100 homicidal home invasions

[Blind groper]

According to Matt Ridley, over the past 50 years or so, peaceful means have been ten times as successful at overcoming oppressive governments, as armed rebellion. This is not some off the cuff figure. It is the result of a careful academic study in which results are quantified carefully. As I pointed out, Myanmar citizens did not have guns, but they have peacefully got through an election, in which the military junta has lost power.

Nelson Mandela did not use guns, but he overcame apartheid. Mahatma Gandhi did not use guns, but he overcame what was the most powerful empire on the planet to get self rule for India.

The Pol Pot tragedy could not have been stopped by either strategy, but it is rather likely that armed opposition would have made things worse.

Even in China, things have improved dramatically as a result of peaceful means. The evil Mao ze Dong is dead and his successors have taken note of the needs of the people, and have created a much better society, and one that continues to improve.

Where there is serious armed opposition, like Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Palestine, things just get worse.

[Seth]

According to Matt Ridley, over the past 50 years or so, peaceful means have been ten times as successful at overcoming oppressive governments, as armed rebellion. This is not some off the cuff figure. It is the result of a careful academic study in which results are quantified carefully. As I pointed out, Myanmar citizens did not have guns, but they have peacefully got through an election, in which the military junta has lost power.

Glad to hear it. I'm all for peaceful, non-violent means of preventing and overthrowing tyranny.

Nelson Mandela did not use guns, but he overcame apartheid. Mahatma Gandhi did not use guns, but he overcame what was the most powerful empire on the planet to get self rule for India.

Good for them. I certainly hope that's always the case. But when and if it's not, like Stalin, Mao, Guevara, Castro, Mugbawe and others, and the time for armed resistance arrives, unlike you, we are prepared and equipped to take up arms to defend liberty and freedom. You get to die as a martyr for non-violence. Your choice though.

The Pol Pot tragedy could not have been stopped by either strategy, but it is rather likely that armed opposition would have made things worse.

Nobody will ever know if Pol Pot could have been stopped dead in his tracks...quite literally...by an armed populace because the populace of Cambodia was not armed.

Even in China, things have improved dramatically as a result of peaceful means. The evil Mao ze Dong is dead and his successors have taken note of the needs of the people, and have created a much better society, and one that continues to improve.

At the cost of at least 100 million lives snuffed out by Mao and his henchmen. I don't call that "dramatically improved" I call that genocide and tyranny made manifest. That the Chinese Communists regime has "improved dramatically" merely proves that if you kill all the dissenters you have no dissent to impede your tyrannical and genocidal programs. I would not call anything in China "improved" much less "dramatically improved" because there is zero liberty and zero individual freedom. Any appearance of individual freedom is nothing more than a sham allowed by the Communist government in their complex and machiavellian plan for world Communist domination. Chinese businesses trading with the west do so only because the Communist government lets them do so in order to get money to fund their imperialistic Communistic objectives, and when a businessperson fucks with the plan, he and his company will disappear literally overnight.

You see, that's what's called "Liberal Fascism," as well described by Jonah Goldberg in his book of the same name. What the Communists learned is that they can put pretty face-paint on their culture (In Japan it's "kabuki") and pretend to cooperate while sucking wealth out of their trading partners (did you know China was the largest purchaser of government bonds?) to benefit their military industrial complex and gain control over businesses and companies in other countries, but not with the goal of either democratization of China or respect for the rights of individuals, but merely to gain both economic and military superiority so that eventually Chinese Communism can explode onto the scene just like Hitler's Third Reich did during the blitzkrieg through Poland and the rest of Europe, and take over the planet in one fell swoop.

So no, you're naively wrong.

Where there is serious armed opposition, like Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Palestine, things just get worse.

Until they get better.

[Tero]

Oh great. Now pastors and wives need to be armed. First schools and shopping malls and colleges. Now pastors and churches. Merika for ya.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/indianapolis-p ... d=35145807

[Seth]

Oh great. Now pastors and wives need to be armed. First schools and shopping malls and colleges. Now pastors and churches. Merika for ya.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/indianapolis-p ... d=35145807

Yup, deranged people and terrorists exist everywhere, even in churches, thus the need for all citizens to provide for their own security.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your figure for the people Mao killed is inaccurate. No one actually knows, but estimates range from 30 to 80 million. Not 100 million. The most likely figure is half what you stated.

You also said that armed rebellion makes things worse till they get better. Not exactly something anyone can argue with, by definition. But it may take a hell of a long time before things get better!

And things get better only when the guns are laid aside and peaceful negotiation begins. The Palestinian conflict goes on 70 years later due to a lack of such meaningful negotiation.

The IRA kept killing people for many decades, until they were persuaded to negotiate. Afghanistan has been in some form of war for 30 years. Syria has seen half a million dead, due to the fact that people took up arms instead of peaceful means.

One of the problems of armed resistance is that the goals of the resistance movement change, often to something totally wrong. Like ISIS becoming a terrorist group fighting
Inside and outside Syria as an Islamic extremist group instead of trying for Syrian liberation. Like the leader of the resistance movement deciding he wants to be the new dictator.

We have seen this numerous times in African uprisings. The armed rebellion becomes a lose/lose event for the people.

If the USA developed an oppressive government (which would require a compliant armed forces - unlikely!), and a bunch of moronic survivalists took their gear and headed to the hills and forests to fight back, we would see suffering escalating massively. We would see megadeaths. We would see the collapse of the American economy with the economic suffering that brings. We would see disease, hunger, and human misery. We would see the survivalists dying in numbers, and the survivors living like starving animals.

Whereas a campaign of peaceful nature should return to USA to 'normal' within a few years with a fraction of the harm done.

Recent history shows that peaceful opposition to oppressive governments achieves better results, without the terrible harm of a protracted guerilla war.

[Seth]

Seth

Your figure for the people Mao killed is inaccurate. No one actually knows, but estimates range from 30 to 80 million. Not 100 million. The most likely figure is half what you stated.

I'm not going to quibble over such things. Between Stalin (and his successors), Mao and Pol Pot alone the toll is in the range of 100 million lives taken by Marxism. It's good to see you finally admit that Marxism has killed tens of millions of people however.

You also said that armed rebellion makes things worse till they get better. Not exactly something anyone can argue with, by definition. But it may take a hell of a long time before things get better!

Indeed. The people of Cuba have been suffering under Castro-style Marxism for half a century. That does not mean that one solution to Marxist oppression is not armed rebellion, as in point of fact Cuba graphically demonstrates.

And things get better only when the guns are laid aside and peaceful negotiation begins.

Or the despot and his minions are dead, as in the case of Hitler.

The Palestinian conflict goes on 70 years later due to a lack of such meaningful negotiation.

That's because the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" don't want the conflict to end and have been fomenting the conflict for 70 years and have no intention or interest in negotiating anything at all with the Jews of Israel except perhaps their placement into Hitleresque ovens... or perhaps a nuclear fireball. The "Palestinians" could have peace at their will. But they do not want peace, they want war ending in total annihilation of Israel and the death of every Jew on the face of the earth. So fuck them, they deserve whatever Israel or anyone else wants to dish out to them.

The IRA kept killing people for many decades, until they were persuaded to negotiate.

True, but not a universal truth.

Afghanistan has been in some form of war for 30 years.

Afghanistan has been at war since Alexander the Great showed up, and it's that way because Afghans are armed and have resolved not to negotiate with anyone over their right to their own nation. Had they NOT been armed, Afghanistan would today be a Soviet satellite state.

Syria has seen half a million dead, due to the fact that people took up arms instead of peaceful means.

You can blame the tyrant Assad for that, for it is he who abused the people of Syria beyond their ability to tolerate it and it is he who refused to step down when he was ordered to do so by the Syrian people. Assad is a quintessential despotic tyrant who kills his own people using the arms he has (the military) after disarming the populace. The arms that are in Syria today did not reside in the hands of the Syrian people, they were imported there by outside interests and only the select few of the various militias even have arms. The general population of Syria remains unarmed and therefore helpless to resist either Assad or ISIS or anybody else. They just die by the tens of thousands because they are unarmed.

One of the problems of armed resistance is that the goals of the resistance movement change, often to something totally wrong. Like ISIS becoming a terrorist group fighting
Inside and outside Syria as an Islamic extremist group instead of trying for Syrian liberation. Like the leader of the resistance movement deciding he wants to be the new dictator.

We have seen this numerous times in African uprisings. The armed rebellion becomes a lose/lose event for the people.

Yes, sometimes that happens, but you cannot negotiate with tyrannical despots intent on preserving their power at all costs, even if it means utterly destroying their own country and its people, as in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. All you can do to solve the problem is kill the tyrant and his minions, and you can't do that without arms.

If the USA developed an oppressive government (which would require a compliant armed forces - unlikely!), and a bunch of moronic survivalists took their gear and headed to the hills and forests to fight back, we would see suffering escalating massively. We would see megadeaths. We would see the collapse of the American economy with the economic suffering that brings. We would see disease, hunger, and human misery. We would see the survivalists dying in numbers, and the survivors living like starving animals.

Or, we would see 300 million armed citizens rise up and overwhelm the oppressive government and restore the Constitution and peace.

Whereas a campaign of peaceful nature should return to USA to 'normal' within a few years with a fraction of the harm done.

The Jews of Bergen-Belsen and other concentration camps would likely beg to differ.

Recent history shows that peaceful opposition to oppressive governments achieves better results, without the terrible harm of a protracted guerilla war.

Which is all fine and good...until it isn't, as in Syria and Zimbabwe today.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

A few points.

1. Cuba.
The primary reason Castro was not overthrown by either peaceful means or taking up arms was simply that the people did not wish to. This was doubtless due to propaganda from Castro, but nevertheless does not illustrate any superiority of either peaceful or armed rebellions. The same applies to China and North Korea. If the people do not have the desire to rebel, it aint gonna happen.

2. China. The deaths in China were not a result of Marxism or oppression. Instead, they were the result of plain downright stupidity. Mao got an idiotic idea in his head and had to carry it through. The people did not oppose the idea, and the result was mega tragedy.

3. Syria.
I agree with you that Assad is an evil bastard. However, that was not the question. The question was whether peaceful or armed opposition was best. In tis case, armed oppositon led to 500,000 people dying (with more to come).

4. Palestine.
The problem here is not Palestinian intransigence, but Israeli. If what happened in Palestine had happened in the USA, you would be as fierce as the Palestinians. They had their land and their homes stolen off them with no compensation. Before WWII, and for 1500 years before that, the land belonged to the Arabic people who call themselves Palestinians. With aid of the USA and Britain, and their guns, the land was simply taken off them for no payment, and given to Jewish people, who then became the Israelis. The Palestinians have been fighting back.

What is needed is a real willingness on the part of the Israelis to compromise, and give the Palestinian people a sovereign, independent homeland, which is well within their power. In other words, negotiation. The problem is that neither side will stop the fighting long enough. Armed rebellion means tragedy.

5. You said that you cannot negotiate with tyrants.
Bullshit!!!!
It has been done many times. Look at Myanmar today. Near to where I live is the island nation of Fiji. For a number of years it was run by an army Colonel (Bainimarama) who was a tyrant. He is now prime minister, as a result of a negotiation that led to a general election and democracy. Idi Amin was persuaded to retire to Saudi Arabia (with lots of money). The list goes on.

6. You said in the USA 300 million people would rise.
Again, bullshit!!!
It has never happened before and it would not happen there. People are people and most have other concerns, like looking after their families and not putting them at risk. An armed uprising in the USA would lead to a long, protracted, and tragic conflict.

In sort, Seth, to deal with an oppressive government, peaceful means are much, much better. Not perfect, of course, but nothing is perfect. These things take time, but so does a tragic and bloody uprising war. Recent history, beginning with Mahatma Gandhi, shows what can be acieved without bloodshed.

[Seth]

To Seth

A few points.

1. Cuba.
The primary reason Castro was not overthrown by either peaceful means or taking up arms was simply that the people did not wish to. This was doubtless due to propaganda from Castro, but nevertheless does not illustrate any superiority of either peaceful or armed rebellions. The same applies to China and North Korea. If the people do not have the desire to rebel, it aint gonna happen.

That, of course is complete horseshit. The reason that "the people did not wish to" is because those who expressed a desire for freedom and non-Marxist democracy were taken out and shot in the face by people like Che Guevara and buried in shallow graves. This persuaded those who "wished" to be free to keep their yaps shut for the last 50 years or so because they knew full well their fate would be exactly the same if they opened their mouths to protest. Why the FUCK do you think tens of thousands of Cubans, in the years since Castro took power, have risked everything including their children's lives (and very often failed) to ESCAPE Cuba. Don't be a history dolt BG, do some actual historical research before you bloviate about things you do not understand.

2. China. The deaths in China were not a result of Marxism or oppression. Instead, they were the result of plain downright stupidity. Mao got an idiotic idea in his head and had to carry it through. The people did not oppose the idea, and the result was mega tragedy.

See above. The same fate awaited anyone questioning Mao or his regime. Go look up "Communist Cultural Revolution" and then tell me how many teachers, professors, doctors, writers, artists and other "intellectuals" simply disappeared when Mao took power.

3. Syria.
I agree with you that Assad is an evil bastard. However, that was not the question. The question was whether peaceful or armed opposition was best. In tis case, armed oppositon led to 500,000 people dying (with more to come).

Well, they tried peaceful opposition, in case you missed it, which resulted in a military coup by the B'aath party, which seized control in 1963 and held power with a brutal iron fist until 2014. Then Assad and his minions ginned up an election that, predictably, purported to give him 88.7% of the votes, excluding of course the 4 million or so people who had already fled the B'aath coup and Assad regime that took power illegitimately and violently to begin with. Assad should not have been allowed to run for office, he should have been arrested, tried and hung for war crimes perpetrated both during the coup and in the intervening years before the rigged 2014 election because he is a despot and a tyrant and a cold-blooded murder of men, women and children'\

4. Palestine.
The problem here is not Palestinian intransigence, but Israeli. If what happened in Palestine had happened in the USA, you would be as fierce as the Palestinians. They had their land and their homes stolen off them with no compensation. Before WWII, and for 1500 years before that, the land belonged to the Arabic people who call themselves Palestinians. With aid of the USA and Britain, and their guns, the land was simply taken off them for no payment, and given to Jewish people, who then became the Israelis. The Palestinians have been fighting back.

And for 3500 years before that it was Arabs who killed and terrorized Jews wholesale and denied them any sort of homeland, so fuck the Arabs. The people you claim are "Palestinians" aren't, they are Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians and citizens of other Arab states who call themselves "Palestinians" in an attempt to garner sympathy from the world as a part of the propaganda they use as a justification for constantly and relentlessly attacking Israel, which is a sovereign nation.

Israel won it's national sovereignty by the traditional method of declaring independence from despotism and tyranny and fighting those who would deny them that independence, one Arabs and others have been using on each other for the same 5000 years. Moreover they won it during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war by defeating the combined efforts of five other nation's attempt to exterminate them. And they did it again in 1956 and 1967, each time defeating those who would displace them from their homeland. So, as I said, fuck the Arabs and the "Palestinian" people. They've got plenty of other desert to inhabit, including the entire Sinai Peninsula, which Israel kindly returned to the Arabs after winning it in 1968...something they should not and had no reason to do.

What is needed is a real willingness on the part of the Israelis to compromise, and give the Palestinian people a sovereign, independent homeland, which is well within their power. In other words, negotiation. The problem is that neither side will stop the fighting long enough. Armed rebellion means tragedy.

Fuck the Palestinians, who aren't "Palestinians" at all, they are Muslim Arabs from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other places who moved to the areas outside of Israel AFTER Israel declared its independence and won it against enormous odds and repeated attempts to exterminate every single Jew in Israel...something that is still the intent of the grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking jumped-up desert barbarians of ISIS and other such scum. If they need a "homeland," let Syria or Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia carve one out for them somewhere else, because Israel is full and doesn't want them.

5. You said that you cannot negotiate with tyrants.
Bullshit!!!!
It has been done many times. Look at Myanmar today. Near to where I live is the island nation of Fiji. For a number of years it was run by an army Colonel (Bainimarama) who was a tyrant. He is now prime minister, as a result of a negotiation that led to a general election and democracy. Idi Amin was persuaded to retire to Saudi Arabia (with lots of money). The list goes on.

You lie. What I said was that you cannot negotiate with tyrants who are intent on retaining their power. And if you think Myanmar has gone all democratic with this latest election, just wait for it because the military has NOT giving up it's tyrannical pretensions to power and retains 25% of the seats in the legislature...and all the guns. If you think Aung San Suu Kyi will get away with defanging the military, you're an idiot. If you think that the "smooth transition of power" promised by Myanmar's President Thein Sein means an end to military control of Burma you're delusional. All that's happened is that a pretty face has been painted on the military dictatorship, which can reassert itself and seize control if the new government doesn't play along. Aung San Suu Kyi is nothing more than a figurehead intended to pacify the people, but the real power remains with those who have the guns, which ain't the Burmese people.

6. You said in the USA 300 million people would rise.
Again, bullshit!!!
It has never happened before and it would not happen there. People are people and most have other concerns, like looking after their families and not putting them at risk. An armed uprising in the USA would lead to a long, protracted, and tragic conflict.

Yes, it would, and therefore the greater the need to arm the citizenry so as to dissuade any would-be despot from trying to seize power and impose tyranny. It's worked quite well for more than 230 years so far.

In sort, Seth, to deal with an oppressive government, peaceful means are much, much better. Not perfect, of course, but nothing is perfect. These things take time, but so does a tragic and bloody uprising war. Recent history, beginning with Mahatma Gandhi, shows what can be acieved without bloodshed.

Diplomacy and negotiation are always the first resort, but force is always the last resort when diplomacy fails, which it does, often. That being the case, it is prudent for those who are at risk of being tyrannized to always be adequately armed so that they can, at need, put down a tyrant and his minions because when tyrants take power the FIRST thing they do is disarm the populace, precisely because they know that an armed populace is always capable of taking them out if necessary.

[Blind groper]

In response.

1. China and Cuba.
A myth of the communist philosophy is that educated and wealthy people exploit the common people and harm them. This is, of course, bullshit. However, it led the asshole communist leaders to 'disappear' many of those people. That was the reason for the minority of Cubans who fled. This does not, however, mean the majority of Cubans (or Chinese) opposed their leaders.

Do not think, Seth, that I support communism. It is a great evil. It is to be opposed. But the opposition needs to be peaceful, so that the harm is not massively exacerbated.

2. Assad.
You have not really responded to my points. Assad is evil. The question is how to oppose him. The decision was to use armed force, and the result is tragic.

3. Palestine.
Seth, your attitudes here are reprehensible in the extreme, showing a lack of understanding, and a penchant for cruelty and ruthlessness you should be deeply ashamed of.

The Palestinians did not 'persecute' the Jews for thousands of years. They did not even live in the area that long. They entered what became their homeland after the Roman progrom of 500 AD (actually over a long period, but roughly this time). Ironically, the Roman attacks on Jews happened after Rome was Christianised, and their motive was religious, based on the Christian hatred of Jews.

The Palestinians were then the people of Palestine for 1500 years. They did nothing to warrant the dreadful treatment they received at the hands of the USA, Britain, and Israel. Their angry young men try to fight back, which is a mistake. If they used peaceful means, there could be an end in sight to their suffering. But angry young men who have been so provoked are hard to settle down, and the armed conflict has led to a massive human tragedy.

4. Myanmar
The outcome of the Myanmar election is too soon to confidently predict. But I can say the result is much, much superior to anything armed conflict could bring.

[Seth]

In response.

1. China and Cuba.
A myth of the communist philosophy is that educated and wealthy people exploit the common people and harm them. This is, of course, bullshit. However, it led the asshole communist leaders to 'disappear' many of those people. That was the reason for the minority of Cubans who fled. This does not, however, mean the majority of Cubans (or Chinese) opposed their leaders.

So...100 million people who opposed communism, which resulted in their deaths, means nothing to you.

Do not think, Seth, that I support communism. It is a great evil. It is to be opposed. But the opposition needs to be peaceful, so that the harm is not massively exacerbated.

Good God, do you hear yourself? One hundred million people were brutally murdered by Marxist Communism and you think things would be worse if they had been armed and had opposed Marxism? If the United States had not abandoned the Kuomingtang in the 1930s, when there was a chance to abort the evil of Chinese Communism while it was still in its infancy, by force of arms, Communist China would not even exist today. It was traitors, quislings and Marxist Communist sympathizers in the China office of the State Department who lied to the President about the nature of Chinese Communism in order to persuade the Congress to cut off the funding that would have stopped the slaughter of tens of millions of Chinese before it even began.

And before them, it was Neville Chamberlain who preached appeasement when Hitler was on the rise, which resulted in 12 million Jews being slaughtered because the UK and Europe did not hammer Hitler into the dust the moment he raised his head and started with the Nazi propaganda.

And then there's the Russians. Had Stalin been blown up or shot before he got rolling, another 40 million lives would have been saved.

Humanity can ill afford to allow Marxism to gain any traction at all, and Islam is the exact same problem. It must be killed before it becomes a threat because by the time it becomes a threat it's too late to kill it without massive casualties.

2. Assad.
You have not really responded to my points. Assad is evil. The question is how to oppose him. The decision was to use armed force, and the result is tragic.

You KILL HIM. You stuff a Hellfire up his ass from 30,000 feet, that's how you oppose him. And you do the same to ANY leader, including the mullahs of Iran, who engages in despotic rule. You don't negotiate with them because they are fucking evil, you just kill them and keep on killing them as necessary until the cancer is gone completely.

3. Palestine.
Seth, your attitudes here are reprehensible in the extreme, showing a lack of understanding, and a penchant for cruelty and ruthlessness you should be deeply ashamed of.

Fuck off.

The Palestinians did not 'persecute' the Jews for thousands of years. They did not even live in the area that long.

They aren't "Palestinians" they are Arabs and they have been persecuting Jews since 622 AD. Fuck them.

They entered what became their homeland after the Roman progrom of 500 AD (actually over a long period, but roughly this time).

Which was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time. Muslims invaded in 634 and by 700 Syria, the Holy Land (Jerusalem and environs) Egypt and North Africa were lost to the Byzantine Empire. So no, there is no "Palestine" and Arabs didn't arrive there till 700 AD. And if Arabs can invade and conquer and take over the Middle East in 700, then Israel can fucking well carve out it's own homeland by doing exactly the same thing the Muslims did, only better. So as I said, fuck the Palestinians, they went to war with Israel and they lost, just as Byzantium lost to the Muslims.

The Palestinians were then the people of Palestine for 1500 years.

No, they were actually Syrians.

They did nothing to warrant the dreadful treatment they received at the hands of the USA, Britain, and Israel.

Yes they did, they went to war with Israel...and lost. Fuck 'em.

Their angry young men try to fight back, which is a mistake. If they used peaceful means, there could be an end in sight to their suffering. But angry young men who have been so provoked are hard to settle down, and the armed conflict has led to a massive human tragedy.

You still don't understand, and I suspect deliberately so. The "Palestinians" are fucking Muslim extremists who have absolutely no interest whatsoever in any peaceful accommodation with Israel. Their entire purpose for being where they are has nothing whatever to do with ancient history and everything to do with destroying Israel and killing every Jew they can get their hands on. It's a cynical political ploy that keeps men, women and children trapped in "Palestine", a pseudo-nation-state that does not exist and is not recognized by anybody but other Arab Muslims, as hostages and living shields for Hezbolla terrorists. The vast majority of the "angry young men" you refer to are professional terrorists from Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other radical Muslim strongholds who are shipped in specifically to stir the pot and commit acts of terrorist violence.

It is the Arab terrorists who are responsible for the armed conflict and "massive human tragedy" that they deliberately orchestrate and foment as a propaganda tool against Israel. Fuck 'em.

4. Myanmar
The outcome of the Myanmar election is too soon to confidently predict. But I can say the result is much, much superior to anything armed conflict could bring.

No it's not. The military retains both political power, something which NO military should EVER have, period, and it has all the guns, so the outcome is extremely predictable, just as it was in Egypt. The military will get what it wants and if it doesn't, it will simply overthrow the "democratically elected" government and reinstitute military despotism.

I'll believe that Burma (it's fucking NOT "Myanmar," a term created by the military junta) will be free when the military withdraws from politics entirely, submits to the elected government, and the people of Burma are universally armed with military arms with which to take down the military if it tries to take control again.

Anything short of that is nothing more than political theater.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You are getting into straw man arguments. I have stated that peaceful opposition by the people to oppressive government is superior to armed uprising, which it is. It causes far less harm, and according to the Ridley written study, is more successful.

However, I have not claimed that applies to war between nations, nor has Ridley. Nor does it apply to situations where a government causes harm, where the people do not attempt to resist. This latter case applies to the criminal stupidity of Mao in China, to the majority of people in Cuba under Castro, and to the non resisting people of the Soviet Union under Stalin. In those cases, the problem stemmed from the fact that there was NO resistance, not to the type of resistance. If the people had peacefully resisted, then the outcome would have been far better.

I do not know all the answers, and I tend to rely on careful studies by those who have the greatest expertise, such as the study on peaceful opposition to oppressive governments. The results of those studies is of far greater value than anything you or I could come up with as a result of our ignorant and idiotic opinions.

You mentioned Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. That is another case. I do not know what would have been the best approach at the time. It is unlikely that an early declaration of war would have helped. In fact, it probably would have given Hitler the extra time he needed to destroy Britain before going on to attack the Soviets, but that is a guess, and may be wrong.

I also do not know the best way of dealing with those utter assholes in ISIS. I suspect that extermination may be the only option. ISIS is a problem, of course, that came into existence because large numbers of morons decided to use armed uprising against Assad instead of peaceful means. If they had a leader like Aung in Myanmar, things would have been different. And yes, the correct name is Myanmar, since a people have the right to call themselves what they wish. Their opinion trumps yours. If the new government there wishes to change it back to Burma, then that name will become the correct one.

On Arabs persecuting Israel.
The main persecuting force throughout the last 2,000 years has been Christians. Arabs entered Palestine AFTER the Christian Roman persecutions drove the Jewish people out, and into their 1500 year diaspora. But what happened in WWII, when the USA and Britain stole the land and homes of the Palestinians and gave it to Jewish people was utterly wrong.

You seem to think that past evils justify recent evils. Past conquests justify recent conquests. That is not just bullshit, but it is immensely dangerous bullshit.

Military conquest is a combination of murder and theft. It is a crime of the worst calibre. It is often worse than genocide. The Israelis are guilty of this crime, and the Palestinians are fighting back.

I do not believe that the tactic followed by the Palestinians is wise. Peaceful opposition would be far less damaging and far more effective. Armed uprising tends to be driven by anger and fear, and those emotions steal away wisdom.

Exactly the same would apply if the USA ever had the 1 in a billion chance of developing an oppressive government. Idiots will let their gonads drive them into armed opposition and that will be the worst possible means of opposing.

[Seth]

Seth

You are getting into straw man arguments. I have stated that peaceful opposition by the people to oppressive government is superior to armed uprising, which it is. It causes far less harm, and according to the Ridley written study, is more successful.

Unless and until it isn't, as I have repeatedly pointed out with verifiable historical evidence.

However, I have not claimed that applies to war between nations, nor has Ridley. Nor does it apply to situations where a government causes harm, where the people do not attempt to resist.

What the hell does this even mean? It's incoherent.

This latter case applies to the criminal stupidity of Mao in China, to the majority of people in Cuba under Castro, and to the non resisting people of the Soviet Union under Stalin. In those cases, the problem stemmed from the fact that there was NO resistance, not to the type of resistance. If the people had peacefully resisted, then the outcome would have been far better.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Every Marxist dictatorship on earth has faced resistance from those who do not want to live under Marxism. The absolutely classic and universal first response to resistance to Marxism is to attack the dissenters. It starts with propaganda that identifies objectors as "counterrevolutionaries" who are seeking to oppress the proletariat through Capitalism and it inevitably ends with those who fail to fall in line with the Marxist dialectic, whether they actually believe in it or are merely mouthing the platitudes to avoid being liquidated, is that they are killed. This is because Marxism cannot tolerate dissent because any dissent plants the seed of doubt in the minds of the indoctrinated lumpen proletariat, upon whom the Marxist elite depend for social order. Pol Pot is an excellent example of this. The events in the killing fields of Cambodia were directed against the upper class and intellectuals by the ignorant lumpen proletariat precisely in order to eliminate anyone who was either educated enough or smart enough to counter the Marxist propaganda being pounded into the heads of the peasants and farmers of Cambodia.

"Peaceful resistance" was not an option for the millions of Pol Pot's victims. ANY resistance, of any kind, or even simply being an intellectual person who tried to obey the dictates of the Marxist elite was rewarded with death.

The same is true of Stalin and Mao both.

The people of Ukraine, who were fractious and tried to peacefully object to Stalinism, were deliberately starved to death by Stalin, who seized all of the vast agricultural output of Ukraine in 1932-33 and transported it to Russia, leaving NOTHING for the people of Ukraine to eat. As many as 12 million Ukrainians starved to death during that winter. Stalin's purpose was to destroy the Ukrainian nationalism, which he viewed as a threat to Soviet Communism. There was no violence by the people of Ukraine, merely peaceful resistance to being absorbed into the Soviet Union and having their national identity destroyed. This event, among MANY others demonstrates that neither you nor this Ridley fellow have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

I do not know all the answers,

There's a rather remarkable understatement.

and I tend to rely on careful studies by those who have the greatest expertise, such as the study on peaceful opposition to oppressive governments. The results of those studies is of far greater value than anything you or I could come up with as a result of our ignorant and idiotic opinions.

I doubt the 100 million people, most of whom were non-violent, killed by Marxism in the 19th and 20th centuries would agree.

You mentioned Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. That is another case. I do not know what would have been the best approach at the time. It is unlikely that an early declaration of war would have helped. In fact, it probably would have given Hitler the extra time he needed to destroy Britain before going on to attack the Soviets, but that is a guess, and may be wrong.

No, it's the same case. When you allow tyrants to solidify their power and control by appeasing them and "negotiating" with them, as we are doing with the Iranians, they don't use that period to negotiate in good faith with an intention of giving up their power, they lie through their teeth while building armies and weapons the whole time, which enhances their control and makes it much more difficult and costly in terms of both treasure and human life to eventually put them down.

We here in the US, as a nation, resolved not to ever give a tyrant the opportunity to rise to power, much less consolidate it by trying to "negotiate" with him/them. Our Founders gave us the necessary tools to prevent that in our Constitution. The chief defender of our liberty is, and has always been, and will always be the power of a fully-armed citizenry to rise up at need to put down a tyrant, even one that controls the military.

The cost in human suffering of disarming the citizenry and attempting to appease and negotiate with tyrants and despots is huge, exceeding 100 million, and it grows every day that civilized human beings refuse to simply kill despots and tyrants through concerted collective and decisive application of force...BEFORE they get nuclear weapons.

I also do not know the best way of dealing with those utter assholes in ISIS. I suspect that extermination may be the only option. ISIS is a problem, of course, that came into existence because large numbers of morons decided to use armed uprising against Assad instead of peaceful means.

Complete horseshit. ISIS is a loose conglomeration of would-be tyrants intent on destroying western culture and imposing a worldwide Islamic Caliphate by force of arms that will enslave all non-Muslims. There is no negotiating with these barbarians because they have no interest in negotiating. They are not going to voluntarily go back to their stinking caves in the desert and worship Allah peacefully, they will fight and kill to impose radical Islam on the whole world because they think that Allah demands that they do so, thanks to a child-fucking lunatic who lived briefly 1400 years ago.

The "uprising" against Assad occurred BECAUSE the people of Syria have suffered the boot-heel of Assad's military dictatorship on their necks since 1963. "Peaceful means" had absolutely no effect on getting the boot off their necks, so they had to resort to rebellion, just as the US had to resort to revolution to get Mad King George's boot-heel off their necks...after decades of trying peaceful appeals and negotiations to stop the worst of the abuses he authored.

You have this unicorn-rainbow-fart candy-cane and Skittles delusion about human nature and the effectiveness of "nonviolence" as a sovereign remedy for totalitarianism and tyranny that is quite simply delusional.

If they had a leader like Aung in Myanmar, things would have been different.

Go read some Syrian history and you'll find out that there was more 40 years of attempts to persuade the Syrian military dictatorship to peacefully cede power to a democratically elected legislature, all of which failed utterly. How long must a people continue to beg for their fundamental human rights and be denied and abused before it's acceptable for them to resort to force of arms to put down a tyrant? Eternity? That's what you seem to think.

And yes, the correct name is Myanmar, since a people have the right to call themselves what they wish. Their opinion trumps yours. If the new government there wishes to change it back to Burma, then that name will become the correct one.

"The people" didn't change the name, the Socialist military dictators changed the name in order to crush Burmese nationalism and independence and create a Marxist Socialist state. Most western country's government's refuse to use "Myanmar" and still refer to the country as "Burma" in official actions, including the US.

In 1989, the military government officially changed the English translations of many names dating back to Burma's colonial period or earlier, including that of the country itself: "Burma" became "Myanmar". The renaming remains a contested issue.[24] Many political and ethnic opposition groups and countries continue to use "Burma" because they do not recognise the legitimacy of the ruling military government or its authority to rename the country.[25] Source: Wikipedia

Go read a fucking history book...or even Wikipedia...before you bloviate any further.

On Arabs persecuting Israel.
The main persecuting force throughout the last 2,000 years has been Christians.

Bullshit again.

Arabs entered Palestine AFTER the Christian Roman persecutions drove the Jewish people out, and into their 1500 year diaspora.

Bullshit.

But what happened in WWII, when the USA and Britain stole the land and homes of the Palestinians and gave it to Jewish people was utterly wrong.

Was it? I don't happen to think so. Neither did the UNITED NATIONS, which is the body that recommended the partition plan that created Israel, and so do millions of others who feel that it's perfectly appropriate for Israel to exist, particularly given the events of WWII. As to the "land and homes" of the "Palestinians," Palestine was a creation of the British, General Edmund Allenby carved the "Mandatory Palestine" out of the Ottoman Empire in southern Syria during WWI, in which the Turks, who ran the whole shebang with an iron fist, were allied with the Germans. Palestine never existed until the Brits created and named it. It was historically part of Syria and at the time (1920s) was part of the Ottoman Empire under Turkish rule. So fuck your idiotic notions that "Palestinians" occupied the region for 1400 years, it's a lie.

You can see how that happened, roughly, by viewing the movie "Lawrence of Arabia," which depicts the Allenby campaign. As a part of that campaign, the Brits promised Arabs, who were under the thumb of the Turks, that England would honor Arab independence if they rose up to drive the Turks out of the Sinai and what is today Israel and the West Bank, which the British named "Palestine." At the time both Jews and Arabs lived in the area.

During the British Mandate period the area experienced the ascent of two major nationalist movements, one among the Jews and the other among the Arabs. The competing national interests of the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine against each other and against the governing British authorities matured into the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and the Jewish insurgency in Palestine before culminating in the Civil War of 1947–1948. The aftermath of the Civil War and the consequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War led to the establishment of the 1949 cease-fire agreement, with partition of the former Mandatory Palestine between the newborn state of Israel with a Jewish majority, the West Bank annexed by the Jordanian Kingdom and the Arab All-Palestine Government in the Gaza Strip under the military occupation of Egypt.

You seem to think that past evils justify recent evils.

That depends on whether you think armed revolution to ensure the existence and liberties of a people against tyranny and oppression are "evil." I don't.

Past conquests justify recent conquests.

It is a fact of history that conquest is how nations came into being, vanish, come into being again, shift, change and morph over time. What you claim was "Palestine", which didn't exist until 1920, was part of Ottoman southern Syria until the Arabs, aided by the Brits, rose up and threw the Turks out. And prior to the Ottoman Empire, the area had another name and was under some other empire and so on for thousands of years into the past.

The Right of Conquest is a well-recognized and ancient concept, even in the UK, Australia and NZ, where the Brits conquered the Maori people in order to colonize and rename the islands. So fuck off with your pacifist whining.

That is not just bullshit, but it is immensely dangerous bullshit.

No, that's life, human nature, and history.

Military conquest is a combination of murder and theft. It is a crime of the worst calibre. It is often worse than genocide.

It can be, or it can be liberation from tyranny and despotism.

The Israelis are guilty of this crime,

Er, no, because Israel didn't exist until the United Nations and Great Britain created it. Once that was done all Israelis did was defend the nation they were given by international mandate in 1947, after 20 years of negotiating with the Arabs over the boundaries between "Palestine" and Israel. So fuck off with your accusations, which are nothing more than Arab propaganda you've swallowed wholesale.

and the Palestinians are fighting back.

Not one swinging dick of those "angry young men" who are firing rockets into civilian areas and knifing unarmed old people, women and children in Israel is a "Palestinian" because Palestine did not exist before 1920 and it ceased to exist with the Partition in 1947, and not one of them has any claim to anything in Israel. They have the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and the Sinai to fuck around in, but that's not enough for them, they want it all, and they want every Jew in Israel dead, so fuck them.

I do not believe that the tactic followed by the Palestinians is wise. Peaceful opposition would be far less damaging and far more effective. Armed uprising tends to be driven by anger and fear, and those emotions steal away wisdom.

And if Israel did not have an armed populace and superior military force, it would have been destroyed in 1948, 1967, or any time in between as the Arabs, who hate Jews with a religious passion for no better reason than that they are Jews, tried to wipe them out...and lost.

Exactly the same would apply if the USA ever had the 1 in a billion chance of developing an oppressive government. Idiots will let their gonads drive them into armed opposition and that will be the worst possible means of opposing.

Diplomacy works until it doesn't, and then force is the only option to ensure liberty and put down tyrants. Therefore, an armed populace is always the best deterrent to attempts at tyranny. Armed opposition is the worst possible means of opposing tyranny other than every other method that doesn't work.

[JimC]

In the Israel/Palestinian context, it virtually does not matter any more about whether either side's actions can be justified in the historical morass of the conflict's roots. Both sides are so deeply immersed in mutual hatred that it is highly unlikely there will be anything but continuing violence from both sides. BG, your optimism here is misplaced, they are both too far gone...

[Blind groper]

On Palestine.
I wonder if Seth is Jewish? He is certainly showing enormous bias. He ignores totally history and puts his own twist on things.

Seth
I never said that 'Palestine" existed for 1500 years. I said that the people who became Palestinians did not enter that area till after 500AD, when the Christianised Romans had already persecuted the Jews, forcing them to leave. But that land, even as part of the Ottoman Empire, was theirs for 1500 years, near enough. It was stolen off them, and they are entitled to redress.

On the business of opposing oppressive governments, I reiterate. Peaceful protest is best. Take the Arab Spring uprisings. Four countries took part. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Of those four, two used peaceful means - Tunisia and Egypt. Tunisia succeeded admirably. Egypt succeeded initially and then backslid with a military coup. But the peaceful methods continued, and Egypt has now had an election, and democracy is set to return. I was in Egypt myself in September, and had the chance to talk to many Egyptians. A spirit of optimism and hope pervades the country.

Libya and Syria both turned to armed uprisings and they are both human tragedies of the worst kind.

Arming the populace against the need to fight a repressive government is a horrible way to go. It is an invitation to end up like Syria and Libya.

[JimC]

On Palestine.
I wonder if Seth is Jewish? He is certainly showing enormous bias. He ignores totally history and puts his own twist on things.

Seth
I never said that 'Palestine" existed for 1500 years. I said that the people who became Palestinians did not enter that area till after 500AD, when the Christianised Romans had already persecuted the Jews, forcing them to leave. But that land, even as part of the Ottoman Empire, was theirs for 1500 years, near enough. It was stolen off them, and they are entitled to redress.

On the business of opposing oppressive governments, I reiterate. Peaceful protest is best. Take the Arab Spring uprisings. Four countries took part. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Of those four, two used peaceful means - Tunisia and Egypt. Tunisia succeeded admirably. Egypt succeeded initially and then backslid with a military coup. But the peaceful methods continued, and Egypt has now had an election, and democracy is set to return. I was in Egypt myself in September, and had the chance to talk to many Egyptians. A spirit of optimism and hope pervades the country.

Libya and Syria both turned to armed uprisings and they are both human tragedies of the worst kind.

Arming the populace against the need to fight a repressive government is a horrible way to go. It is an invitation to end up like Syria and Libya.

I think you overestimate how much "choice" there was by citizens, in looking at the different directions taken by, say, Libya and Tunisia. There were factors, deriving from the nature of Gaddafi's rule that meant a descent into fighting and chaos much more likely in Libya than Tunisia, whatever the wishes of the populace.