Subject:
|
Re: May Day "riots" in London
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 May 2000 22:17:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alex Farlie writes:
>
> > > Defacing a national monument (The Cenotaph) is not legitamate protest.
>
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but I agree. Defacing or destroying property is • never
> > a valid response.
>
> 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 combat.
>
> (that was entirely too much agreement :-)
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 well.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: May Day "riots" in London
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: May Day "riots" in London
|
| (...) 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
