Violent revolution

Only assholes respond to violence and agression with same. Ask Lebanon about collateral damage and loss of personal property.

Humans aren't the only ones that are harmed, and if you are a global warming advocate, the energy expended in violent protest also impacts the environment.

 

So you'd be ok with your mother's home being destroyed, your source of fresh water being corrupted as long as you could prove you manhood by being violent?

 

I think gardener means lebanon was bombed too hell - it achieved very little.
At the end of the day people need somewhere to live - so yeah that ''material'' possesion'' means a lot.

 

You blow up cars, the petroleum products in them have to go somewhere, they pollute the ground water. You beat up on a few cars...do you know who they belong to?, do you know if the people that own them can afford to repair or replace them? Or do they belong to the support staff that are only trying to earn a living? Does your violent revolution check out who owns what?

 

Wouldn't all your energy be better spent finding a solution that would blow the fat cats out of the water without destroying anything. They take the upper hand because they promise a return on investment. What has your violent group got to offer?

You can't really offer anyone freedom, because as soon as the smoke clears the guys with the money will move in and anything you promised that goes counter against their interests will be nil. What are you promising?

 

civil disobidence works miracles

 

Outline a list of what it has accomplished?

 

I have visited a homeless shelter - My brother was in one for 2 years.
I know that some people have been let down by their local council - I know a lot have also brought about their demise onto themselves.

Smashing up people possesions is legitimate in your eyes - that obfuscates any responsibility you should have for others opinions and possesions.
you think that everybody was brought down by ''the goverment'' - this is just not true.
It is simplistic and allows you to do whatever you like ''just because''.

 

Martin Luther king Jr advocated using only peaceful civil disobideance to gain civil rights.

Mahatma Gandhi used only peaceful means and pacifism to gain Indias independence from the British empire.

Nelson Mandela took jail time instead of using violence

boston tea party
etc............

 

Imho that is not true - many have drug related dependancys [why they become homeless in the first place].
Don't wish to find employment or wish for a home - basicaly ''given up''.
The issues are multi faceted and not solved by blaming one factor.

It is true no system is perfect to a degree I agree goverments do not spend enough money - not everybody who wants help is ''saved''.

Just because not everybody is ''saved'' does not mean a goverment does not care or attempts not too solve the issue to the best of their ability.

Any and every system however admirable their initial goal - will let people down.

I don't think your ''radical activism'' is simplistic or immature [ I never said either was].
I think your basis for who is to blame is simplistic.

''you think that everybody was brought down by ''the goverment'' - this is just not true.
It is simplistic and allows you to do whatever you like ''just because''.''.

Just because in your view the ''goverment is to blame'' it gives you free access to do whatever you like [it seems].

I do respect you wishing to make things better.
Imho this is not the way.

 

Gandhi never ruled out none violence.

In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He co-ordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did indeed wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.

Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.[5][2] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticised attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Guerrilla_activities

 

Ok lets agree to disagree - but don't thinlk i'm not ''awake'' or I am telling lies and your ''truth'' is ''the truth''.
Just because I do not share your opinion does not mean I've hit the snooze button or have decided a life of telling whoppers is for me..
I could get mildly offended by that - but that is pretty much the standard response from people who I disagree with [''wake up man - tell the truth'' -] so bleh it just washes over me now.

 

Ofcourse

Peace -

There you go



Matt -

 

You seem to be trying to stir up testosterone charged adolescents that seek to feel big about bashing a few cars and shouting a few slogans. You aren't looking for solutions to the problem.

Gandhi to my recollection never took part in a violent protest or adovacted one. I am not that up on Mandella.

If you have a link to a direct quote by Gandhi advocating violence I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

I'm not turning my back on anybody.
I'm just suggesting it is not the complete fault of ''goverment''.
If your talking about ''the poor'' and not just ''the homeless'' then ofcourse the No.s are going to be higher.
The reason ''the poor'' have to go to these places is ALSO multi-faceted.

Do I blame the kids ? ofcourse not.

Is it completly ''the goverment'' or ''the greedy masses'' ofcourse not.

I have no doubt [given the opportunity] you would not knowingly turn you back on anybody - the sad realities are imho complete 100% aid to all those that need it is never going to occur. It is like attempting to spin 6 plates with one hand.
Plus even if you could do something better - ''violent protest'' aint gonna solve it. Direct action - making people vote more wisely might - talking mysticaly about a ''revolution'' is all well and good till the realities hit home imho.

http://www.homelessness.gc.ca/about_us/index_e.asp#HAN

Go through everything [regarding this issue] the goverment has done since being elected - maybe your goverment needs a rocket up their ass - but to suggest we all should a ''revolt'' does not take into account maybe the problem is just too large and the truth is it is not all down to a goverment.

There is always going to have to be a place for NGOs no matter how good govermental [or your] policys are - that is a sad truth.
I won't get offended if you disagree - just if you insult me.

 

Love alone conquers hate. Ghandi knew that and this is how he was able to change his world, starting with himself.

Peace and love

 

I'm not argueing with you - just giving you my opinion - we had already agreed to disagree.

I am but you are not convincing me that well.

Well now we maybe getting somewhere - so it is due to policys that your goverment have enacted or not enacted ?. How is your revolution going to solve the poverty rate - like has been said [i think] once the smoke clears - what are you going to do.

Ok do and think whatever - i'm just giving you my two cents worth .
It does seem the same issues that blight Canada have blighted the UK - lack of affordable housing etc etc etc.
I don't blame you for wishing to blame ''some thing'' I just think it is slightly misdirected - obviously not completely.

Atleast you are not blaming immigration.

 

And violent protest will cure these ills?

 

\


we have not.

 

Your e.g are far more convincing - we have the same kind of issues over here - maybe it is slightly better here - it is difficult to say.
It is still multi-faceted though - the e.gs you give that marginalise people are all well and good but you also speak of people that are homeless - not all their issues are atributable to the state and not all the issues can be lumped together imho.

Yes all your e.gs are where the system needs too change - it might be bourgeois to attempt to highlight your views through more conventional means - but in our countries that works better. The e.gs you give are not measures designed to keep people poor - it is not that our goverments ignore the situation [where do you think groups get their stats from ?] they are just not encompassing everybody.

Get yourself in the goverment - vote for groups that work from within.
You are not going to change the system your way because imho Fundementaly it is not a bad system - it just does not work very well.

The main thrust are your arguement is that it is down too one or two factors - that is not true imho.

Well that is true - but immigration is a issue - people having 7 kids is a issue.
People living longer and longer in their old age is a issue

Some companies YES ALL companies ? NO.
Smaller companies would go out of business ''ma and pa'' business will go out of business.

We have the NHS over here so it is slightly different regarding ''FULL health and dental benefits'' -

We have generally 20 days paid holidays -
It depends what firm you work for but I could take 2 days of a month ''sick'' with out being sacked.

There is not much excuse for crime - somebody is always a victim.

I see the problems I always have seen the problems.
The point i'm making is you focus the blame in one or two places - this is just not fair.
My goverment seems to be better than yours - but you have purposely shown me your side of the story [fair enough].
You have given me your means of action [violent].
Is that the only solution ? NO.

See now you are making me think - you are telling me what the issues are and how you feel about them. This is 100% more productive than seeing you out of my window screaming about ''violent action''.