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.

 

Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I Understand your saying, A Government Born in the Heat Of Battle Has Blood on its hands


I suppose thats right But i Very much doubt they'd be any-worse than the Government they Over-run.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
"Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it".
Rings true more times then most people will admit.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by beezzer
 


I Understand your saying, A Government Born in the Heat Of Battle Has Blood on its hands


I suppose thats right But i Very much doubt they'd be any-worse than the Government they Over-run.


It has to come down to motive. What was the previous government's motive? What is the NEW government's motive?

Ultimately, what do they want?


+11 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Why has this idea become so ingrained in the CT community?!

I know there's a lot of "feelers" here on this site, but this is just nonsense!

You can overthrow a tyrannical government without becoming a tyrant yourself.

How is it that people can honestly not see this being done?

Doesn't history show otherwise?!

The common man, overthrowing oppressive governments, and installing a more sane government?!

How the hell was the United States even formed?!

To think that things will just get better by non-compliance, is ludicrous.

Why?!

Because the majority won't participate in this non-compliance.

That's why.

You only need ~20% of the people to violently storm the State and Federal governments to get your revolution.

It simply isn't going to happen in the U.S. any other way.

Want proof?!

Look at how long this crap has been going on already, and how much further we're bending over as time passes.

Civility is servitude when dealing with tyranny.

This meme about a civil revolution needs to be erased from our consciousness, as it has NO place in reality.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
"Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it".
Rings true more times then most people will admit.


Too true. And I'm trying to keep this as general as possible, but with all the riots/protests/planned protests in the world, it has come to mind.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


One would assume The Old Governments Motive was Overall a Good one But Riddled with bad decisions and a way of running things that Oppresses Poeple.

The "New" Governent would probably Seek to Put Right what the previous government did wrong with a More Humanly Correct approach to things



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I would like to respectfully disagree. Must violence be the answer all the time? And if a group uses violence against it's oppressors, wouldn't that mean that it may use the self-same violence against those that disagree with said government?

I know how America was born. I also know how Cuba was "created". I see how the Soviet Union "freed" the masses, then turned round and enslaved them.

No model exists for a perfect overthrow of a government.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by beezzer
 


One would assume The Old Governments Motive was Overall a Good one But Riddled with bad decisions and a way of running things that Oppresses Poeple.

The "New" Governent would probably Seek to Put Right what the previous government did wrong with a More Humanly Correct approach to things


Ideally, you are right. Russia is a perfect example of the people overthrowing the Tsarist control and giving it to the people.
Then quickly taking it away again.

Hence, my cynicism.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.



Anarchists are not violent. Authoritarian police states are. We don't use fear and violence to force our will on anyone. Authoritarian police states do with their joke lawmaking. Do the people need to be herded like animals?

That would be authoritarian would it?

I am an anarchist I don't want to hurt anyone.Why do that? So I can go to prison? Nope thats ok.

We don't condone acts of violence. Hurting innocent people is wrong. Violent theft of resources. Thats what they do...create theft wars for their own profit and then drop bombs on innocent people.We are not savages. We cannot be guilty of the same limitations the elite have. Why use violence when it

Libertarians,Anarchist,communists believe in NON-VIOLENT protest.There are ways to get their attention without resorting to insane terrorist acts or violence. An empire build on fear is fundamentally unstable. Why resort to violence and fear when public collusion is vastly more effective.

Like not buying their products. Not using their institutions(schools,banks,and other stuff.). Only voting on issues that DIRECTLY benefit the public.Not corporate interests not multinationals. Voting out every congressman that isn't libertarian AND ban corporate lobbying and earmarks. Random audits...etc...

That's the real way to get their attention.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I would like to respectfully disagree. Must violence be the answer all the time?


Why say all? NO, not always. But when there is no other option, YES!!



And if a group uses violence against it's oppressors, wouldn't that mean that it may use the self-same violence against those that disagree with said government?


Don't be a pussy. We got the numbers. No pain, no game.



I know how America was born. I also know how Cuba was "created". I see how the Soviet Union "freed" the masses, then turned round and enslaved them.

No model exists for a perfect overthrow of a government.


No government will stand the test of time. Time changes all. Gotta change with the change, lol.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Im all for peaceful protests. but I dont think you could seriously overthrow a government with one. If the protests wer intended to overthrow the govt and the govt knew this, then they would, in my opinon do any thing to cling on to power, including inciting violence to put us back in line.

I dont think violently overthrowing the govt will allways lead to having violent people in charge. If had never had a fight in my life and was totally none vilonet but then one day i had to defend my self with violence becuase i had no other choice, then would i rermain violent after that incident? or would I go back to been a peacful guy who would only fight to defend his loved ones or self?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Thank you for your input. But communism non-violent?
I'm confused.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
reply to post by beezzer
 


Im all for peaceful protests. but I dont think you could seriously overthrow a government with one. If the protests wer intended to overthrow the govt and the govt knew this, then they would, in my opinon do any thing to cling on to power, including inciting violence to put us back in line.

I dont think violently overthrowing the govt will allways lead to having violent people in charge. If had never had a fight in my life and was totally none vilonet but then one day i had to defend my self with violence becuase i had no other choice, then would i rermain violent after that incident? or would I go back to been a peacful guy who would only fight to defend his loved ones or self?


Your post gives me hope. Thank you. Great insight.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I think history would show that the American Revolution of 1776 to be the only example of violent revolutions succeeding in creating a better government.

What tends to happen is those that succeed in taking a government by violent revolution is that they become despots that refuse to succeed power even if their new government's constitution says they must. Washington was the only revolutionary leader to voluntarily hand over power to a new administration. Examples of where this has not happened abounds: Napoleon, Castro, Chavez, Amin, Stalin, etc. Instead of ceding power, they executed their rivals, even the ones that were "right-hand men" during the revolution.
edit on 31-1-2011 by indianajoe77 because: typo, word choice



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


When there is no other option, go to violence.
Check.
But who's to say, "well, we tried leaflets, let's blow the suckers up!"



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Want Peace? Work for Justice!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


My pleasure. And thanks for starting the thread. its a subject that iinterests me greatly and il be keeping an eye on it, thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


You only need ~20% of the people to violently storm the State and Federal governments to get your revolution

I am sorry...i am having trouble figuring out where this statement came from? I know that in the states that controls me, a "peaceful coup" requires a minimum of thirty thousand people, to march upon the statehouse, without violence, peacefully walk into said statehouse, and starting at the front entrance working your way into the building, peacefully removing personel from each office advising them you are no longer needed here. Inherently, this is impossible, thats why they constructed the code as they did. IMO, there is no "peaceful coup" gonna take place anywhere.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by indianajoe77
 


Bull#. Our revolution was a reflection of prior revolutions that were successful.

You're entirely correct. Those who set up the new government MUST give up their power immediately after the ball gets dropped.

We now KNOW this, so make it so.

Next problem???

Let's get it done, already!!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join