Violent revolution

I have been out and about a lot lately (good weather, long days), seeing folks I have not seen in a few years. Meeting new folks. Chance meetings with total strangers... And I started comparing notes with the neighbors.(They noticed it too)

I can not go ANYWHERE without the conversation turning anti government. No matter who it is, no matter what lifestyle, no matter what financial or job catagory, the conversation is angry, fed up, pissed off. The subject of violent revolution keeps popping up over and over.(sometimes I actually wish people could find other topics of conversation for a change) I'm not the one starting these conversations! So, it's blowing my mind that this just keeps on being repeated in one form or another over the spectrum. Hell, I've talked to my neighbors and they say they even overheard a couple of COPS griping and wanting change.

It's hitting even the rich, elitest snobs. (as long as they are not working for the government) I guess what's happening is that we are ALL so effected in so many different ways, that it's hard to talk about ANYTHING without someone starting to complain. (That plainly shows that government is WAY TOO FAR up everyone's asses.)

So, with SO MANY people discussing revolution, WANTING it even (got a request for rocket launchers), do you suppose there is a chance in the near future? What do you think the catalyst would be? Do you think that if those who say they would support a violent revolution actually began ACTING, that those who DON'T support violence would begin a form of NONVIOLENT revolution as well?

(news to "homeland security": You think you can keep an eye on suspected terrorists. Can you keep an eye on EVERYBODY??? This is a lot bigger than you think....)

 

blah blah blah Nasty Brutish and Short.

 

Possible but I would surly not support a violent revolution

 

I don't know how it is in the States, but here in the Netherlands it seems like a big share of the people are content with all the shit going on. Now I'm not sure if I would support a violent revolution (then again, any revolution is a valid one...) but there are plenty of people who just don't seem to care at all.
But then again, the streets nowadays are flooded with gabbers, shallow skimpily-clad 14-year old sluts and similar human filth, there's not much to be expected from that kind of people when it comes to social consciousness.
It seems harsh of me to say that, but I'm afraid that's how the facts lie from where I'm standing.

 

"Radical acts WORK! Pacifism DOESN'T! "

Explain yourself. I guess Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King,Nelson Mandela,

civil disobidence will and can work.



"I don't want their fuckin wars"

You just want yours bloodshed is bloodshed both end with the loss of life.


"I don't want to buy into their globalization agenda."

you dont have to

 

Where does it say that in the american constitution? It says not a establishment of religon it doesnt say someone cant be religous in government etc..

 

rioting is bloodshed choose your words a little better

 

That does not appear in the constitution read up a little more.

 

rebel-

just because that kind of separation of church and state does no explicitly appear in the constitution does not mean that the leaders in the government, whose job it is to uphold the values and interests of the people (ALL the people) to the best of their ability, should be allowed to use their religious beliefs as justification for their actions.

remember, the leaders work for the people. we have the right to take them out of power whenever we want. and if the current bureaucracy does not allow us to, we all have every right to use revolution, violent or otherwise, to exercise our rights.

just a thought....

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


The words seperation of church and state appear no where. No establishment means not preventing anyone from worshipping whom or whatever. Not saying it shouldnt be just pointing out the facts.

riot
noun
1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob
2. a state of disorder involving group violence [syn: rioting]

Breaking peoples private roperty. causing trauma that is just as bad as violence

 

Wow, how did this turn into a church versus state arguement???

Everybody seems to have missed th point in that whole arguement anyhow. Didn't we all pretty much learn as kids that religion is NOT synonymous with violence? Scrap all the what if's and the crazys who fight wars in the name of god. What's the bottom line? Underneath everybodys bastardization of the concept of religion. Love, peace, compassion.

They HAVE to separate church from state, because the "state" can only see things one way, from a place of control, manipulation, lies. If you put religion in their hands, you get CRAP. They would just use it as another way to control. There is NO Love, peace, and compassion in government. It's not religions fault, or God's fault, or Jesus fault. It's OUR fault. For allowing this fiasco to happen. God has absolutely nothing to do with our governmental troubles. If anything, the LACK thereof does. But humanity's concepts of what religion is have gotten so vague that it's no help.

Ok, so we've established that there ain't no religion gonna help. And we've established that the problems are on us. Who else? So, what the heck are we gonna do? Some are willing to go the violent route. (That's ok, it's what they do) Some are not. (That's ok too as long as you are not apathetic.) But don't we HAVE to do SOMETHING??? With the majority unhappy to one degree or another, something's gotta give.

 

The problem with Iraq right now is US occupation and the drooling corporate goons that hope to tie up the rights to future oil production.

 

Yes that is great if you conform to Christain beliefs but they do not permit the actions of other religious groups, they have made laws against them.

What a joke, if that was the only goal this would have been dealt with easily back during the first issue we had with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait (spelling) We would have had every right to go in and take over on the grounds of getting our money back for what we had to spend to drfend the people they invaded as well as our costs for rebuilding Kuwait. No one would have really argued the issue so thats a line of trash.

 

We didn't choose to overthrow Sadaam Hussein at that time so no we could not have done that. Iraq was still a soveign nation, governed by it's own government. And isolated by UN mandates.

Now they have a pseudo government installed by the US, who just has the balls (even though they aren't credible even to their own populus) to fight the outright theft of their mineral resources by the US and their multi-national, neo-con profiteering cohorts.

US occupation and war will continue until they agree to sign them over, and occupation will probably remain in place to protect Haliburton and Carlyle's interests for the foreseeable future.

 

Okay not matter how you look at it the US looks bad right now with the UN and the rest of the world for the most part.

Back during the first dealings with Iraq to go save the Kuwait people we had UN support. There was nothing that stopped us from just finishing the job saying that while in combat we firmly believed he was a further threat to the Kuwait people and others as well and before the UN could say yah or nah been insde Iraq. We also know if the whole not lookig too bad and ect was not an issue the war would have been over long long ago.

Now Im nt saying the US is there for justified reasons at all and again Im not saying that oil is not part of the agenda because Im sure that rates right up there on the list but it is not the only reason and not the top reason in my opinion.

The US goverment ( I needed to make that part clear GOVERMENT) is not the least bit concerned for the Iraqi people, they dont give a rats ass or they would have nailed the damn place years ago along with Saudi, Iran, Kuwait, Bosnia, and themsleves years and decades ago among other places.

Greed period and corporate control of the $$$ and the resources is the grand sceme in my book as well is gun control going to be dealt with on a doctrine and document already signed by the US years ago for glabal banning of guns and there is a deadline date too for this I must find again to show ya. So the US goverment will not ban guns it shall be a move thru the UN to stop all these little wars or atleast that will be the excuse.

 

I Am Not Christian! Never Quoted Scriptures.che Guevera Was A Mass Murderer

 

Che Guevara DID slaughter alot of people he was better then Batista but its not saying much. I have done plenty of research on him and have come up with a final opinon on him

 

these things happen when enough people get despirate enough. they seldom accomplesh what they had hoped for or had in mind, but they do happen, and of course anyplace that causes enough people to get despirate enough is a place where it can happen.

i'm sure not for it, but the kind of stupid stuff that's been going on, in the name of conserving what i don't know, conserving cash flow into pockets already deeper then they need to be at the expense of the rest of everyone, well that keeping up is certainly creating the conditions under which it might occur. i think it's a really bad idea. but again it can and does happen.

i think carl rove is america's rasputin. any bets he don't have hot and cold running pedo sex slaves stashed away somewhere? well who knows, that would just be speculation, just based upon the appearant pattern.

i think there's better ways to allow something disagreeable to colapse then for people to go arround killing each other. like maybe just not supporting it in the first place.

if anything i think violence seems to keep those who exploit the fear card in power.

=^^=
.../\...

 

^ my point ecactly I am by no means against revoltion but I just think pacifism comes with better results.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

And destroying property, the environment, and innocents proves your goals more than remaining above the fray? Or are you seeking to prove your manhood over the interests of the collateral damage you may incur?