Raider5678

I didn't, however I imagine they're larger.

Forced voting as in people being bussed to voting stations to vote a particular way, often has that effect. And whether he would have been a powerful rival or not doesn't matter. The fact he didn't get a chance is what matters.

There are several accusations of fake voting, forced voting, etc. Additionally, all the main opposition was barred from running.

I don't. I have no reason to. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with someone using a gun to defend themselves from an oppressive government.

Nowhere.

No. I don't. Enlighten me.

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you don't believe in god.

Most of the British Colonies violently overthrew their oppressors. Perhaps they should have protested and been martyrs instead?

The majority of that is they worry the government will become a dictatorship. Which, historically, is not far-fetched. Rome was a democracy that eventually fell to becoming an empire ruled by an emperor. Russia was a democracy, that very quickly became a fake one. North Korea WAS a democracy, but that's laughable now. Although I do get your point and I agree with you, I do understand the concept of the other side. There is a large difference IMO. That was the government splitting, as well as the population. It wasn't the government splitting from the population. It's hard to argue there isn't a difference there.

We're talking about oppressive governments correct? And whether peaceful means are more effective than violent ones. Russia, North Korea, Saudia Arabia, and China, are the first 4 oppressive governments that come to mind. Women being raped, children being sold, men forced to work in labor camps, are all common stories. I said that ultimately the oppressive government doesn't just roll over because people protest. Typically, protests are illegal(as in all 4 countries) and result in death. And, they very rarely do anything. There have been 6 successful revolutions against corrupt governments in the last 30 years(1990 onward). 1 was peaceful because other countries threatened to get involved if the government didn't step down, 5 were not. Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is be willing to die through protests and become a martyr. If the argument is about efficiency and maximum benefit, a revolution is more effective then a bunch of protests in a country that is not a democracy.

You don't seem to know your history very well. That was one side of an issue vs another. Not people against the government. Slave states vs non slave states. Not population vs government.

Alright. Tell women who are raped by corrupt government officials, that they shouldn't fight back. Tell children who are sold as sex slaves by corrupt government officials, that they should just wait. Tell men who are sent to slave labor camps by corrupt government officials, that eventually it'll be better, and that it doesn't matter how long it tales. Tell them that their suffering doesn't matter, as long as you're peaceful.

How does that support your position at all?

Letting them kill you is seldom peaceful either.

Eventually in the terms of a human life, might as well be never. If 20 generations live under an oppressive government, it might as well be never to the 19 generations of them who lived and died under the regime.

My southern states? You realize they're still part of the country right?

That makes no sense. I'm basically saying if standing in front of a tank only get's you killed, why do it? If all you do is protest and die because of it, but it never changes anything, why do it? Are you so committed to peace to think that you should let an oppressive government continue killing it's citizens, using them as slaves, starving them while they eat like kings, oppressing them, and making you live in fear 100% of the time?

Yes. Because "eventually" might as well be "never"

No where. You said eventually. I asked how long eventually is. And when the whole country is throwing lit bottles of petrol at them with hit and run, they have a bigger problem. With a single person, they do what they have historically done before. Shoot them.

Fair enough. They didn't just shoot him and move on. They arrested him, dragged him away, and then executed him by firing squad. Along with three-hundred other people, totaling an estimated seven-thousand wounded as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989#Official_figures

Yes. Now they have a government controlled internet. Government-controlled media. And best of all, a justice system that makes suggestions instead of rulings.

You ever hear of a Molotov cocktail? Very effective against tanks. And in a reigme that will just shoot you and move on, which do you think will be successful? If you, and a hundred others do it, and just get executed, what does that help? The government doesn't care if you die, so at which point do you realize that yes, martyrs make a point, but no, they aren't helping anyone.

Yes. How many generations are you willing to allow to be suppressed before you say "No more." How many generations are you willing to allow to be slaves before you say "No more." How many generations have to live in darkness and suffering before you say "No more." Violence isn't always the answer. I agree. However sometimes it is.

Define eventually. 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? 500 years?