Assassination of Tony Blair - morally justifiable?
- Thread starter obanite
- Start date
fishfingerer
sultan of cringe
No. When the US/UK leaders decide to invade somewhere, johnny woggo isn't allowed to return fire. It's uncivilised. Simply beastly.
I love that you completely managed to miss the point i was makingliampreston said:
ok - he was "democratically" elected - but so was Hitler.
Of which I am NOT one.
What were the option for the majority of the electorate who voted for a leftwing government and ended up with New Labour?
i actually didn't see any enthusiasm for killing Blair - especially not from me.
Do you know anyone on the left actually plotting to kill Blair?
Thought not.
nopassaran
nihilistic sumbody
I could be wrong here although I think there's a very slim chance but most of us here are extremely disaffected in terms of having experienced true oppression and the scale of human carnage like that seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The very idea of responding to this non-violently could therefore be seen as an affront to the ongoing pain and suffering that the people in these countries and elsewhere have had to endure.
If we look at the case of Northern Ireland for example and more specifically the events of Bloody Sunday - the aftermath of which saw an influx of recruits to IRA. This shows how the brutality of the state (any state) against a people or peoples ferments armed resistance and struggle. That situation was essentially no different to what is going on Iraq now - Iraqi people are being brutalised by coalition forces. They are referred as to as 'ragheads' 'camel jockeys' 'hadjis' and even 'pakis' - they are effectively regarded as less than human - did people not see what happened in Abu Ghraib, Camp Breadbasket etc. and that's just what we've heard about. War crimes and human rights violations are just par for the course where military occupation is concerned, and we don't hear the half of it.
So whilst I can't support nationalist and jihadist movements for the very same reasons that I can't support any other ideological rationale for engaging in an armed struggle - I can however understand the desire for justice that arises from human suffering. It is just unfortunate that resistance is so often organised around unprogressive political and religious ideologies
I've gone off on one - apologies - but whilst I don't see myself as a violent person I can in many cases empathise strongly with those who do engage in acts of armed resistance. So I really do think that talk of non-violence in such an evangelical manner that has taken place so far fails to accept the harsh reality of injustice and suffering, and the understandable human emotions that are evoked as a consequence of this. Emotions which fuel resistance and armed struggle - including assassination.
I don't know whether anyone knows of the case of Muhammed Singh Azad (probably a typo or two in there) who responded to the Amritsar massacre by coming to England to assassinate the General responsible for ordering the massacre. I ask you honestly would any of you have started moralising with him over the rights and wrongs of his actions?
I rest my case mi'lud!
The very idea of responding to this non-violently could therefore be seen as an affront to the ongoing pain and suffering that the people in these countries and elsewhere have had to endure.
If we look at the case of Northern Ireland for example and more specifically the events of Bloody Sunday - the aftermath of which saw an influx of recruits to IRA. This shows how the brutality of the state (any state) against a people or peoples ferments armed resistance and struggle. That situation was essentially no different to what is going on Iraq now - Iraqi people are being brutalised by coalition forces. They are referred as to as 'ragheads' 'camel jockeys' 'hadjis' and even 'pakis' - they are effectively regarded as less than human - did people not see what happened in Abu Ghraib, Camp Breadbasket etc. and that's just what we've heard about. War crimes and human rights violations are just par for the course where military occupation is concerned, and we don't hear the half of it.
So whilst I can't support nationalist and jihadist movements for the very same reasons that I can't support any other ideological rationale for engaging in an armed struggle - I can however understand the desire for justice that arises from human suffering. It is just unfortunate that resistance is so often organised around unprogressive political and religious ideologies
I've gone off on one - apologies - but whilst I don't see myself as a violent person I can in many cases empathise strongly with those who do engage in acts of armed resistance. So I really do think that talk of non-violence in such an evangelical manner that has taken place so far fails to accept the harsh reality of injustice and suffering, and the understandable human emotions that are evoked as a consequence of this. Emotions which fuel resistance and armed struggle - including assassination.
I don't know whether anyone knows of the case of Muhammed Singh Azad (probably a typo or two in there) who responded to the Amritsar massacre by coming to England to assassinate the General responsible for ordering the massacre. I ask you honestly would any of you have started moralising with him over the rights and wrongs of his actions?
I rest my case mi'lud!
likesfish
You can't park here sir
hey I'm not left wing I'm up for killing him
in fact have a healthy desire to kill most members of parliment and ministers.
was'nt even allowed to hold the safety rope when a prospective tory MP attempted to do a charity abseil in case I tried to do a touching the void.
although laughing when he cried like a girl to be pulled up was possibly even better than watching him plunge to his death
maybe I just have an allergy to self important pricks who get to rule us
in fact have a healthy desire to kill most members of parliment and ministers.
was'nt even allowed to hold the safety rope when a prospective tory MP attempted to do a charity abseil in case I tried to do a touching the void.
although laughing when he cried like a girl to be pulled up was possibly even better than watching him plunge to his death
maybe I just have an allergy to self important pricks who get to rule us
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Shouldn't the question be.
"Do the chickens have a right to come home to roost?"
"Do the chickens have a right to come home to roost?"
nopassaran
nihilistic sumbody
exosculate said:
Of course they do...chickens like all animals should have the right to procreate freely
in fact we're approaching this from totally the wrong angle we should instead be looking for religious guidance on this matter, so perhaps this makes better sense:
"for whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap" Galatians ch.6
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
nopassaran said:Of course they do...chickens like all animals should have the right to procreate freely
in fact we're approaching this from totally the wrong angle we should instead be looking for religious guidance on this matter, so perhaps this makes better sense:
"for whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap" Galatians ch.6
Ohh Tony does like a spot of bible reading.
MatthewCuffe
New Member
Turn the other cheek.
How does that operate hand-in-hand with shock and awe bombing?
Beats me.
How does that operate hand-in-hand with shock and awe bombing?
Beats me.
Similar threads
