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

[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.

[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.