Maybe some specifics might help this thread.
Was it consciencable for some suffragettes to throw stones etc at politicians in order to win the vote?
What about the limited use of violence against police by queer people during the stonewall riots?
What about the black panthers?
What about the IRA?
I find it a very messy business indeed. But I tend to draw a big line between limited violence against direct oppressors, like politicians or police, and the bombing of children as a terror tactic, eventhough arguably it was the terrorism of the IRA that led to the Good Friday Agreement.
Many political movements benefit from violence, it seems. Even when the majority of the movement is peaceful, the violence of the minority could be argued to play a deciding factor in expediting change.
Was it consciencable for some suffragettes to throw stones etc at politicians in order to win the vote?
What about the limited use of violence against police by queer people during the stonewall riots?
What about the black panthers?
What about the IRA?
I find it a very messy business indeed. But I tend to draw a big line between limited violence against direct oppressors, like politicians or police, and the bombing of children as a terror tactic, eventhough arguably it was the terrorism of the IRA that led to the Good Friday Agreement.
Many political movements benefit from violence, it seems. Even when the majority of the movement is peaceful, the violence of the minority could be argued to play a deciding factor in expediting change.
