Forum Overview :: Motherfucking News :: My own comments why murderious violence doesn't solve your problem

[quote name="Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS)"]This is from my book <i>Instrument of God</i> where these people are in an afterlife, and the main character mentions Timothy McVeigh's use of people-killing violence to showcase his outrage at the incident at Waco, and Supervisor 246 shows why that sort of violence like what he did at Oklahoma City doesn't work. If you're going to use violence, use it <i>intelligently</i>, don't just lash out or people won't listen to you (they'll consider you a kook). <ul>"A group of people had some weird ideas about religion. Some of their neighbors didn't like it. Some government men decided to use this to get themselves some free TV time and make an example of this unpopular religion. In trying to serve some papers at their farm, one of the police officers accidentally shoots himself. The police panic, think the people in the farm are shooting at them. They start shooting, the people inside start shooting back, and the end result is that weeks later, dozens of women and children are dead because someone panicked and overreacted. This, of course, was the incident at Waco, Texas.</ul><ul>"When I saw the event I reached the conclusion that the government of the United States had gone right over the edge, and if they weren't careful they might spark the equivalent of a national 1968 Watts, California riot the next time someone sees government officials showing up. And in a way, I was right.</ul><ul>"We know what happened next on that exact same day a few years later, as, again, dozens of women and children end up dead because someone panicked and overreacted. This, of course, was the incident at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.</ul><ul>"I don't think that violence is a good answer in most cases, and yet, it might just have been in this one if it had been planned properly. Some people might think it's not a good idea for me to give an example where violence may be an appropriate answer. But, I have found that it can be instructive to show people that, if you're fighting in a war - which many of the people who do these things believe to be the case - it should be understood that war is supposed to be controlled violence, where you commit such acts because you have no other alternative, and because the reason for doing so is to either deny the enemy the means to continue the war, or to try to convince them that if they do not realize the war needs to be stopped and sue for peace, the cost to them is going to be more than they can bear.</ul><ul>"And beyond this, the so-called bad guys already know how to use violence, and anything I might say they already know about, so I'm not telling anything these people don't already know, but they often use violence in random ways that result in setting back whatever cause they believe they are fighting for, and usually hurting innocent people. Maybe if I can tell someone who is already committed to using violence how not to go about it, he might think of a way not to have to do so, or maybe he'll think of a way to avoid hurting people. We can replace damaged unoccupied property or destroyed empty buildings; that's just money in one form or another. But dead people are irreplaceable. And while I don't like to see violence taking place, some people are committed to it and you can't talk them out of it. But it might be possible to talk them into doing something which still involves violence, but is less drastic than hurting people.</ul><ul>"I spoke to Timothy McVeigh shortly after he died. I said to him, in response to his comments, ‘I understand what you thought, in that you wanted to make it known that you felt the government is acting out of control, and to get people to notice. I'll tell you something, I believe that what you did caused the exact opposite of what you intended, and made people more likely to believe the government's actions were correct. I believe you were quoted as saying that you felt you needed a "body count" to get people to notice. Sir, the one thing you absolutely <i>did not need</i>, was a body count.'</ul><ul>"I can think of how using violence might have made a more appropriate statement, especially since in his opinion, the government was beyond the point of listening to civil discourse and would only respond to violence.</ul><ul>"He could have set up the same thing to happen, but call in a bomb alert. Set off a small one nearby if you have to, in order to let people know it's no hoax, then give them time to evacuate everyone. Or even better: duplicate the same setup somewhere else, but leave a clear and obvious flaw that makes it impossible to go off. Mention that another place has the same thing, but it is not disabled and will go off. This will prevent the authorities from presuming it's a hoax and ignoring it, and they will then evacuate everyone from the real site. Especially if you let the media know about it.</ul><ul> "After the explosion goes off, you announce that you chose to warn people, because, while you're willing to use violence to make a point - as the U.S. Federal Government was at Waco - you're better than they are, because unlike them, you chose not to injure or kill innocent people. You'd get the same press coverage, you would not face the death penalty if you got caught, and people might just see that the government needs to be stopped from acting rashly before it triggers more crazies like you, who next time, might not be so kind to innocent bystanders.</ul><ul>"That doesn't mean I approve of the use of violence as a way to solve problems. People who use violence as a means to respond to some issue fail to realize that killing or wounding innocent noncombatants in whatever war they are fighting, will usually tend to harden the hearts eliminating sympathy, and deafen the ears, of the very people that they need to be sympathetic to, and listen to, their ideas."</ul>[/quote]