Justified Armed Rebellion/Resistance/Insurgency

Originally posted by scherzo
All do, and I would like to add Basque v. Spain.

How about Wales and Scotland, while you're at it? Shouldn't they also be blowing people to bits?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How about Wales and Scotland, while you're at it? Shouldn't they also be blowing people to bits?

Wales and Scotland, I think I mentioned in another thread, but yes, I would support armed liberation movements there too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How can I say what they should or shouldn't have done?

Is the question really that difficult? You seemed to claim that violence is never justified; I gave you a real world example where my claim is that violence was justified. Take a stand.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is the question really that difficult? You seemed to claim that violence is never justified; I gave you a real world example where my claim is that violence was justified. Take a stand.

Tell me how to derive 'ought' from 'is'.

Had I lived then, I'd have made a decision; arguing retrospectively is hardly 'taking a stand'.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Tell me how to derive 'ought' from 'is'.

Had I lived then, I'd have made a decision; arguing retrospectively is hardly 'taking a stand'.

OK, direct question: Is violence ever justified?

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK, direct question: Is violence ever justified?

Outside of sport, in my opinion, no. It's always wrong to kill a person (even in sport, LOL), but sometimes you may have no choice. Whether or not you truly have a choice -- whether you are truly compelled -- is a matter for your conscience to decide.

What would Ghandi say?

Originally posted by FMF
Afghans v U.S. puppet regime

Iraqis v U.S. puppet regime

FMF vs Every reasonable human being in the world.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Outside of sport, in my opinion, no. It's always wrong to kill a person (even in sport, LOL), but sometimes you may have no choice. Whether or not you truly have a choice -- whether you are truly compelled -- is a matter for your conscience to decide.

What would Ghandi say?

Gandhi did not always support nonviolence, actually. If you ask Joseph Telmuchen (sp?), he'll wail at you that Gandhi was anti-Semitic. In truth, he advocated Palestinian armed struggle against Zionism. He was just a Hindu; he was slightly sexist and masculine; although he did generally advocate anti-imperialism, he ignored the plight of Africans in South Africa and in India ... better in some ways (ie Palestine) than the media paints him; but worse (ie blacks) in others.

Just wanted to throw that one out.

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK, direct question: Is violence ever justified?

Yes.

WWII was an example.

Originally posted by generalissimo
FMF vs Every reasonable human being in the world.

scherzo v. generalissimo, DSR, Bosse, Scriabin, The Dude 84, Redmike

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Outside of sport, in my opinion, no. It's always wrong to kill a person (even in sport, LOL), but sometimes you may have no choice. Whether or not you truly have a choice -- whether you are truly compelled -- is a matter for your conscience to decide.

What would Ghandi say?

What would Ghandi say?

Ghandi was shot, but Indians got what they wanted in the end, however there is a difference between colonial wars and wars between countries.

Originally posted by scherzo
Gandhi did not always support nonviolence, actually. If you ask Joseph Telmuchen (sp?), he'll wail at you that Gandhi was anti-Semitic. In truth, he advocated Palestinian armed struggle against Zionism. He was just a Hindu; he was slightly sexist and masculine; although he did generally advocate anti-imperialism, he ignored the plight of Africans in South Af ...[text shortened]... an the media paints him; but worse (ie blacks) in others.

Just wanted to throw that one out.

Here's something that Ghandi actually said:
http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/Ghandi.html

If you can show me how that equates with advocating Palestinian armed struggle, I'll bow.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Here's something that Ghandi actually said:
http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/Ghandi.html

If you can show me how that equates with advocating Palestinian armed struggle, I'll bow.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

Originally posted by scherzo
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

I don't see anything along the lines of 'Palestinians are justified in shooting Jews'. I mean, India belongs to the Indians, but Ghandi advocated non-violence as the best means to achieve that. Get it?