Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1346919" data-attributes="member: 14668">Not true.The &quot;nonviolent&quot; tactics espoused by MLK and Ghandi will only work against an oppressor that has at least some sort of moral base and respect...however imperfect or unfairly applied... for the rule of law.What MLK did was to force the United States federal government to intervene....using the force of law (which ultimately boils down to men with guns)...against racist state and city governments who were denying civil rights to blacks.Lets use Bull Connor for an example. Why do you think he used fire hoses and dogs against the black protesters instead of opening up on them with live ammunition? It sure as hell wasn&#039;t because of his humanity or his respect for the law...it was because he knew that such a choice would result in FBI agents or even National Guard troops (with guns) taking him into custody at gunpoint and prosecuting him for murder. Regardless of how corrupt and biased the state juries might be, he simply could not get away with murdering that many black people on national TV. So he didn&#039;t, and instead he used the hoses and the dogs and enough northern whites wound up being appalled at what they saw on TV that Federal government was forced to intervene.If you took MLK and Ghandi and sent them to Nazi Germany in 1944, do you think their tactics of nonviolence would have worked to save the Jews? No...because the Jews were less than human according to Nazi racial theory and it was considered perfectly acceptable and legal to herd 6 million of them into the gas chambers and murder them. Nonviolence and passive resistance would have served no purpose, and the fact that the Jews were unarmed and helpless only made genocide easier. The only thing that could (and ultimately did) save the Jews was armed resistance and military force.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1346919, member: 14668"] Not true. The "nonviolent" tactics espoused by MLK and Ghandi will only work against an oppressor that has at least some sort of moral base and respect...however imperfect or unfairly applied... for the rule of law. What MLK did was to force the United States federal government to intervene....using the force of law (which ultimately boils down to men with guns)...against racist state and city governments who were denying civil rights to blacks. Lets use Bull Connor for an example. Why do you think he used fire hoses and dogs against the black protesters instead of opening up on them with live ammunition? It sure as hell wasn't because of his humanity or his respect for the law...it was because he knew that such a choice would result in FBI agents or even National Guard troops (with guns) taking him into custody at gunpoint and prosecuting him for murder. Regardless of how corrupt and biased the state juries might be, he simply could not get away with murdering that many black people on national TV. So he didn't, and instead he used the hoses and the dogs and enough northern whites wound up being appalled at what they saw on TV that Federal government was forced to intervene. If you took MLK and Ghandi and sent them to Nazi Germany in 1944, do you think their tactics of nonviolence would have worked to save the Jews? No...because the Jews were less than human according to Nazi racial theory and it was considered perfectly acceptable and legal to herd 6 million of them into the gas chambers and murder them. Nonviolence and passive resistance would have served no purpose, and the fact that the Jews were unarmed and helpless only made genocide easier. The only thing that could (and ultimately did) save the Jews was[B] armed resistance and military force[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Verification