How much longer can the Non-Violent Approach be used?

Originally posted by WarJohn
Violence can be the answer some times. Just my thoughts.

I don't believe violence is necessarily the answer but it is often the only choice left.

Sometimes, there is no other way when people are backed into a corner.

Peace

reply to post by jude11

I don't believe violence is necessarily the answer but it is often the only choice left.

Often?

Sometimes, there is no other way when people are backed into a corner.

You are backed into a corner?

This is a simple issue of you don't feel you are getting your way, and are attempting to justify violence in an attempt to get your way.

Backed into a corner? That is how I feel when looking at things like Obama Care and taxes - or large groups of people with the ambition of taking things from others by virtue of their lack of having those things.

I want to be free to live my life, to take risks and learn from mistakes. I want to be able to earn an income without it being at the focal point of self-righteous, judgmental douche-bags. Whatever that income may be - be it high, or low. I despise the idea of my income being used to lump me in under some other person's argument.

You've absolutely no respect for the Constitution and the principles it establishes. You've no concept of how our government works - or appreciation for the fact it does work (when utilized properly).

This OWS nonsense is the equivalent of shouting insults and striking at a computer for not working the way you want it to. If you have no concept of how it works, or respect for the fact that it is not magical - then you have no hope in the world of ever interacting with it successfully.

I do believe in cultural/social Darwinism. If you can't figure out how to work with the concept of government in an intelligent manner - you should go without, preferably in a manner that leads to your inability to reproduce or otherwise pass on your ignorance to others.

That may sound harsh - but I grow weary of these people who do not have the slightest understanding of economics or government coming along to make demands of it.... and then make threats of violence.

Honestly - it would make you all far easier to deal with if you start getting violent. You no longer would be fellow citizens but domestic threats with the capability, opportunity, and intent to use deadly force; deadly force is therefor authorized. Frag out.

"You would protect the 1%!?"

No. I do not approve of people forming mobs and killing others as a means of survival.

If you all want to go form your own little hippie commune, somewhere - I'm all for it. You can go live your way, and let the rest of us figure out our own way to live (this is, actually, the concept of statehood within the U.S. - which has been debauched by undue focus on the national level of government).

I'll support your right to form your own government and way of life - including the use of force against those who would attempt to force you under their own way of life.

But what you speak of is an inverted concept. It is predatory in nature, and wreaks of the mentality that has infected and continues to plague Africa with its warlords and constant civil wars.

Your first response is to destroy when you do not get your way... you haven't even tried to create your way. You want and expect others to provide your way for you.

Sorry - not playing that game.

reply to post by jude11


Very true. This is why we must remain with due diligence

reply to post by jude11

I absolutely agree but what is the answer here? I don't want to see violence either but what else can work?

I will take any answer over violence.

Peace

I wonder if I can get through this post without mentioning Gandhi (oops) :-)

I like this post - I like this thread... I wish it was getting more attention

pacifism is a backasswards concept – isn’t it? Our natures aren’t peaceful. I call myself a pacifist – but pacifism is a conscious choice on my part. It’s not my nature. If somebody slaps me – I’m going to slap back (if I can – and if I can’t I’m really gonna want to). I have to choose not to strike back – and that requires a lot of thinking before it ever even gets to that point. Which means I have to choose not to before I’m presented with the opportunity – so that in the moment I’ve already decided. There is quite a bit of power that comes with being un-provokable – but as hard as it is for one person to pull this off – to get groups of people into the same mindset is nearly impossible

Protesting in the streets is necessary – it’s focuses attention and puts a fire in the belly. But as far as peaceful protesting goes – there is so much more. If people are in this for the long haul – it’s not really necessary to be in the streets long term. It won’t be a failure if they don’t make it through the winter (and kids – timing really is everything...) :-)

They are going to try and paint it as a failure though. Even protesters might see it that way – but that’s not the reality. When people see that they can affect real change when they act in numbers – they might be willing to join the cause in other ways. All of it peaceful – and almost unseen. Which, for Americans – let’s face it – maybe not enough drama in that to hold their attention. But, I have more faith in us than that

We can protest with your our votes of course, and by writing our congressmen... :shk:

But maybe we can do more by protesting with our feet, with our remaining dollars – with our voices and pens...supporting and looking out for each other. Yeah – I know – what a girl scout :-)

Civil disobedience isn’t a cakewalk – but it works. And I agree with you Jude – we can’t always be peaceful. Life doesn’t work that way. But I feel very strongly that pacifism should always be our weapon of choice – our first response for as long as we can possibly keep it going...pacifism doesn’t make people impotent.

It’s also honorable – it keeps the waters clean. But it’s not without risk – and most of us aren’t used to the concept of real risk anymore – myself included

One of its earliest massive implementations was brought about by Egyptians against the British occupation in the 1919 Revolution. Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against what they deem to be unfair laws. It has been used in many nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and in East Germany to oust their communist governments, in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, in the Singing Revolution to bring independence to the Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, recently with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, among other various movements worldwide.

en.wikipedia.org...

from an interesting article about Gene Sharp:

When I met Srdja Popovic the director of CANVAS in Belgrade in November he confirmed that they had been working with Egyptians. "That's the power of Sharp's work and this non-violent struggle," he says. "It doesn't matter who you are - black, white, Muslim, Christian, gay, straight or oppressed minority - it's useable. If they study it, anybody can do this."

“One of the main points which we used was Sharp's idea of identifying a regime's pillars of support," he said. "If we could build a relationship with the army, Mubarak's biggest pillar of support, to get them on our side, then we knew he would quickly be finished."

That night as I settled down to sleep in a corner of Tahrir square some of the protesters came to show me text messages they said were from the army telling them that they wouldn't shoot. "We know them and we know they are on our side now," they said.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Peace jude11

:-)

reply to post by Aim64C

Honestly - it would make you all far easier to deal with if you start getting violent. You no longer would be fellow citizens but domestic threats with the capability, opportunity, and intent to use deadly force; deadly force is therefor authorized. Frag out.

I believe for now, you will serve as an excellent example of this mysterious '1%'

No. I do not approve of people forming mobs and killing others as a means of survival.

In fact, you just stated that you do approve of angry mobs - as long as you get to be in the mob

Your first response is to destroy when you do not get your way... you haven't even tried to create your way. You want and expect others to provide your way for you.

So, as far as you're concerned - any complaint a citizen might have about how this government is being run is subversive? Even when it's out in the open - in the bright light of day and all that - and loud as loud can be?

We are guaranteed a voice in this country by that same piece of paper you claim to love

Is the Constitution written in stone - or is it a living breathing document meant to serve a living breathing form of government?

People who fear change to this degree are the stuff of nightmares

I'm as American as you are - but I don't fear my fellow citizens until they begin to demonize me and each other

it's the fear Aim64C - that's the problem

wise-up

reply to post by jude11

Not really wanting to discuss the why of the protests, the question is "How long can the Non-Violent" approach be the tool used to get a message across?

I think we'll find out in about 24 hours or so...........

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I believe for now, you will serve as an excellent example of this mysterious '1%'

Anybody will. That's the wonder of it.

Tie them to a chair and throw them in the water. If they sink - they are not a witch (and their family is eligible for inheritance after they drown). If they float - they are a witch, and need to be executed.

It's amazing how history repeats itself.

In fact, you just stated that you do approve of angry mobs - as long as you get to be in the mob

Please learn to read.

My way of life is to do something productive. I like to garden. I like to engineer electronic devices, circuits, and a number of transportation, habitation, and defense solutions (which incorporate more than just electronics). I enjoy manufacturing and the feeling of watching blocks of metal become purposed structures and being a part of that process.

That's the way of life I seek.

I don't always get to do that. However, when I don't, my response is to attempt to find a way to create that for myself. That may be through a change of employment - it could be through the development of my hobby skills into a business venture of my own. I've got a number of ways to go about it.

Now, look at what has been proposed, here. "Living the way I want to is a right. It should be provided to me. Things need to change so that this happens. If they don't, violence will be used!"

I will kill people who resort to that kind of barbarism - and be glad for the help of others.

Then I will go back to living my life until someone else decides to try and force their way of life upon me.

So, as far as you're concerned - any complaint a citizen might have about how this government is being run is subversive? Even when it's out in the open - in the bright light of day and all that - and loud as loud can be?

Our government is designed so that the citizens may make changes to it. It does not, however, function based on protests.

There are mechanics to our government. They are not difficult to understand, or to utilize.

We are guaranteed a voice in this country by that same piece of paper you claim to love

You are given the right to vote for representatives and to speak to those representatives. You are not given the right to your way.

There's a bit of a disconnect in your thinking.

Is the Constitution written in stone - or is it a living breathing document meant to serve a living breathing form of government?

The Constitution is a formal agreement by citizens to live and function according to certain rules and principles. Within it is a system that grants the citizens the power, authority, and outlines the means in which they can modify that agreement.

It is not a "living, breathing thing." It is a contract that has, within it, provisions for how that contract can be amended and the way in which those amendments must be approved by the holders of that contract.

If everyone can interpret that contract to mean anything they want - then it loses its value and its integrity, and we end up with our current situation.

People who fear change to this degree are the stuff of nightmares

You know little about me.

I can list the changes I want to see, and am pushing for.

=Dissolving the Federal Reserve
=Return to a backed standard of currency
=Elimination of the income tax and IRS - transition to a flat-rate sales tax with prebate system
=Dissolve social security.
=Dissolve medicare/medicaid
=A complete re-write of the Constitution that redefines the powers of the national government and affirms the powers of the state governments; to be ratified by popular vote.
Within that:
-National Government forbidden from running a deficit budget for more than 3 consecutive years without a direct vote to approve from state governments (recurring every year there is a deficit).
-National Debt and its ceilings to be voted and approved by state governments, not national representatives.
-No money may be issued to state governments outside of disaster relief (to be clearly defined as pathogenic pandemics, war/riots, and weather damage). All state revenues are to be entirely self-standing.
-National government forbidden to issue payment to individuals outside of the tax prebate, and shall not appropriate funds for or to individuals or agencies in the effort to provide a standard of living (the national government forbidden from welfare efforts)
-All government issued and/or backed bonds are to be classified as national debt and subject to restrictions thereof
-Earmarks eliminated - all funding/budgeting will be forced into specific budget bills and be subject to line-item veto by the President.

Basically - gut the National government and return powers to the states - where they can choose to run their own programs.

reply to post by Aim64C

Please learn to read.

________________

Honestly - it would make you all far easier to deal with if you start getting violent. You no longer would be fellow citizens but domestic threats with the capability, opportunity, and intent to use deadly force; deadly force is therefor authorized. Frag out.

and, you don't know me - or any of the others you've accused of some pretty serious crimes

but you're satisfied that you do - pretty self satisfied at that

you're also sure that these people who are now protesting are somehow a problem for you and yours

based on what?

so - deadly force?

nice

no quarter Aim64C

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

and, you don't know me - or any of the others you've accused of some pretty serious crimes

What crimes have I accused you of?

but you're satisfied that you do - pretty self satisfied at that

I don't need to know or judge a person to be able to make a decision on whether or not to take their life.

Circumstance is all that is necessary.

you're also sure that these people who are now protesting are somehow a problem for you and yours

The protesters are irrelevant.

These people calling for violence, however - clearly outlined within this thread - are inciting things beyond their comprehension.

so - deadly force?

Capability - possessing the means to inflict deadly force.

Opportunity - having the capability to employ that deadly force.

Intent - having indicated, through verbal or nonverbal means, one's intent to use deadly force.

Capability: Large mob of people - easily capable of outnumbering victims. Improvised weapons expected.

Opportunity: proximity to said mob.

Intent: indicated by the lobbing of bottles, threatening posture, and/or public cries to incite the use of deadly force against individuals or other groups.

The criterion are satisfied for the use of deadly force as it is legally outlined.

Please understand - I am not saying that OWS should be attacked. I am saying that if you all get it in your little minds that you can form a mob and go around tearing things and people up - people like myself won't pull punches. You'll get a gut full of buck shot.

What you are talking about isn't a game. It's not a demonstration. It's a form of war - and I'll be damned if I let it happen in my neighborhood.

Have your peaceful protest.

Make your little hippie commune - I'll back efforts for you to get it declared separate of the U.S. financial system.

But as it is - OWS is not acting in defense of anything. They have no standard among them. It is, at its core, frustration. They are not acting in defense of a nation. They are not acting in defense of a state, or in defense of a state's rights. They are not even acting in defense of the individual.

They are merely frustrated and upset, and now some of them are going around and advocating killing people until something happens to make them happy again.

No, sorry - we don't play those games around here.

Originally posted by GhettoRice
reply to post by Praetorius

 

I was waiting for someone to use gandhi as an example. Personally I think he was a tool used by the British to get the local groups to put down arms and take the oppressive colonialism right were they stand. I mean betwenn 1800-1830 India's textile industry was outproducing the Brits, after 1840 up to 1900 the PER CAPITA INCOME OF ALL INDIAN"S FELL 65%! This is why I feel that violence can be a tool used like all things good AND bad.

Poverty and underdevelopment is over-exploitation used on pacifists.


Imperialism is an equal opportunity exploiter.

Oh, I won't disagree that violence can achieve certain ends - but given my views on this world, life, and death, I'm still forced to ask what good of it comes in the end and who is helped...as I don't see things in merely temporal or physical terms.

Of course there will be counter examples either way (I like the outcome of the American Revolution, for example, even though things have gone south for this big experiment since then...), but specifically on this matter of violent resistance in the US, I will absolutely have to stand by my view that they are prepared for it and IF we were to come out on top of such, it would be a very protracted and VERY costly struggle.

Thanks for your thoughts, and be well.

Originally posted by CREAM
If this continues at college campuses, there will be violent action taken.

Which will hurt the movement, not help it

It's not a debate, Men don't let cowards beat peaceful grown women and let them get away with it. This fact will be demonstrated.

Courageous protesters remain non-violent in the face of violence. It discredits the opposition, showcases their use of violence when met with non-violent tactics and eventually wins you public support.

If these cops aren't fired, protest won't stop. If this is deemed acceptable behavior and beatings continue, cops are gonna be the ones who start getting beat up.

No, they won't. Its easy to sound tough behind a keyboard, but we're talking about the real world. If you get violent with police, they will use force against you and there is no possible way you will come out on top.

The world is ours, never forget it.

The world is just as much mine as it is yours, never forget it.