EPT
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:36 Jormundr wrote: We don't. That's one of the prerequisites for your argument having any value. If the military sides with the people then we don't need civilians to have guns anyway because we'd have tanks, artillery, and air support. I disagree. Guerrilla warfare is an amazing thing. The Taliban beat the Soviets, the Viet-Cong beat the US, the Polish resistance to the Soviets was never quelled, and the insurgents in Iraq didn't exactly get crushed. No military on Earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, canal, harbor, railyard, powerplant, and airstrip in the country. And before you bring them up, all the drones and laser-guided bombs in the world are meaningless if they can't find you. There are forests and swamps so dense that even the best satellite imagery can't peer inside. On December 23 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote: Dem forum Anarchist sleeper cells, now there's a real threat worth arming yourself over Don't get me wrong, violence is an absolute last resort. Just don't think the fight will be one-sided, with or without the military's support. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
I said that no matter if it is a state or not, organizations with a lot of power will have a lot of atrocities on their hands. Since states are organizations with the most power they have most atrocities on their hands. But proportionally they are not any worse than unchecked corporations or other organizations. And I actually provided you examples, but you, again dishonestly, included them all under states or dismissed them without reason. No, you said that rebels and corporations caused atrocities on par with the state - a direct assertion that my point, that states are responsible for all the atrocities was wrong. Now you are changing your tune... but of course you could never possibly admit you were wrong right? | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
| ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
Many non-state actors in history caused atrocities on the scale of states. Rebels, trade organizations, companies, you name it. Was your exact quote. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:28 Millitron wrote: I disagree. Guerrilla warfare is an amazing thing. The Taliban beat the Soviets, the Viet-Cong beat the US, the Polish resistance to the Soviets was never quelled, and the insurgents in Iraq didn't exactly get crushed. No military on Earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, canal, harbor, railyard, powerplant, and airstrip in the country. And before you bring them up, all the drones and laser-guided bombs in the world are meaningless if they can't find you. There are forests and swamps so dense that even the best satellite imagery can't peer inside. Don't get me wrong, violence is an absolute last resort. Just don't think the fight will be one-sided, with or without the military's support. Before the main counterargument few things to point out. None of the movements you mention were operating without state support. Afghanistan resistance was supplied from Pakistan (and US), Viet-Cong was basically branch of North Vietnamese military and I have no idea what are you talking about when you mention Polish resistance to the Soviets as there was no military resistance to speak of after WW2, do you mean during WW2 ? Anyway as I already pointed out those are resistance movements against external threat, whereas the argument is about internal one. In that case either they have support of at least significant part of the population and then they have enough support that with army having no actual opponents they can rule pretty comfortably. If they do not have any support from the population then the scenario is completely fictional in case of democratic countries of the first world. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:35 TerribleNoobling wrote: No, you said that rebels and corporations caused atrocities on par with the state - a direct assertion that my point, that states are responsible for all the atrocities was wrong. Now you are changing your tune... but of course you could never possibly admit you were wrong right? And they did and I provided you with examples. Thus your claim that ALL big atrocities are caused by the states is wrong. Those organizations caused atrocities on par with states with equal power as those organizations. You wanted to say that states are so evil that only states cause atrocities. This is easily false as smaller states are easily matched in atrocities by non-state organizations with similar power. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:36 TerribleNoobling wrote: Anyway, I am glad we can both agree with my original point - that states are responsible for all of the worst atrocities visited upon humanity. It's an important fact to understand. Yes, but that is not because there is something inherently evil in the state. It is because they wield the most power. The rest is human nature. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:51 Skilledblob wrote: I think it's funny how the guys from the USA feel like their goverment is going to oppress them even though they are such a great democracy They are just using it as an excuse for owning firearms, pathetic but it seems it's all they have. (as illogical as it sounds) | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1945–1989)#Food_riots_and_the_ousting_of_Gomu.C5.82ka The Taliban were doing ok against the Soviets even before the US aided them. Sure, it would have taken longer for the Taliban to win without help, but it would have happened. The North Vietnamese Army was a joke, they got slaughtered in practically every conventional battle. They only had any successes when they waged guerrilla warfare, which just supports my point. I suggest that guerrilla warfare is even more effective against internal threats, as the guerrillas have access to much juicier targets. Hellion attacks are only really effective if they can hit the mineral line after all. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:52 TerribleNoobling wrote: You are simultaneously arguing that I am right and that I am wrong. Don't know what to tell you bud! You are right that states caused biggest atrocities. You are wrong when claiming that there are no non-state actors that caused atrocities on par with the states. You know that there are different states and some of them caused little to no atrocities, thus examples I provided of non-state atrocities easily exceed theirs ? You are also wrong by insisting that the atrocities are somehow inherently part of the state and non-state actors are immune to causing them. Unchecked non-state actors inflict atrocities in the same manner as states relative to their capabilities. But I already said that in previous posts, but it seems you are incapable of understanding. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:59 Millitron wrote: The Polish civilians overthrew a Soviet-sympathizing regime after decades of peaceful protest. The conflict never came to blows, because the regime backed down, but they were clearly afraid of civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1945–1989)#Food_riots_and_the_ousting_of_Gomu.C5.82ka The Taliban were doing ok against the Soviets even before the US aided them. Sure, it would have taken longer for the Taliban to win without help, but it would have happened. The North Vietnamese Army was a joke, they got slaughtered in practically every conventional battle. They only had any successes when they waged guerrilla warfare, which just supports my point. I suggest that guerrilla warfare is even more effective against internal threats, as the guerrillas have access to much juicier targets. Hellion attacks are only really effective if they can hit the mineral line after all. You talked about guerilla warfare. There was none in Poland. I am Polish just so you know  There were also no guns present on the protesting side in any significant role. It proves my point more than yours. It is doubtful Taliban would have won without outside help. But they would have never won if Soviets did not decide it was not worth it to stay. Which can happen in external conflict, but not in internal one, unless they have no population support. Again it more supports my point. As for North Vietnamese, yes they waged guerilla warfare, but they did so as a state with material support of the state that backs them up. Method of executing the conflict is not an issue here, how successful can it be without state support is the question. And that is even ignoring the most important part of my point which is difference between internal and external conflict. | ||
|
eqinf
Germany100 Posts
there is also no reason for smoking / get drunk / play videogames is a gun bad ? no its just a tool , does any1 need this tool ? => not when you live in a developed state . best way not to get shot by a guy owning a gun => no guys owning a gun | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
| ||
