What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Whether or not violent response would have been more successful - or not - is irrelevant. The position has been taken that peaceful resistance - ala Ghandi - is the "way" to correct such injustices. The facts are simply that guys like the DL have tried - and the failure of such strategies is thus apparent.

If that's your logic then the fact that (defensive) violence also historically fails more often than it succeeds is proof (by your reasoning) that violence is a... "failure strategy" or whatever you're calling it.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

When Ghandi's way does not work and you are still not willing to give up your cause.

Simple, isn't it.

As little violance as possible. As much as needed.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you think Ghandi's way should be tried first? Although, given the wink icon on the quoted post, I can't be sure that it's not some sort of joke which I'm not getting.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The DL and Tianaman's square instances are perfect examples of peaceful strategies that failed utterly.

That isn't saying much if violent approaches would have failed even more
utterly. That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two.

That doesn't seem to be a great argument against peaceful means as opposed
to violent means.

[Aramike]

That isn't saying much if violent approaches would have failed even more
utterly. That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two.

You are no doubt correct. However, you kind of make the point: the BEST POSSIBLE APPROACH is peace and should therefore be attempted first. But, when that approach fails, a violent approach will be neccessary.

These are points that I don't believe anyone is disputing.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You are no doubt correct. However, you kind of make the point: the BEST POSSIBLE APPROACH is peace and should therefore be attempted first. But, when that approach fails, a violent approach will be neccessary.

These are points that I don't believe anyone is disputing.

So you think that there should have been a violent protest after the peaceful
TSq. protest? What would that achieve?
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?

[Skybird]

Peaceful protest is used when there is a chnace for it to succeed. Violant protest is used when peaceful attempts do not or will not work, and the violant approach has a realistic czhnace to succeed.

If there is no chance to succeed, you better do not try this day, and wait for a better one, or turn towards alternative strategies. Sabotage, for example. Espionage. Assassinations. preparing for civil war, whatever.

It is not enough to just have the pieces to launch an attack on the king.l you also mjust be in a position where you can launch an attack, you must have the needed tempi and therefore must consider the right time as well.

In the case of that Chinese protest, asI see it that was an event unfolding due to the protesters allowing to be carried away by emotions, and not using their heads. I think they could have forseen the reqaction by the state. I already thought that back then when we sat at the TV and watching the news. I do not know if they have had sufficient pieces in play, I doubt it. But their timing definitely was a mess, and they did not seem to have a realistic polan for a promisijng combination to topple the king.

By that I do not excuse the massacre, nor do I say the government was right. I just say that the protesters imo were simply somewhat stupid. Lead by well-meant dreams and intentions, courageous - but still stupid. As I see it, they did not have a chance from the very beginning. Not the right position, not the right timing, and not the right composition of material. Maybe they saw somebody else winning at the neighbouring board, and allowed to feel inspired by that. But that it were two completely different matches - this is what escaped their attention, maybe.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you think Ghandi's way should be tried first? Although, given the wink icon on the quoted post, I can't be sure that it's not some sort of joke which I'm not getting.

Sure. Acchieving your goal in a peacefuil way is better than using violance when violance is not needed. But try that peaceful thing only when you assess the situation and come to the conclusion that there is a realistic chance for peaceful strategies to work. Do not try it like you throw a Hail-Mary-pass - then you better wait for a better day. Do not try it just because you are desperate (or feel good).


If you start without assessing the situation, or your conclusion that peaceful ways could work, is wrong, you end up like the Chinese protesters in Bejing.

As I just said above in that analogy to chess, all three factors are important: timing, position, material. Ignore one, and you will likely lose.

[Letum]

SB: You talk as if TSq. wasn't a success.
I would say it's a sizable chink in the Chinese regime's armor to this day.
I think there is little doubt that when reform comes, it will come all the sooner
because of TSq.

[Skybird]

To me the price for that symbolic message has been far too high. The creeping capitalism has caused more change in China, than the massacre. It also has no huge meaning to the inner side of Chinese society, and is made a big thing of only in foreign nations. when the government seals off the square on birthday of the massacre, most Chinse seem to think of that as a natural thing.

I think you overestimate the importance of it. Important for us, in a symbolic way (not preventing us from doing business as usual with them, btw.). but Tibet also is a big issue for us - and none at all for the Chinese society. For them, the Tibetans are just one amongst 60 other local ethnicities threatening the integral structure of the state. Even the Dalai Lama has no relevant meaning for Chinese society. Many even do not know him.

[Letum]

Well, quite. A Pyrrhic sucsess then.

[CaptainHaplo]

I see there are some fortune tellers among us..
Paraphrasing:
"IF violence had been used in protest it would have been worse - so that would have failed even more utterly"

Really? How do we know that? It didn't happen - so we really have no way of knowing now do we? One can take the known facts and theorize, but you don't KNOW for certain, because in any conflict, the smallest factor can change the landscape entirely.

As for "defensive violence" - how do you figure that it is less successful than peaceful protest pitted against violence?

Ok - lets find out. You point out specific historical instances violent force has been overcome with peaceful protest but where violent defensive action has failed. I will do the same on the reverse - showing where violent force has overcome peaceful protest and where a violent defense has been effective. Whoever can show the longest historical trend can be deemed to have proven the point....

Right now - you have one - with Ghandi in India. So thats one point for you....

I have 2 - the Dhali Lama and Tienamens' square. I will throw out a few others while we are at it.

#3. The Taking of Hawaii from the Hawiians - force overcame peace.
#4. The successful Defense of Liberty resulting in Indepedance for the US. Defensive force successful.
#5. French underground restance to Nazi occupation, which assisted in freeing France. Defencsive Force Successful.
#6. The taking of American Indian Land - see items like "The Trail of Tears" and other historical notes where peaceful protests failed to curb aggression and force. Again - violent force overcoming peaceful protest.

I could go on and on - but in the interest of allowing you an opportunity to PROVE your point instead of just blathering on without facts to back it up, I will stop here so you have a chance to catch up on the scoreboard.....

Peace - 1
Violence - 6

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I see there are some fortune tellers among us..
Paraphrasing:
"IF violence had been used in protest it would have been worse - so that would have failed even more utterly"

Really? How do we know that?

Now that's just silly!
Unarmed students trying to be violent towards tanks and the army?
What do you see as the best outcome from that?

Equally daft is trying to claim the better argument by way of citing the
most examples. I can come up with thousands of examples of battles won
with swords and spears, but only a few hundred won with guns. That
doesn't mean swords are better than guns.

Besides, Ghandi wasn't a triumph of peace over force. The British didn't use
much force at all. It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

So you think that there should have been a violent protest after the peaceful
TSq. protest? What would that achieve?
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?

This argument is heavily flawed. When using "better", we've been referring to the morality of an approach, not it's effectiveness. By that argument, yes, peaceful protest is the "best" approach.

But if you want to discuss the effectiveness, there will surely be times when violence would be more likely to be effective.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

Ah. What you say!

Originally Posted by Letum

Now that's just silly!Besides, Ghandi wasn't a triumph of peace over force. The British didn't use
much force at all. It was more a triumph of peace over peace.

A long colonisation such as the one India experienced never comes without the use of significant force. Even if the Brits were good at hiding their violence as 'policing' etc. E.g. the Amritsar-massacre.