A fellow poster, supporter of the PAD in the present political mess, has mentioned in the news thread that "getting some people killed" might be worth in order to get Thaksin to resign, or thrown out of office.

Now, how do you fellas think?

Is it worth it?

sheesh!

Can only think of one person that may be worth "getting killed" for political purposes and that would be that fellow PAD supporter poster.But wouldn't wish it even on him.

Careful, now. That is not typical thinking of the leadership of non-violent protest demonstrations. It is, more commonly, the mindset of dictatorships, oligarchies, and the military leadership. But non-violent causes do not need to create their own martyrs; their enemies usually do it for them. No respectable protest movement would use that kind of bloody calculus.

hmmm that's a bit of an overexagerration of that poster's meaning ....

But hel_l ... to take a side I don't believe in ....

The Tree of liberty must be ....

and would such "sacrifices" be more or less deaths than have happened under Thaksin in the South (say in the back of trucks...) or in the form of Extra-judicial killings ......

anyways I am a true believer in non-violence and civil-disobedience .... so cheers to the people that risk all in non-violent expressions of political outrage!

look at history and revolutions.

Europe would be shared between kings

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

Would it be worth to kill Pol Pot?

Was it worth to bomb Iraq and kill thousands to get Saddam?

beside nice political correctness, violence was always a tool to the better and to the worse. That can not be ignored.

sheesh!

Can only think of one person that may be worth "getting killed" for political purposes and that would be that fellow PAD supporter poster.But wouldn't wish it even on him.

look at history and revolutions.

Europe would be shared between kings

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

Would it be worth to kill Pol Pot?

Was it worth to bomb Iraq and kill thousands to get Saddam?

beside nice political correctness, violence was always a tool to the better and to the worse. That can not be ignored.

sheesh!

Can only think of one person that may be worth "getting killed" for political purposes and that would be that fellow PAD supporter poster.But wouldn't wish it even on him.

Rather extreme bringing up Hitler and Pol Pot and reminds me of the movie Minority Report.If one could predict the future murderers could be arrested before they commit the murder.Could you have strangled a baby Hitler in his cradle if you knew what he was going to grow up and do?What if he changed direction in his youth and became an artist or shoe cobbler?

Self-defense is a natural right of every living thing but to kill so one's political party comes into power is no different than a carjacker killing a driver to get his car.

you are right, but maybe killing him after he killed 1 mill jews before he kills 7 mill more..

look at history and revolutions.

Europe would be shared between kings

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

Would it be worth to kill Pol Pot?

Was it worth to bomb Iraq and kill thousands to get Saddam?

beside nice political correctness, violence was always a tool to the better and to the worse. That can not be ignored.

sheesh!

Can only think of one person that may be worth "getting killed" for political purposes and that would be that fellow PAD supporter poster.But wouldn't wish it even on him.

Rather extreme bringing up Hitler and Pol Pot and reminds me of the movie Minority Report.If one could predict the future murderers could be arrested before they commit the murder.Could you have strangled a baby Hitler in his cradle if you knew what he was going to grow up and do?What if he changed direction in his youth and became an artist or shoe cobbler?

Self-defense is a natural right of every living thing but to kill so one's political party comes into power is no different than a carjacker killing a driver to get his car.

PAD has their fair share of nutcases don't they?

I thought their proposed boycott of Singaporean products and overall xenophobia was out there, then this one gave me a laugh:

"Phibhop Dhongchai, a core leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, said Mr Thaksin had once

again used votes to justify himself. The caretaker prime minister had asked the public what his

problems were. "

But this is one better.

"Phibhop Dhongchai, a core leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, said Mr Thaksin had once

again used votes to justify himself.

LOL!

A fellow poster, supporter of the PAD in the present political mess, has mentioned in the news thread that "getting some people killed" might be worth in order to get Thaksin to resign, or thrown out of office.

Now, how do you fellas think?

Is it worth it?

Maybe if the one of the some people killed was Thaksin himself?

PAD has their fair share of nutcases don't they?

I thought their proposed boycott of Singaporean products and overall xenophobia was out there, then this one gave me a laugh:

"Phibhop Dhongchai, a core leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, said Mr Thaksin had once

again used votes to justify himself. The caretaker prime minister had asked the public what his

problems were. "

But this is one better.

You're certainly right there.

The loonies are well and truly on the march.

Did the killing of many involved in the drug trade solve the core problem?

No

Did the killing of many involved in the drug trade solve the core problem?

Did the killing of many involved in the drug trade solve the core problem?

The core problem? You mean prohibition? That's the core problem of the drug trade.

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

But what if you ended up with someone worse?

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

But what if you ended up with someone worse?

kill him.....

no that goes to far in philosopic discussion were a general always true answer can not be found.

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

But what if you ended up with someone worse?

those are some of oldest questions in the silly "What If?" game played by non-pacifists. What if Martin Luther or John Calvin had joined the pacifist Anabaptists? Well, they might have gotten killed, and they wouldn't have made their bloody alliances with the princes that were in power. Ironically, Dietrich Bonhoffer went from being a pacifist Resistance pastor who tried to get one of Hitler's most trusted lieutenants NOT kill Hitler, to trying to kill Hitler himself.

Blame Hitler all you wish, but blame German and Prussian militarism; blame the Lutheran and Catholic churches for being so bloody violent in their teachings and their blessings; whatever. Hitler managed to do what he did, because the Gentile heterosexual agnostic non-gypsy, non-Communist Germans did Hitler's dirty work for him. MLK, Jr., said that Hitler never broke a law of Germany.

Anyway, back to the topic: non-violent protest movements expect that one of their own may become a dead martyr to the cause, but nobody wants one of their own to die.

basically agree, just: no dictator (or absolut king what is the same) ever broke any law, because they are the law.

thats always good to mention when there is a dictator and people are telling to do accourding to the law. Law is just a construct which can be changed all the time.

"Gentile heterosexual agnostic non-gypsy, non-Communist Germans"

homo/hetero, agnostic/religous, gypsy or not, Communist is anyway just a politic idea, does not mater. Educated germans had doubts, but they closed their eyes on the hugh economic success and on the fact if they not agree they are dead...

Would it be worth to kill Hitler before he kill jews?

But what if you ended up with someone worse?

those are some of oldest questions in the silly "What If?" game played by non-pacifists. What if Martin Luther or John Calvin had joined the pacifist Anabaptists? Well, they might have gotten killed, and they wouldn't have made their bloody alliances with the princes that were in power. Ironically, Dietrich Bonhoffer went from being a pacifist Resistance pastor who tried to get one of Hitler's most trusted lieutenants NOT kill Hitler, to trying to kill Hitler himself.

Blame Hitler all you wish, but blame German and Prussian militarism; blame the Lutheran and Catholic churches for being so bloody violent in their teachings and their blessings; whatever. Hitler managed to do what he did, because the Gentile heterosexual agnostic non-gypsy, non-Communist Germans did Hitler's dirty work for him. MLK, Jr., said that Hitler never broke a law of Germany.

Anyway, back to the topic: non-violent protest movements expect that one of their own may become a dead martyr to the cause, but nobody wants one of their own to die.