Posted on 05/16/2019 8:05:59 AM PDT by rktman
This is a stupid article.
Why would we need to do something to destroy a government that is destroying itself?
....says the BBC.
This is why the anarchists claim they are justified in using violence then “threatened” by a differing opinion.
Hey, I didn’t force you to read it. LOL! Gotta keep up with the nutbags to protect yourself. Just sayin’.
I wonder if the statistics accurately account for countries like China, Cuba and NK.
Should have tried that against Hitler.
Then this article would be in German.
Go on the offensive. People live in fear of discussing politics with me. I actually don’t enjoy it.
Tell them you don’t like talking politics. They know.
They say things like Trump and you say “yeah. That’s right”.
Random
Anyway man. Nice having a short conversation. Always a pleasure seeing your posts and responding.
We’re all in this together.
Guess someone could poll the Uhgurs(islamists)[?] or whatever they’re called. Kind of a captive crowd in certain areas of China.
“Should have tried that against Hitler.
Then this article would be in German.”
Probably not. In reality, Hitler was able to do what he did because the German people were on board with his message. There were a few turning points when he could likely have been stopped by several million in the streets refusing to play ball. But Germans aren’t wired that way.
In a large enough movement, the soldiers quickly see where the power is and head there. It’s happened many times
I just wait for them to start listing the actual things that they can defend when calling him racist or homophobic or a misogynist. Mostly crickets. Or, “You know what I mean.”.
Only if the MILITARY is on the protesters' side.
Marcos only stepped down in the Philippines because General Fidel Ramos led a defection of senior military leaders to support Corazon Aquino.
My take on passive resistance is that it plays on the sense of decency of the government in charge. But what if it has none?
There are many situations where the military changes sides, and that leads to success for the peaceful insurgents. There are of course many examples where the reverse happens.
The nature of the research doesn't say anything about what the best strategy will be in any particular situation, making it typical of the weak research approaches the left likes.
The research misses all the situations where a repressive government, or a repressive insurgency, silenced the non-violent opposition. Does anybody think marching against Pol Pot, or Mao with flowers in your hand didn't just get you killed? How did the non-violent protests against ISIS work out?
In many cases that just means that the government has little support, and the transition is inevitable anyway. In cases where real tyrannical governments are in control even large portions of the public protesting may not make a difference.
Interestingly, the research suggests that the reason for non-violent protests succeeding more than violent attempts at changing the government is that the non-violent protests attract more participants, and therefore can reach the 3.5% threshold more easily.
The article also notes that the lack of access to weapons hinders the ability of violence based groups to succeed. That is probably at the root of the left's desire to disarm the population, since based on the researcher's findings a group which combined armed and non-violent protest that was supported by a few percent of the public would be able to change most governments.
Specifically: Nonviolent protests were perhaps launched only when it was ALREADY obvious to the protesters that they would be successful (e.g., when the regime against they were protesting was already tottering).
Armed conflicts, in contrast, are perhaps initiated even though no such clarity or certainty exists (and their failure-rate might be correspondingly high).
A basic flaw in reasoning.
I also wouldn't be surprised if apples were being compared with oranges here: Conflicts in which one side attempts to employ peaceful protests (or views non-violence as a feasible alternative) are probably fundamentally different than conflicts in which at least one side views violence as the "best" option (or is totally exaspirated).
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.