The Wolfiad wrote:Souseiseki wrote:the indian Independence movement was marked by mutinies. ghandi preferred non-violent resistance, but had no real problem with those who couldn't handle being beaten without fighting back resisting violently.
after they were arrested for protesting and generally ignored sufragettes eventually planted bombs, smashed windows and set buildings on fire.
the american civil rights movement was filled with groups arming themselves in self-defence. part of the reason it succeeded was non-violent resistance, but also the fear of what would come if non-violent methods were repeatedly rebuked.
as already covered, the ANC murdered civilians repeatedly.
the idea that any group gained their rights by sitting down and playing nice until the powers at be decided to stop oppressing them out of the goodness of their hearts is a myth, one that is not uncoincidentally most often propagated by state powers.
So you support terrorism and think it is justifiable?
do you?
i don't think it's unreasonable to say there are times when violent resistance can be justified. i'm sure you can think of some examples, even if you need to go to the extreme ones. those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. (edit: holy shit that's a jfk quote ahahaha i thought it was mlk or something)



.
I'm not going to get my hopes up to much but I don't think the Torys will really be able to take labours place in Wales or Scotland