Would you participate?

[Antoninus Verus]

If you were presented with the opportunity to participate in an armed revolutionary movement, if it was for a just cause, would you participate

Say a ruthless dictator had taken control of your country. And you KNEW the only way to effect change was through revolution, armed revolution, would you participate? Bear in mind you could possibly take a job that didnt require you to kill anyone. But you would be aiding the group.

Would you participate, why or why not?

I would definately participate. Better to die on your feet than live on your face with a boot on your head.

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

Yes. I normally am a pacifist but to fight as a revolutionary would be something completely different. I'd feel the need to somehow try to make a difference even at the cost of my life.

We realize that what we are accomplishing is a drop in the ocean. But if this drop were not in the ocean, it would be missed. -- Mother Teresa

 

[sanaa]

yes i would , its a sin to commit injustice but a greater sin to suffer injustice . but i would want the group to follow certain war ethics and rules

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

yes i would , its a sin to commit injustice but a greater sin to suffer injustice . but i would want the group to follow certain war ethics and rules

I didn't even think of that but that's an excellent point. We would not want to sink to the level of our hypothetical oppressors.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

but i would want the group to follow certain war ethics and rules

A revolutionary group in such a situation would have to use a total war policy. Many required actions would more than likely cost the lives of a moderate number of anti-revolutionary citizens. Driving by and hurling grenades into government buildings, shooting up the houses of government officials, burning buildings, and destruction of government vehicles and property would probably be required. Such actions are violent, but required if your going to survive.

 

[Gracchus]

Historically, revolutions almost always replace one set of tyrants with another. The worse the tyrants being replaced, the worse are the tyrants who replace them. George III, who taxes the legislatively unrepresented populace of the colonies is replaced by George Washington, who taxes the legislatively unrepresented populace of the territories. Louis XVI is replaced by Napoleon, and Tsar Nicholas by Stalin. The successful revolution, the way to bring about lasting change, is by constant, gradual social, economic and political pressure, brought to bear by as much of the population as possible. An ignorant and apathetic population will never benefit from revolution, and will always drift into fascistic dictatorship. Witness, for instance the United States, whose government has fallen into the hands of monstrously murderous plutocrats. Killing all the Republicans would relieve the stench temporarily, but only until they were replaced by a new crop of geedy, self-righteous hypocrites.

To produce true moral reform the machinery of power must be modified, and this is best done gradually. It must be done by making people really love the good, instead of just paying it lip service.

Of course, if all the nominal Christians would actually practice what Jesus preached, it would take very little time at all for the Kingdom of God to appear on Earth, but most Christians place their real trust in Mammon, Mars and Caesar, and their personal gods are Fear, Lust and Sloth. Those who made the Earth more hellish by voting for Bush, Cheney and Co. can never enter the Kingdom, because wherever they are they make a hell.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you were presented with the opportunity to participate in an armed revolutionary movement, if it was for a just cause, would you participate[?]

Yes, it is likely that I would, if there were no better means to resolve the problem. I don't think that fighting is wrong in itself -- it's a contextual matter. Fighting to defend one's values -- to avoid living like a slave -- is morally valid.

 

[The Seeker]

Say a ruthless dictator had taken control of your country. And you KNEW the only way to effect change was through revolution, armed revolution, would you participate? Bear in mind you could possibly take a job that didnt require you to kill anyone. But you would be aiding the group.

Would you participate, why or why not?

I'd want to know a bit more about this group before I joined it, like what their ultimate agenda and aims were and what methods they used to achieve them. I would gladly take up arms for a just cause, but I would never uncritically throw myself into a military organisation who might be just as bad.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I would not volunteer to get involved a ‘just cause’ that would also include using violence to achieve its goals. I don’t think Gandhi would have either.



Far Better to work smarter, not harder.

 

[sanaa]

I would not volunteer to get involved a ‘just cause’ that would also include using violence to achieve its goals. I don’t think Gandhi would have either.



Far Better to work smarter, not harder.

the op includes the assumption that violence is the ONLY alternative left .
would u then roll over and do nothing or step out and fight?

 

[sanaa]

A revolutionary group in such a situation would have to use a total war policy. Many required actions would more than likely cost the lives of a moderate number of anti-revolutionary citizens. Driving by and hurling grenades into government buildings, shooting up the houses of government officials, burning buildings, and destruction of government vehicles and property would probably be required. Such actions are violent, but required if your going to survive.

i will not be a part of any group that willingly slaughters innocent civilians , am sure we can follow some moral guidelines while fighting. edit- or else what distinguishes this group from a group of terrorists . do the terrorists not feel their causes are just?

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

the op includes the assumption that violence is the ONLY alternative left .
would u then roll over and do nothing or step out and fight?

I don't believe that violence is ever the only alternative available so I don't accept the premise.
I never said anything about rolling over and doing nothing. Please re read my post.

 

[Chajara]

Hmm, I'm pretty much a pacifist... however, I would fight to the death to protect the people I love. If it came down to the tyrant threatening my family, children, pets, friends, home... whatever, then I'd grab my weapons and join, and die as well if it would keep them from harm. If they were relatively safe, I'd lay low and see if I could help in other ways.

 

[Donut Hole]

I might (I can't say more certainly before the fact).

But any possibility that I wouldn't participate wouldn't be for ethical reasons.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I might (I can't say more certainly before the fact).

But any possibility that I wouldn't participate wouldn't be for ethical reasons.

In that case, they better not plan to pull off a govermental overthrow on a day when you have to wash your car.
[J/K]

 

[coyoteBR]

Violence is never the only option. Gandhi managed to do a revolution without violence. Lech Walleska and the Solidarity union changed Polony without violence. Brazil got it's independence from Portugal without a war.
Brazil overtrew the monarchy and became a republic and only a person died ( a funny bit of our history: it was a drunk men that had no idea of what was happening, and approached government palace. The guard said "halt" 3 times, the guy kept walking, was gunned.)

So, violence is never the only alternative

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Violence is never the only option. Gandhi managed to do a revolution without violence.

Gandhi and his people werent getting machine gunned in the streets

 

[The Seeker]

Violence is never the only option. Gandhi managed to do a revolution without violence.

Liberal myth #1

Gandhi wasn't the only person in the whole of India you know, if it wasn't for the threat of armed revolution, the British government never would have left India.

 

[Gaston]

Interestingly, the fact that this conversation is going on in a Christian forum is reason for concern. The CIA watches boards like these just like vultures waiting for stuff like this to fuel their totalitarian outlook on the "new America."

If you wanted to really start a revolution just do it. Quit beating around the bush and take up arms against the American coup that has taken over Washington.

Of course, then my first statement up there really counts...

Good luck!


Gaston

 

[Hydra009]

If you were presented with the opportunity to participate in an armed revolutionary movement, if it was for a just cause, would you participate

Say a ruthless dictator had taken control of your country. And you KNEW the only way to effect change was through revolution, armed revolution, would you participate? Bear in mind you could possibly take a job that didnt require you to kill anyone. But you would be aiding the group.

Would you participate, why or why not?

Yes, in any way possible. Why? Because death in the cause of my country's freedom is worth more to me than life in oppression.

I would definately participate. Better to die on your feet than live on your face with a boot on your head.

Amen to that.