possible related thread:
Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

Mods if I have posted this in wrong section of forums please put it in correct place.




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Ask the black population!



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by regretable
 


I am sure black, white, yellow etc. all kind of people will have some view over this if any.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
All you have to do is ask yourself do the governments of the world use "peaceful" means to achieve their goals? I think we all know the answer to that. Why does America pour $650 billion dollars into their military machine if peace and diplomacy were so effective? Violence should always be a last resort but will always be a necessary one at the right time. No major revolution has been at the hands of peace nor will one ever be. America wouldn't exist if the patriots that came before us decided to light candles, march in the street, and shout at the top of their lungs they weren't going to take it anymore. The depressing thing is back in the 1700's the people's power as far as the ability to do violence against their government or enemies was pretty equal.....i.e. musket against musket........cannon against cannon.....horse against horse. Nowadays it's hunting rifles and shotguns against MP5s and M60s...............molotov cocktails against bunker busting bombs and predator drones. The "people" will never have a chance if they try to fight their government head on. Hence why the movie V for Vendetta is such a painful reality. I hate to say it but for Americans to win a revolution in this day and age they will have to become terrorists..............but in the end who really wins when we all live in a world filled with terrorism???

God made men.............Sam Colt made them equal.


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


I agree with your sentiment but we also have people such as Mahatma Gandhi who believed in Non-Violence. I am sure similar like him there would be many more people who used non-violence as their approach. So could armed struggle have survived and gained freedom without non-violence groups?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
i think the answer would be yes. you have to have some form of violence to effect real change.

Direct effect of the past 100 year history. "Ever since dueling was outlawed the western world has been on a downward slope towards tyranny. So taxes have been continually raised ever since dueling was outlawed... Our labor abused, our freedoms reduced, etc, etc....



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Fight fire with fire and you will burst in to flames.

You cannot just pretend to be as savage as the people you want to overthrow, overthrow them, then switch it off and rule peacefully because the reality is that you have become just as bad or worse.

Fighting a fist with a fist will result in a fist winning and a fist ruling.

I do not know how clearer I can make that and some might not like it, but its obvious because it is the truth.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pewbert
 


Thank you for your opinion but do you really think if majority of people go down protesting (non violence) can any Govt. or International powers ignore them? I would like to bring to your attention the Tea Party protest, protests in Iran etc. which were allover the MSM. Are the current day Govts. really that powerfull that they can qwell "voice" of people?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


I agree with your sentiment but we also have people such as Mahatma Gandhi who believed in Non-Violence. I am sure similar like him there would be many more people who used non-violence as their approach. So could armed struggle have survived and gained freedom without non-violence groups?


The founding fathers tried for years to negociate with mother England. If the history books are correct, we kicked @ss, barely, because the terrorists on our side couldnt deal with the apparent oppression they experienced. Almost all standoffs involving one or more perpetrators end in violence. I recently viewed a video tape of a btaf officer using violence first towards a religious group, then towards a camera-man, for no real reason. A procecuter ask him if he wanted to press charges against the frustrated officer. The camera-man declined.

Armed conflict is inevitable. Even christains will argue that the lord sanctified righteous conflicts. More people have been killed for the sake of isms than any other reason known to mankind. In ancient Morman history a certain man was told by an angle to kill a certain leader. The man resisted, but was then convinced by the angle to do the deed. He and his family were then allowed by the lord to escape to the new lands.

Christ abored violence, but was violent himself when he encountered the temple money changers. That life is violent is irrefutable. Ghandi was murdered by an assassins bullet. It wasnt the salt march in India that freed the country from british rule, it was violence.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


Great view and I appreciate your opinion. But do you think ay country could have gained Freedom in history without armed struggle? Do you think we could have won WWII without violence and just by protesting?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


I think that aggresive ideologies and dictatorships, world governments etc will corrupt themselves and be their own downfalls if they have nothing to fight.

A fist needs something to hit or it does not have a purpose if you get me.

It is the long road yes but its the only one that will ever get the correct result.

Look at the states, revolution won.

Now look at what is going on again.

Both ways will result in a lot of deaths but not the same results.

As for WW2, I am not sure, a lot of what went on in those days was funded by banking dynasties etc. There was more going on than meets the eye in my opinion than just as simple as it looked. Just like today.

There really is not much point in grabbing a gun and blasting your way to victory. Where will it ever end, I mean, would you keep going until you blast every single person who disagrees with you?

Look at the world, thats exactly whats still happening, it is madness.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by regretable
 


Well said. Look at history. Martin Luther King and Ghandi and Mother Teresa are wonderful people. But we don't live in a perfect world. We never will. And as perfect as we strive to make it there will always be people willing to hurt you or your family........sometimes they will be in the form of a criminal down the street and sometimes they will be in the form of an out of control government. Ghandi was killed by an assassin's bullet as well as King. Apartheid didn't end in Africa because black people found their voice. The Nazis weren't beaten back because Hilter was interested in diplomacy. Unfortunately as we supposedly advance as human beings the world isn't getting safer........it's getting much more dangerous.

And to the other poster who says violence just makes us all bad. I guess if I kill a person that wants to rape my wife, hurt my children that makes me as bad as them?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by regretable
 


I am sure black, white, yellow etc. all kind of people will have some view over this if any. [/quote

Of course. Why would you respond with such an obvious axiom. But blacks have a recent history of using violence to gain equality in america, thus the reference...god bless them all.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by regretable
 


And to the other poster who says violence just makes us all bad. I guess if I kill a person that wants to rape my wife, hurt my children that makes me as bad as them?


So murder is the answer to someone who wants to do something like that?

Who is worse?

I am not saying I have all the answers, I am just trying to show how corruption is not the way forward.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXXN3O
reply to post by December_Rain
 

I think that aggresive ideologies and dictatorships, world governments etc will corrupt themselves and be their own downfalls if they have nothing to fight.

I am confused what you mean by this. If corrupt govt. and dictatorships be allowed to rule without any resistance, wont they be ruling forever? I am not clear how they will fall themselves?


A fist needs something to hit or it does not have a purpose if you get me.

Excellent point and I 100% agree.


It is the long road yes but its the only one that will ever get the correct result.

Do cost matter? Does the losses factor in? Again I will ask you if we could have led non-violence protest during WWII, could we have won? I think your answer meant yes we could have, but at what cost?


Both ways will result in a lot of deaths but not the same results.

Which will result in more deaths armed conflict or non violence?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by regretable
 


Okay, I get your point now. I was not clear what you meant earlier.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 




Many things sound wonderful on paper............an eye for an eye makes the world blind blah blah blah........ but we live in the REAL world where like I said people will kill you without hesitation for your shoes or a few dollars. In those instances yes if it's the difference between my life or the life of my child or wife I will defend myself to the fullest extent necessary. Murder is completely different than self defense. I suggest you learn that difference.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


I will take example of Gandhi. Earlier regrettable stated Gandhi's salt march didnt brought freedom but armed struggle did. But you are forgetting non-violence movement had more impact in people. It had many more people supporting i, thru peacefull means such as boycott movement which hurted British. And in the end Britishers called Gandhi to discuss about freedom not the armed resistance. So impact of non-violence cannot be ruled out.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by December_Rain]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


I didn't state that, regretable talked about the salt march.

Look no one is saying we as human beings should't strive for peace or diplomacy or nonviolent means to an end. But we will NEVER eradicate evil and injustice in this world. As long as there are people willing to do violence against others there will always be a need for self defense and the ability to proect oneself even people like Ghandi realized this. His motives were much more political hence why they were effective. The world as an evil place........always has been and always will be.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


The angle I was coming from is with resitance movements against governments rather than WW2.

All I am trying to say is that if I picked up a gun, rallied half a country to my cause and wiped out a government, installed myself or another as a leader. That will lead to the exact same thing happening all over again.

If people do not resist oppressive people, over time as they die out, there will no longer be an oppresive government in place. I say it will eat itself from within because right now the majority of government is corrupted and greed filled. Let them eat until they burst, let them try to tell you what to do as often as they please, let them try to make you work to support them and whatever they throw at you, take it on the chin.

In the end they die just like any other man or woman. What does it all leave you with?

What gives anyone a right to say the world should be the way they want it?

Why would anyone want to rule the world?

It is corruption to even think like that and it is greed. It is weakness.

It is a double edged sword and there is nothing you can do about it. Its will not change as long as man has this idea of government that they have.

You can change yourself however and do what is right.

When it comes to WW2, I dont think anyone actually won that war to be honest.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join