 | | Re: May Day "riots" in London —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Bull. Destruction of property has a very valid role in aggressive conflict resolution. It is a key part of disrupting mobility and supply infrastructure. Were I to stage a revolt, careful distruction of property would be the PRIMARY means of (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: May Day "riots" in London —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) never (...) infrastructure. (...) Oh, sorry about this but.... I agree with you. And with Alex. You're talking about armed insurrection and you are as usual, spot on. Alex is talking about law abiding peaceful demonstration and he is right as (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: May Day "riots" in London —Alex Farlie
|
| | | | (...) I happen to agree as well. An armed inssruection against genuine tyranny ,dictatorship or threats to democratic freedom is justisified (cv. Rumaina (c 1990) ,Cezchsolovakia 1968,Hungary 1956 and some actions in South America). But violence (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: May Day "riots" in London —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Is the difference always clear? It seems that Alex isn't talking about law-abiding demonstration at the Cenotaph since laws were broken. (...) You list three specific conditions, one of which must be met for insurrection to be justified. Do (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
