I'll agree I over stepped in coming across as violence was the ONLY way to fight real tyranny. You are correct that tyranny is a continuous spectrum. Problem is if you don't draw a line against it somewhere then you never fight it. You are also correct that real tyrannies do fall with relatively little bloodshed, but my point was intended to be that life must be risked not sacrificed. I do not think you can claim truly brutal tyrannies fell without a large number of people putting themselves at risk to bring it down. Occasionally a critical mass of such brave people is reached that the tyrants know the jig is up and surrender without a fight. Like all probabilities I'm sure it is never zero, but I think the more brutal and systematic the dictator is and the more poorly equiped the populace the harder it is to reach that critical mass.
Regards,
Mark
Flame » in reply to Here's a tip - try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
A Valid Point
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences