Cedoria wrote:Scomagia wrote:That wouldn't be assault, sugar.
Neither was Ngo. Assault implies an innocent victim and a belligerent perp. Neither one really fits the context (yes, that nasty word that makes your simplistic jargon so wrong again) of what was going on.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, context matters. To say political violence is uniformly wrong anywhere and at any time is self-evidently untrue, as you've now acknowledged.
Cedoria wrote:Scomagia wrote:So, the violence against him was justified? You're using a lot of words that imply that's your meaning.
Justified is a hard word. From what I know of the case, necessary is probably accurate. But it's a judgement call made by someone who was not present and heard the case only second-handedly. But yes, someone arranging to injure or kill their political opponents is probably a valid target for direct action in self or collective defence. It's hardly as though he were an innocent bystander as you were claiming a few pages ago. Far from it. But at least you're off that stupid train now.
Calling an assault "justified" or "necessary" seems like trolling. I can't imagine someone saying that the murder in Charlottesville was justified or needed would be tolerated for a moment.