: : : Don't be so goddamned self-righteous.
: : SDF: Who is telling us "nonviolence is the only way" while endorsing gratuitous warfare?
: I have said that the strong have an obligation to defend the weak, by force if necessary.
SDF: This was also behind the German rationale for invading Poland in 1939. The German propaganda of September '39, as multiple historical sources will show, claimed that Poland was invading Germany, and so the Luftwaffe went right in and bombed, its pilots under the assumption that they were "defending the weak from the strong."
Same thing with the war against Serbia. The US embarked on a COMPLETELY GRATUITOUS war -- bombing Kosovo DIDN'T defend anyone, the eventual settlement was something completely different from Rambouillet, which was a surrender demand. Clinton and buddies could have really defended Kosovo WITHOUT the bombing, had they agreed to NEGOTIATE instead of placing Rambouillet as an ultimatum.
Since you've been shown what a load of NATO propaganda the defense of the war against Serbia was, and since you CHOOSE TO IGNORE my evidence, and believe in NATO propaganda instead, well, this really says a lot about your commitment to "nonviolence."
: I have repeatedly said that I do not believe in gratuitous violence, only that necessary to counter violence. Non-violent civil disobedience is the only way a weaker party can defeat a stronger opponent.
SDF: Well, there's guerrilla warfare, as in Vietnam...
: More to the point, it is absolutely the appropriate method to use when your opponent is not engaged in outright sustained violence against you. Martin Luther Kind, whom I greatly admire, led nonviolent marches in the face of unjust laws and meanspirited people; I doubt he would have used that had the South been engaged in genocide.
SDF: Would he have succeeded if he had limited himself in such a manner, had the National Guard NOT came in to defend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or had there been no 1964 Civil Rights Act? As King himself said, this isn't civil disobedience, we aren't breaking the law, our nonviolent direct action is in fact meant to assure that the law is followed. I can get you an exact quote and a complete citation if you want.
: Gandhi did the same with the British.
SDF: And the British could have wiped him and his friends off the map. Do you know why they didn't?
: When the oppressor escalates to genocidal activities, as in Kosovo, then non-violence becomes a losing strategy -- if their killing you anyway when you resist, they'll kill you when you're not resisting too.
: As for the WTO meeting in Seattle, those delegates were not out there punching people.
SDF: No, instead they hire COPS to do the SAME THING, and these cops are doing it RIGHT NOW, against a movement that is 99.9% NONVIOLENT.
: Why do you defend (some thuggish) protesters' completely gratuitous use of violence?
SDF: Why do you lump me in with an anarchist fringe group? Is it your secret love of the STATUS QUO?