"I mean if I support letter writing to end.. say deforestation, why wouldnt I support popping loggers truck tires too? "

For the same reason that picketing abortion clinics (to pick an example) is acceptable, and shooting doctors you don't like is not acceptable.

Or - if you'd like a better example - that's it's a *big* difference between writing letters to the editor because you don't like a person or people, or the politics they follow and taking more direct action.

Or are you in *favor* of the Klan lynching some poor bastard because he tried to sign up people to vote? Or burning a school down because the "wrong kind" of people go there?

If you're going to be willing to condone other acts of violence, using that logic, then you should be willing to accept people who condone *other* acts of violence on the other side of the political spectrum.

You're missing the point. No I dont think flat tires will destroy the state. My point is whether you pop tires or write letters or shoot cops or turn your heart light on, solidarity is important. thats it. thats my only point.

It's case it's not obvious, I don't find the above acceptable on any level. Even if I was a bigoted jackass I wouldn't.

Now popping loggers tires I could agree with. It is property damage with a zero risk to anyone compared to firebombs and such. Hey, I teach people a lesson about parking in the no parking zone in our cul-de-sac by knifing tires and watching when the police come and give them a ticket for illegally parking right after they take the report of the knifed tires for the person's insurance. I love that they screw themselves thinking the police will do something about it when the cops in our neighborhood know that parking on the street is illegal and a problem whenever the school has a function (I live within a short walking distance of an elementary school). They even know it is those of us on the street doing it and gave us the official "don't do it" a couple of times at our association meetings, but they don't know which households do and which don't have the "vandals" and unofficially understand our plight, so they unofficially look the other way.

The word got round in the school about parking on our street, so they moved a couple streets down and that street started doing the same thing. Now they don't park on streets marked no parking.

But that is an acceptable level of violence that has zero risk to injure anyone but the vandal and acts as an effective deterrent to the problem.

P.S. We started by calling the cops, but they said they were to busy to worry about parking offenders on a Friday or Saturday night. Our cul-de-sac is barely wide enough for two cars to pass if one car is parked ono side of the street. When they line both sides, my house and my neighbors house are put at risk because an emergency response vehicle could NOT get through. Hell, a normal car barely gets through. That's why we all have two-car garages and drives that can park four more. If we have a party, we park in our side and front yards or down in the clubhouse lot, which is reserved for residents.

So you're in favor of lynchings, Sicarius? Or at least think other people should be in favor of them? Solidarity is important, after all...

"If you're going to be willing to condone other acts of violence, using that logic, then you should be willing to accept people who condone *other* acts of violence on the other side of the political spectrum."

thats stupid. I would support a rape victim killing her (or his) rapist is self defense, that doesnt mean because I'm supporting 'violence' that I HAVE to be ok with a rapist killing their victim.
saying it's ok to take up arms against your government (the constitution supports that) is not saying its ok for wanton police violence.

thats like saying, if you eat hamburgers, you cant condemn jeffery dahmer for eating people.
insanity.

"You're missing the point. No I dont think flat tires will destroy the state. My point is whether you pop tires or write letters or shoot cops or turn your heart light on, solidarity is important. thats it. thats my only point."

You surely cannot be so deluded to place writing a letter on the same lever as shooting at the police. Btw, you seem to think policemen are not human or something? Or murder is part of your usual arsenal? :)

P.S. The logging company's insurance would also cover the loggers lost wages, in most cases. So the only real harm is the raised rates of the Logging company by the InsCo and that is the goal, make it financially unfeasible for them.

That's great, Draugnar.

You're deliberately missing my point. I'm not saying it's ok for the government to use excessive force. I'm saying that if your view is that people that oppose the government should express solidarity to those that oppose the government, no matter how heinous their acts, then you should accept that those that are *for* the government are going to use the same logic.

So if I'm on a jury that is trying a guy for murder because he, oh let's say he took his SUV and ran over a bunch of protesters - well, I don't *like* some protesters, so he should go free... right?

I'm not saying you can't condemn Jeffrey Dahmer - *you* are. Except you're saying "if Jeffrey Dahmer ate people to send a political message I agree with, well, that's ok"

No. letter writing and shooting police are not on the same level. what do you think I am?
stop asking stupid questions.

@Ivo - it appears that, to Sic, anyone who is associated with the government is Fair Game. Kinda like Scientology and their critics.

We're not asking stupid questions, we're asking you to justify the things you are saying. *You* are the one who said this: "My point is whether you pop tires or write letters or shoot cops or turn your heart light on, solidarity is important. thats it. thats my only point."

Explain that in a way that *doesn't* equate popping tires with popping cops.

Look there are obviously exceptions. If some anarchist killed a busload of schoolchildren, I would quite obviously condemn that. There is a line here, it's sort of a common sense line.
If all I want to do to say, end deforestation is write letters and sing kumbayah, great. But I would be doing a disservice to my goal if I vocally opposed someone sabotaging bulldozers etc.
now I wouldnt support someone going to the loggers house and killing all their children or anything like that, like I said, its a common sense line. All I'm saying is that we shouldnt be divided over tactics. people who are criminally insane psychopaths are not included in that.

common sense is indeed very uncommon

To be fair to Sic, it doesn't sound like he's *equating* those things. He's just saying that if you are in favor of one then you, by default, must be in favor of all the others. Robotic extremism!

@Draugnar - it always amazes me that you find so much pride in being a prick. If someone parked wrong write note - if they keep doing it then escalate. Cutting strangers' tires and then gloating from the window...looks quite miserable actually. You do make the world a better place for sure, yes.

Your "common sense" line is obviously different from my line.

My common sense line is Primum non nocere

Yours appears to be "If it hurts The Man, whoo hoo!"

But, Sic, your "common sense line" only works if everyone agrees on where that line is. But they don't! Unfortunately for you and your worldview, people are not all the same and we don't all think the same things.

@ Jerk - hm, I agree. How... sheepleish

Sicarius, you specifically mentioned shooting at cops with poppoing the loggers tires. So killing kids is one side of the line, but killing cops is on the other? We are just asking how you justify ANY killing that isn't in self-defense.

with the "one for all" comment

look sorry if I'm getting worked up, maybe I'm just not explaining it very well.

If ghandi, while still remaining non-violent, vocally supported, or at least refrained from condeming militant resistance groups, how much stronger would the movement have been? How much stronger would the civil rights in america have been if MLK and the black panthers stood in solidarity instead of bickering about tactics?
So just apply that to movements today. if some environmentalists want to write letters, awesome. but they should show solidarity with those who want to tree-sit, or sabotage logging equipment, or vandalizing logging company CEO's houses. I'm not saying those letter writers should support the bombing of a daycare because it's "for" the end of deforestation. Do you see my point?

How can you not be "divided on tactics" when people obviously strongly disagree with what you consider acceptable.

By your own logic, the only way to maintain solidarity in that case is to restrain yourself to the actions your colleages tolerate.

So which is it, Sic? Unlimited freedom of action, or "solidarity"?

Nah, stratagos, we aren't sheep. We're in SOLIDARITY!

These people had their warnings. The association took it to a PTA meeting one evening when they were parked on the street illegally. They kept coming back and doing it, so we escalated to calling the police. No response, so we escalated to knifing tires. That did the trick. The pricks were the fuckers who illegally parked their minivans so the EMTs couldn't get to my place if they needed to. I live in a cul-de-sac - a dead end street. There is no way in or out save the one entrance. so you fuck with my and my family's life and won't move it when asked, I fuck over your car. Quite simple really.

Yes obviously the line is in different places for different people. But if my line is letter writing, and your line is shooting cops, the movement will be stonger if short of actually supporting you, I dont condemn you, even if I dont agree with it.

Sicarius, again, read Hitler/Stalin and then Ghandi/Mandela. Everyone knows how these worked out in the end and what methods were used. if you feel like the 'style' of the first group appeals more to you then at least you know where you belong.

You've managed to convince me, again, that even the most corrupt and stupid official is better than fanatics running loose. People like you are the main ammunition for The State to impose whatever precautions they desire. All they need to do to convince the general public is copy-paste some of what you're writing :)

No, Sic, it's ok. You don't need to repeat yourself. We understand what you're saying but are merely pointing out how fragile and ultimately wrong it is. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand our point.

What happens when you and your cronies are staging tree sit-ins, sabotaging logging equpiment, even breaking windows in a prominent CEO's house and then one guy, part of the solidarity but working independently, murders another CEO and his entire family. You still show solidarity to him?

"If ghandi, while still remaining non-violent, vocally supported, or at least refrained from condeming militant resistance groups, how much stronger would the movement have been?"

Ok, I'm sorry, but that's just an IDIOTIC statement.

If - and remember this is the 1940s here, we're not talking today's sensibilities - had condoned violent acts, the brits would have tarred and feathered him, locked him up and thrown away the key. The reason nonvoilence worked was because the colonial authorities had *no response* that was not an overreaction. Allowing himself to be linked to those who acted violently would have given the authorities the *perfect excuse* to move on him.

I fully grant you I could write this out better, and cite more evidence to back up my viewpoint, but, just, JESUS, did you even *think* before you wrote that??