Dang....you guys are fast & furious with the replies.
If I missed anyone, let me know.
If I missed anyone, let me know.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"A riot is the language of the unheard"
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Here in Wales, there was a group called Meibion Glyndwr which was active in the '80s and '90s. They were classified as terrorists.
They are famed for their arson. During this period, rich English people buying second homes for summertime in Wales drove up the house prices significantly, meaning that local people could no longer afford to buy houses. So groups such as Meibion Glyndwr burnt these houses down, a total of 220 of them over the course of the years. Only property was damaged.
This strikes me as similar.
They based all this, as a point of interest, in the defence of Welsh culture and the Welsh people in the face of what they perceived as settlement of their lands by the English - "every white settler is a target" was one of their mottos. I disagree with this latter sentiment of course, similarly to in analogous situations in the West Bank and Tibet.
Of course they're different. I could do without the condescension in the last line though.
But people do not protest without due cause.
You very much seem to be.
There are plenty of sources on the internet about what ObL said after the attacks.
If he were interested in casualties, there were plenty of better targets. If he wanted to bring down the economy he could have blown up a few Wal-marts and shopping malls on Black Friday. He launched a symbolic attack on USA Imperialism by attacking the symbols instead.
Yes it is. If collateral damage to the aggressors results in fewer deaths among the defenders it is justified. That is the rationale for both Truman and ObL. The difference is that you approve of one and not the other. Most of the human race disagrees with your priorities.
Tom
But only because the riots got them media coverage, and eventually enough people listened to the actual arguments that were being advanced.
Same with race relations here in America--and probably elsewhere.
And, historically, many 'riots' were peaceful protests until police showed up with water cannons and attack dogs and billy clubs with the intent to disperse all those troublemaking women/minorities/etc.
I didn't direct it at you.
You'd know better, of course.
But there are people for whom the shoe fits.
It's an illusion.
I'm just here arguing against violence as effective & ethical.
Is that now to "harangue"?
And this was what I asked about.
(I'm skeptical.)
His "symbolic" attack managed to damage the economy far more than the Wallmart attacks you propose.
The difference, as I've oft stated, is that riots are less effective than peaceful protest.
Furthermore, violent riots sacrifice the rights of innocents in order to satisfy lust for vengeance.
So I say it's wrong.
I've never been in the popular crowd.
Is that your path to truth & justice....to look to what most people believe, even if it's unjust violence?
I prefer not to wear shoes if the opportunity arises.
If you turn it into a general principle like that, ignoring the context, you sound very reasonable. But in this specific context, you are focusing on the means by which oppressed people's frustration is manifested. Doing so is irresponsible, as it doesn't address the root causes, which are very legitimate outrage and frustration at their marginalisation.
I will be blunt. In USA, for the last 8 years, the approval rating of the Congress has been abysmally low, showing that people do not think that they represent their will. If this were the case anywhere else, in Brazil, South Korea or India, there would be a million man protest breaking out every week paralyzing DC till the entire idiotic group would have been thrown out of the office. Instead all Congressional elections have one one of the worst turnouts in the world and even the Presidential elections fare little better. The House and the Senate of the world's oldest democracy does not have
1) Representation of women in any sufficient number whatsoever and has no plans to.
2) Representation of people of color and minorities in sufficient number and no plans to.
3) Representation of people of different immigrant cultures and ethnicities that constitute the nation and has no plans to
4) Representation of people of different economic, educational or professional background and has no plans to. One can talk about Joe the plumber, Jane the grocer and Henry the fisherman, but they do not exist in your Senate or your House made up of nearly entirely of white male Ivy school law graduates and business tycoons.
Just having one person one vote does not make a democracy. What US does not have is a representative democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply living under the illusion that it does. So more protests (with threat of force) the better it will be for this nation.
I offer it as a general principle.
In the context of today's news, the only oppressed people are those attacked by the violent element of the left.
The root cause is their immaturity in handling anger, & their disregard for the rights of others.
But even for people with legitimate grievances, I oppose rioting.
I don't see as bleak a picture as do you.
It's still a democracy, but such things are messy, & I too have my complaints.
I thought you were going to be blunt?
Instead you're quite civil & engaging.
Somehow....I'm being tricked!
So you see no grievances which are causing people to protest? It's just some illusion?
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I don't think rioting is the answer the way it used to be.
In the 60s, how else could you get attention? Now, our social media tools create new and better opportunities for peaceful oppostion. So while the quote may have been true for that time and place, it's no longer true now.
Also, I see "protests" as not being politically effective in themselves. But they are a galvanizing experience for those who attend.
The real constitutional power is the right to "peaceably assemble." This is what happens when those protesters gather, organize, and coalesce into a political block in their neighborhoods and in social media.
A recent example, the Tea Party, gained a lot of political infleuce, not by protesting, but by organizing. They created candidates, raised money, spread the word through social media, and got votes.
More to the OP, maybe it wasn't true then either. Here's a counter example to rioting. When Rosa Parks decided to sit at the front of a bus, touching off a public transit boycott in Montgomery, it was the culmination of nearly a year of planning. Alterrnive carpooling and transportation was already in place to support the boycott, and that's why it was successful. Nothing spontaneous about it
Less rioting. . . More organizing. That's how change happened then, and it's how it happens now.
In the 60s, how else could you get attention? Now, our social media tools create new and better opportunities for peaceful oppostion. So while the quote may have been true for that time and place, it's no longer true now.
Also, I see "protests" as not being politically effective in themselves. But they are a galvanizing experience for those who attend.
The real constitutional power is the right to "peaceably assemble." This is what happens when those protesters gather, organize, and coalesce into a political block in their neighborhoods and in social media.
A recent example, the Tea Party, gained a lot of political infleuce, not by protesting, but by organizing. They created candidates, raised money, spread the word through social media, and got votes.
More to the OP, maybe it wasn't true then either. Here's a counter example to rioting. When Rosa Parks decided to sit at the front of a bus, touching off a public transit boycott in Montgomery, it was the culmination of nearly a year of planning. Alterrnive carpooling and transportation was already in place to support the boycott, and that's why it was successful. Nothing spontaneous about it
Less rioting. . . More organizing. That's how change happened then, and it's how it happens now.
Last edited:
That's not what I referred to as an "illusion".
We all have legitimate reasons to protest something.
That's not the area of disagreement.
I'm objecting to violence against innocent people & windows.
Back in the day, much of the violence at protests was by government.
Like Kent State, gov thugs were the ones to attack without provocation.
Last edited:
I see it as twisting MLK's words to arrive at the generalization. His words were within context of, "It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention."
I hear the question being asked as if whenever one thinks something is (remotely) intolerable, should they riot first, or foremost, because that will make everything okay and/or have them be heard?
I see MLK as saying the side that chose to riot are people he can identify with, even while rioting is not what he would do, foremost.
If really needing to have a debate on this, perhaps we would all be best to define and better understand what "unheard" actually means. And whether those same people have any other recourse to enact change within their world.
Right, but there are reasons this is all happening.
No argument here!
I am not a citizen. It is not appropriate for a guest to criticize the internal affairs of a host.
No, no.....your criticism is most welcome!I am not a citizen. It is not appropriate for a guest to criticize the internal affairs of a host.