|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 23, 2009, 14:21
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Well, it's probably a good idea to have someone out there ready to throw some bricks when the sit-ins don't work. Doesn't that contradict your statement that 'collective rage is unfocused' and your subsequent stuff opposing such things? handofdave wrote: I'll tell you a funny story, tho.. My parents wouldn't let me or my siblings have toy weapons either. A friend of my mum's gave her a serious talking to, saying that if we didn't have them we wouldn't 'get it all out of our system' while we were kids and would develop great cravings for guns and knives as adults. Which is why we've all become serial killers. Oh no, hang on a minute...
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jan 23, 2009, 14:51
Jan 23, 2009, 14:51
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: handofdave wrote: Well, it's probably a good idea to have someone out there ready to throw some bricks when the sit-ins don't work. Doesn't that contradict your statement that 'collective rage is unfocused' and your subsequent stuff opposing such things? No, I'm just saying that violence ought to be reserved for when all else fails. And if violence is absolutely unavoidable, it's got to be strategically employed if it's to be successful in achieving what it sets out to achieve. People rushing around without a head breaking things... I'm not dismissing that the anger is justified, I'm saying that the anger, if channeled with clarity, helps to both preserve the integrity of the movement and the respect of those outside it who's support may hinge on how they perceive the movement.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 23, 2009, 14:56
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: People rushing around without a head breaking things... I'm not dismissing that the anger is justified, I'm saying that the anger, if channeled with clarity, helps to both preserve the integrity of the movement and the respect of those outside it who's support may hinge on how they perceive the movement. People don't have that clarity at the time. They may look back and say damn, what on earth was I thinking after the event, so ? Yes, non violence is preferable, but you have to understand why it arises sometime and seriously, you shouldn't be arguing to condemn it out of hand entirely. Increasingly in these times non violent protest is becoming less and less sucessful, as a direct result of that people are becoming more isolated and more prone to violence as non-violent outlets for protest are becoming more ignored.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 23, 2009, 15:28
|
||
|
stray wrote: handofdave wrote: People rushing around without a head breaking things... I'm not dismissing that the anger is justified, I'm saying that the anger, if channeled with clarity, helps to both preserve the integrity of the movement and the respect of those outside it who's support may hinge on how they perceive the movement. People don't have that clarity at the time. They may look back and say damn, what on earth was I thinking after the event, so ? Yes, non violence is preferable, but you have to understand why it arises sometime and seriously, you shouldn't be arguing to condemn it out of hand entirely. Increasingly in these times non violent protest is becoming less and less sucessful, as a direct result of that people are becoming more isolated and more prone to violence as non-violent outlets for protest are becoming more ignored. That's a pretty depressing analysis. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I condemn how unfocused riots burn down neighborhoods and drive businesses away, bringing further pain to the very people who live there. I'm not condemning the rioters very human need to rage out... I'm saying that too often riots don't hurt the people they intend to hurt, but blow back upon the people who are being oppressed. I don't know if there's much point to embracing violence if a movement is so isolated and fragmented it can't get it together enough to become a cohesive, effective force, tho. Jumping threads a bit here, take the Palestinians as an example. Right now Hamas is declaring victory, but I don't know what that means in the context of so much destruction and death. They've not only taken massive damage (and inflicted almost none) with their random rocket attacks, but they still remain alone and at odds with the other Palestinian political groups. It's an odd definition of victory, to be sitting in rubble with few real friends in the world. Now that is isolation. Certainly, Hamas was not ignored, but the sort of attention they've drawn upon themselves remains in question if measured according to what they set out to achieve and what was achieved. They certainly are no closer to exterminating the state of Israel or gaining more freedom for their civilian population.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 23, 2009, 16:15
Jan 23, 2009, 15:56
|
||
|
You're dealing with three things here I think. handofdave wrote: That's a pretty depressing analysis. Yes, it really is. But I think most people who have been involved in direct protest share it unfortunately. handofdave wrote: Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I condemn how unfocused riots burn down neighborhoods and drive businesses away, bringing further pain to the very people who live there. I'm not condemning the rioters very human need to rage out... I'm saying that too often riots don't hurt the people they intend to hurt, but blow back upon the people who are being oppressed. Indeed. In fact, its usually their own communites as you point out. However, the way it should be seen is, imo, as look at how desperate they are, why ? Nothing screams I'm backed into a corner and completely without hope than destroying your own home, or lashing out at (as you say) innocent businesses. Condemn is not a word that should be used. As I tried to say before , the main reason why buildings etc get harmed in riots is directly because the Police have forced the protestors into those areas and trapped them, they're looking for an escape route. Edit : done it myself with a McDonalds, out through the back of the kitchens. Meh, anyway, McDonalds is fair game innit ? ;) handofdave wrote: I don't know if there's much point to embracing violence if a movement is so isolated and fragmented it can't get it together enough to become a cohesive, effective force, tho. I'd agree on the whole, this is also why terrorist groups form, they don't pop out of vaccums. The isolation and sense of futility creates these movements, if you want to blame something blame the system or the powers that have forced them to these extremes. More accurately blame the fact that they feel voiceless in any other arena than being violent. handofdave wrote: Certainly, Hamas was not ignored, but the sort of attention they've drawn upon themselves remains in question if measured according to what they set out to achieve and what was achieved. They certainly are no closer to exterminating the state of Israel or gaining more freedom for their civilian population. Oh this is a very different issue. This is about showing the rest of the world how evil, how oppressive and the extremes that your opposition is willing to go to against you, publicly. This has been an arguably valid tactic for many years by all sorts of movements. The idea is that it serves as a wake up call, showing directly your possible supporters in the world how bad the enemy is.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jan 23, 2009, 18:57
Jan 23, 2009, 18:56
|
||
|
stray wrote: handofdave wrote: Certainly, Hamas was not ignored, but the sort of attention they've drawn upon themselves remains in question if measured according to what they set out to achieve and what was achieved. They certainly are no closer to exterminating the state of Israel or gaining more freedom for their civilian population. Oh this is a very different issue. This is about showing the rest of the world how evil, how oppressive and the extremes that your opposition is willing to go to against you, publicly. This has been an arguably valid tactic for many years by all sorts of movements. The idea is that it serves as a wake up call, showing directly your possible supporters in the world how bad the enemy is. I dunno.. the tactics of staying non violent in the face of violence (Indian independence from Imperial British rule, the Civil Rights movement under MLK) certainly did help turn world opinion against the status quo. I don't know if the opposite is working so well with Hamas. I certainly agree that Israel is a tyrannical state, as they've demonstrated time and time again in their relentless disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. But the tactics used against Israel tend to turn off many who might otherwise be much more sympathetic, and willing to put more pressure on Israel. Suicide bombings and missile attacks may be the only asymmetric options for them, but at a very great cost, and at the risk of alienating world opinion. It's possible that with a new US administration there will be a renewed effort to get the peace talks going again. Bush was completely indifferent to anything related to real diplomacy. Perhaps (not holding my breath) we'll see some real progress, finally, now that no.43 has slunk back to Texas.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jan 23, 2009, 21:02
|
||
|
stray wrote: Increasingly in these times non violent protest is becoming less and less sucessful, as a direct result of that people are becoming more isolated and more prone to violence as non-violent outlets for protest are becoming more ignored. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 23, 2009, 22:38
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: But the tactics used against Israel tend to turn off many who might otherwise be much more sympathetic, and willing to put more pressure on Israel. Suicide bombings and missile attacks may be the only asymmetric options for them, but at a very great cost, and at the risk of alienating world opinion. It's peculiar that world opinion doesn't really move against Israel until something like the current attacks. Really, what's the difference between an Israeli helicopter firing missiles into Palestine and a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a bus in Israel? Yet the media and much of the world sees one as legitimate defence (of occupied lands!) and the other as a terrorist outage. I suspect some of it comes from the Western individualist way of thinking; we cannot engage with deliberate self-sacrifice, so we are mesmerised by things like kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers. I wonder, if Palestine had the helicopter gunships and Israel relied on cack rockets and suicide bombers, how different would things be?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jan 24, 2009, 01:32
Jan 23, 2009, 23:06
|
||
|
I want to see peace in the Middle East in my lifetime. In the two-plus-odd decades that I've actually paid attention to the conflict, I've noticed that the Palestinians just keep losing ground, but increasingly so as the tactics get more violent. I don't wish this on them. I don't wish for the destruction of Israel either. Here's what it really comes down to for me: I refuse to align myself with the Israeli nationalists OR the Palestinians who cling to the goal of total destruction of that state. I cannot sympathize with either camp, no matter how brutal it gets. Should I? Is this really an either-or choice? There are plenty of conflicts in the world that are painfully complicated by the fact that few that are directly involved are innocent. Legitimate struggles are quickly co-opted by gangsterism. Hatred and violence are perpetuated by factions that profit from the continuation of the violence. Ideologues commandeer and twist humanitarian goals to their own ends. I just want to stop reading about carnage. We all do. EDIT: this arrived in my mail today... Dear Friend, Shministim. Have you heard of them? I have – just now. And once I heard about them, I had to do something. The Shministim – all about ages 16, 17, 18 and in the 12th grade – are a new breed of conscientious objectors in Israel and right now they are taking a stand. They believe in a better, more peaceful future for themselves and for Israelis and Palestinians, and they are refusing to join the Israeli army. They're in jail, holding strong against immense pressure from family, friends and the Israeli government. They need our support and they need it today. The Shministim have asked Jewish Voice for Peace to reach out to people like us to let the Israeli government know we are watching, and that we support their courage. They're hoping to receive hundreds of thousands of postcards to be delivered to the Israeli Minister of Defense. Especially now-while bombs rain down on Gaza and we are reminded that when the soldiers say no, there will be no more deaths. The Shministim are hoping to stand strong representing not only the thousands of refuseniks who came before them, not only the many young people to whom they are an example of a better world, but also to represent us. They have asked you, me, and every person who strives for peace to support them. I will. Will you join me? It’s simple. Sign a letter. Click here: http://www.december18th.org/
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 24, 2009, 00:56
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: I wonder, if Palestine had the helicopter gunships and Israel relied on cack rockets and suicide bombers, how different would things be? Heh, nicely put. I too have these fantasies sometimes, and play them out in RTS games (sad bitter nerd that I am). I think the answer depends on if Israel still gets to keep it's large lobbying group in the US.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
