View Single Post
  #237 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2009, 03:41 AM
Skinny.'s Avatar
Skinny. Skinny. is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A Yellow Submarine
Posts: 3,812
australia au new south wales
Skinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond reputeSkinny. has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 7,615
Send a message via MSN to Skinny.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
No but Hitler was invading another country
I'm not interested in semantics. Someone invading a country, and an unwanted leader comming to power somewhere are pretty much the same from the point of view of the populace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
But there have been many, many other examples of peaceful revolution since Gandhi - Philippines comes to mind
On a large scale, peacful protests are more attractive. However, when it comes to local concerns, armed action is preferable. If a violent group (not necessarily the government) is taking over a small town, one hundred people joining hands and singing won't do much against thirty people with firearms.

Besides, I think even people in peacful protests should be armed, so they can at least escape if their plans fail. A peacful protest is only a peacful one until you are being shot at (see:Iran). You would have all these people die, I would have them defend themselves until they can escape. In before: 'we can't trust them', don't be so elitist as to assume collective irresponsibility.
__________________
Baby's got a place in the sun, selling people shade
Reply With Quote