True or false: Violence by protestors is never acceptable

[Clintonista2]

[EFerrari]

1. "These are not serious crimes. War is a serious crime." Howard Zinn. n/t

[leftstreet]

2. +1

:applause:

[EFerrari]

8. I still miss him almost every day.

:hi:

[Recursion]

3. Where there is no violence, the police and media will invent it.

It's kind of a pointless question.

[Greyhound]

4. False, of course.

:kick: & U

[mix]

5. False.

Paris, 1848

[Bigmack]

6. Don't tell me... tell the Founding Fathers....

that violence is never acceptable.

Tell the Germans who tried to kill Hitler.

Violence is all that's left to us, once "they" control the media, the banks, the Congress...

I'm not proposing revolution, but then throwing a tear gas grenade back at the cops is not revolution, either.

[GodlessBiker]

7. False.

[Octafish]

9. Unless they're police.

London 2009: G20 police 'used undercover men to incite crowds'

Chicago 1968: One in six protesters was undercover police officer.

PS: British commandos, dressed as "insurgents," killed an Iraqi cop who tried to ask them what they were doing with guns and bombs. It took a tank platoon to spring them from jail.

[G_j]

12. thanks, I was too tired to go searching

but, I can assure anyone, it's very real, tried and proven.

[Junkdrawer]

13. RCMP used provocateurs in Montebello...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7BPbchuoYQ&feature=related

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest

Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html#ixzz0sBPBIQ4z

[Ian David]

10. Violent protest is only allowable when the right to peaceful protest is denied.

And even then, it's not necessarily the RIGHT thing to do, or even the most effective thing to do.

Ask Ghandi, Mandella and Dr. King.

[G_j]

14. " Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

[SunnySong]

11. Violence is acceptable in self defense (and against Illinois Nazis)... other than that no. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. If violence never existed you would not have an eigh hour day

Or for that matter, we might as well go to this



Which incidentally they'd do in an instant if they could.

Now here is one that I'd like you to think about...



Given we have a HISTORY of the Pinkertons playing the same role as these guys in the past...

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/G20-summit-police-car/photo//100627/photos_ca_afp/fa0e25f62aa4314c8f239a10c22d73e6//s:/afp/20100627/wl_afp/economyfinanceg8g20demos_20100627054215

You tell me that there is no connection and that people today who have a lot to lose are not hiring agent provocateurs

But to answer your original question... it is the right of the people to rise when all other avenues are closed... go on, blame Thomas Jefferson for that.

[Hannah Bell]

16. yes, only state violence is "acceptable".

& the violence of the powerful toward the powerless.

[KonaKane]

17. False. Sometimes violence is not only necessary, it is mandated.

Resisting a police state, fighting a despotic government after exhausting all other avenues of change, things of this nature actually require violence. It's not the preferred path, but it is sometimes the only one left to us.