Do these groups have justification to armed rebellion against their oppressors?
Native Americans vs the governments of any or all of the American governments (USA, Canada, Mexico, El Salvador, Chile, etc)
Irish vs North Irish?
Palestinians vs Israel?
Kurds vs Turkey?
Blacks vs USA?
People of Mexican descent in southern US?
Quebec vs Canada?
Arabs vs Coalition in Iraq? How about foreign Arabs or Muslims?
"Moors" vs Spain?
Etc...add your own.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know that violence -- state or anti-state -- is ever justified. Usually these things happen because the people involved can't or won't find a peaceful solution. It's a question of ability and will -- on both sides, especially the more powerful. But by the time a rebellion breaks out, it's usually too late to debate the ethics of killing for the sake of freedom.
Do these groups have justification to armed rebellion against their oppressors?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSurely when the laws of a country or international law fail any person, they have no other means but to use aggression?
Do these groups have justification to armed rebellion against their oppressors?
Native Americans vs the governments of any or all of the American governments (USA, Canada, Mexico, El Salvador, Chile, etc)
Irish vs North Irish?
Palestinians vs Israel?
Kurds vs Turkey?
Blacks vs USA?
People of Mexican descent in southern US?
Quebec ...[text shortened]... ition in Iraq? How about foreign Arabs or Muslims?
"Moors" vs Spain?
Etc...add your own.
It's always amusing that States tend to think that they can use violence and nobody else can.