RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable?

RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Philo,are you referring to the formation of the Irish Republic or to more recent events? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader) ...i was thinking of more recent events, and was therefore wrong in that regard. However, you were wrong in naming England as the country Eire took independence from and i still take issue with the phrase 'point of the gun'. How else would you characterise Collin's war of terror,except at the point of a gun?

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:25:25 PM)
For all who jumped at my Characterization of Michael Collins and the IRA as terrorist's ,I apologise if it was taken as an insult.I assure you it was not meant that way.Though the IRA that achieved the Irish Republic was most certainly a terrorist organization. Bankrolled by robberies ,money raised abroad(chiefly in America) no standing Army to speak of.Terror as its chief weapon ...How else would one chracterize it....Finally a question....name me the first organisation to make use of the car bomb as a means of war?

Vendaval -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:25:26 PM)
I would say that armed rebellion is a last resort when all other methods available have failed. Peaceful protests, elections, negotiations, arbitration by a neutral third party are all better ways to create change. Armed rebellions inevitably involve civilian casualties and the destruction of property and people's livelihood.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:35:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darias the part i disagree with mike is that it was terrorism ...and heres why Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. not even the British history books will state outright that Collins and his * flying columns * targeted non combatants ... for the simple reason that there were none ... Collins operated mainly in Ireland not the UK as the current IRA have ... his targets were occupying forces not people because for the most part the people in Ireland were Irish there are quite a few books and even more websites on Collins and the original IRA . Id suggest making sure the distinction between the Original freedom fighters and the current terrorists be kept clear And again Darias,I will apologise for calling Collins a trerrorist...though by the definition of his days ...he was.Now of course terrorists seek to maximize civilian deaths so as to spread terror amongst the populace.In Collins we see the goal was to sread terror amongst the agents of occupation.Question,was Collins the head of an army by any loosly defined definition..Of course not..He headed an organazation who's sole purpose was to sow terror amongst the occupier.Hit and run, death possible anywhere anytime.Make the occupation so costly as to bring Churchill to the table ...that is terror ,plain and simple.

philosophy -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:40:46 PM)
...you're wrong. Terrorism, by all accepted definitions, disregards the safety of civilians. Collins sought to minimise civilian casualties.....ergo he wasn't a terrorist. Calling him a terrorist is an insult to his work. The IRA terrorists that bombed civilians, both British and Irish, in later years was not what Collins wanted or supported.

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:48:30 PM)
Do you think Churchill would agree with you Philo,I believe what we are arguing about is semantics and the definition of terrorist as defined by todays standard.Question were the Jews in Palestine who fought the British and the local Arabs...trying to carve out a Nation ....terrorists or not?

Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 1:53:31 PM)
quote: original: Thomas Jefferson "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." One of my favorite quotes EVER. " ... what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned ..." Wow! The question becomes (for me): How strong a warning do our leaders need? Well, some are sicker than others and some are thicker than others. The trouble is (the way I see it) our ire is ofetn mis-directed. Unless the POTUS has used an executive order, CONGRESS makes laws. Yet, people keep re-electing congressmen and senators almost entirely based upon name recognition, it seems. How many "crooks" do we complain about that seem to keep getting re-elected? The populace should ALWAYS have revolution as an option that's open to them. That's what Jefferson (and the other signatories, by virtue of their signatures) wanted.

Darias -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:00:43 PM)
I hesitate to post this seeing as the thought stems from a mel gibson movie but.... did the American militia fighting for independence all restrict their actions to field battles? or were hit and run tactics involved? does it count as terrorism if a occupied country's militia attack the supply convoys rather than the main armed brigades? does killing military commanders first count as terrorism?? to be honest mike i was and still am a tad pissed off that to you micheal collins is a terrorist when during your countrys war of independance many of his tactics were used... and used by You guys first... what is faced in the north of ireland... what was faced on 9/11 ... what american soliders in the mid east face is terrorism.... what collins did for this country was not. like any good military commander he worked with what he had. using his forces in a way that provided him with all the advantages while depriving the enemy of any advantage. had he met them face to face on some open field with all the ment he had he would have been slaughtered as happened the morning the 1916 rising began at the GPO

Musicmystery -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:12:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 quote: original: Thomas Jefferson "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." One of my favorite quotes EVER. " ... what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned ..." Wow! The question becomes (for me): How strong a warning do our leaders need? Well, some are sicker than others and some are thicker than others. The trouble is (the way I see it) our ire is ofetn mis-directed. Unless the POTUS has used an executive order, CONGRESS makes laws. Yet, people keep re-electing congressmen and senators almost entirely based upon name recognition, it seems. How many "crooks" do we complain about that seem to keep getting re-elected? The populace should ALWAYS have revolution as an option that's open to them. That's what Jefferson (and the other signatories, by virtue of their signatures) wanted. quote: POTUS As you've just described the voters as stupid, what makes you think arming them is a better idea?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:15:31 PM)
All I know is that according to UK law people that put their bins out too early are terrorists equally Iceland is a terrorist state and part of the axis of evil. If someone thinks it correct to take direct action to make a point they should do so but they must believe in the point they are making to the extent that they accept unlimited personal sacrifice if caught. Thus the time to make the stand is when you have more to lose by not making the stand. I believe in democracy but some issues that minorities care about will never be dealt with that way. Also violence doesn't ever win sympathy for a cause, there are other disruptive ways to make a point.

meatcleaver -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Do you think Churchill would agree with you Philo,I believe what we are arguing about is semantics and the definition of terrorist as defined by todays standard.Question were the Jews in Palestine who fought the British and the local Arabs...trying to carve out a Nation ....terrorists or not? http://unitedirelander.blogspot.com/2006/01/thursday-thoughts-churchill-and.html This is not a British view. Churchill was never so happy as having a ruck, it was only Hitler that saved him from being one of the most despised politicians in Britain, never mind Ireland but he was something of a united Irelander.

Arpig -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:43:33 PM)
quote: The two biggest losses to the British Empire, those of America and Ireland Forgetting about India perhaps?

slvemike4u -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:47:26 PM)
Point of fact Darias the Founding Fathers were traitors long before they became Patriots.The signing of the Declaration of Independence could have just as easily led to the gallows as to immortality.BTW,I have taken Collins to a new thread so as not to hijack this one further.

Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 quote: original: Thomas Jefferson "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." One of my favorite quotes EVER. " ... what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned ..." Wow! The question becomes (for me): How strong a warning do our leaders need? Well, some are sicker than others and some are thicker than others. The trouble is (the way I see it) our ire is ofetn mis-directed. Unless the POTUS has used an executive order, CONGRESS makes laws. Yet, people keep re-electing congressmen and senators almost entirely based upon name recognition, it seems. How many "crooks" do we complain about that seem to keep getting re-elected? The populace should ALWAYS have revolution as an option that's open to them. That's what Jefferson (and the other signatories, by virtue of their signatures) wanted. quote: POTUS As you've just described the voters as stupid, what makes you think arming them is a better idea? If you're interpreting my use of "POTUS" as a slander on the American voters, get a grip. It stands for: [P]resident [O]f [T]he [U]nited [S]tates. If that's not what you're refering to then, I have to say: What the blue hell are you talking about?

Musicmystery -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 2:58:10 PM)
quote: If that's not what you're refering to then, I have to say: What the blue hell are you talking about? Here: quote: Yet, people keep re-electing congressmen and senators almost entirely based upon name recognition, it seems. The populace should ALWAYS have revolution as an option that's open to them. Hence: quote: As you've just described the voters as stupid, what makes you think arming them is a better idea?

jlf1961 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 3:00:23 PM)
First of all, anyone who suggests that taking the guns from civilians is a good idea might wish to look again at the quote from Thomas Jefferson. Secondly, the present British government is a child of rebellion, or has everyone forgotten Cromwell? Everything from Cromwell to 1689 when a constitutional monarchy was established was the result of one rebellion after another. As for when a rebellion is justified, the answer is simple and straight forward. When the government stops serving the people and serves itself, rebellion is the just and proper act of those oppressed.

Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 3:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: If that's not what you're refering to then, I have to say: What the blue hell are you talking about? Here: quote: Yet, people keep re-electing congressmen and senators almost entirely based upon name recognition, it seems. Now, I sort of get it. I have to say, though that equating fire-arm safety with apathy are two entirely different things. There are plenty of people I would trust with a weapon that I would not even bother to have a political discussion with because they are either too lazy or too apathetic to educate themselves about the subject.

XNakisisaX -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 3:02:53 PM)
It's always justifiable just as it was equally justifiable to oppress another people. Control by any means necessary should be equalized by freedom by the same means.

Musicmystery -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 3:04:40 PM)
quote: Now, I sort of get it. I have to say, though that equating fire-arm safety with apathy are two entirely different things. There are plenty of people I would trust with a weapon that I would not even bother to have a political discussion with because they are either too lazy or too apathetic to educate themselves about the subject. I agree with you there, Michael. That's why I baulk at the sweeping idea that all we have to do is allow armed rebellion and all is well.

Satyr6406 -> RE: When is rebellion justifiable, or is it never justifiable? (11/16/2008 3:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I agree with you there, Michael. That's why I baulk at the sweeping idea that all have to allow armed rebellion and all is well. I believe that (the Jefferson quote illustrates) the threat of armed revolution should always be real. Governments will almost always degrade into bureaucracies and tyrannies. If you dis-arm the populace, the threat of revolution is no longer realistic and that makes leaders feel infallible and undefeatable (By the way "dis-arm" there also includes arming them so poorly as to not be a threat).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875