On 22 Apr, 16:52, Fod
googlemail.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 7:36 am, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On 21 Apr, 16:48, Fod
googlemail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Apr 21, 2:54 pm, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>
>>>> On 21 Apr, 12:20, Conor
hotmail.com> wrote:> In article >>>>>> the punishment, if any? Do you think, on the other hand, the victim
>>>>>> was to blame for getting in the way of the driver? Or aren't there
>>>>>> enough facts yet to determine blame? Any other excuses for this death?
>
>>>>>> "A 20-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a
>>>>>> man, believed to be a football fan, was fatally struck by a car in
>>>>>> Birmingham.
>
>>>>> Where was the political agenda he was trying to force upon someone by
>>>>> violence?
>
>>>> Football politics, apparently.
>
>>> Yep, you don't really have an argument so you have to resort to
>>> making yourself look stupid.
>
>> Care to explain, for a change?
>
>>>> It has already been agreed on this NG that, according to the modern
>>>> definition, Suffragettes were undoubtedly terrorists and yet their
>>>> political agenda is widely acclaimed.
>
>>> And what definition are we using today? Please post it so we can
>>> decide if they are or not.
>
>> The current legislation on anti-terrorism.
>
>>> Generally their direct protesting was chaining themselves to things or
>>> damage to property. They didn't blow people up or threaten to kill
>>> people.
>
>> Wrong again and as usual, they used bombs and political intimidation.
>> You need some lessons in history.
>
> OK, after a bit of research they didn't use bombs. The closets I
> could find were a couple of hoax bomb threats. So clearly they didn't
> use bombs and as I claimed they didn't blow anyone up.
>
> They set fire to several empty properties and broke a number of
> windows. As I said they damaged property.
>
> I've not seen anything that indicates they assaulted anyone,
> especially MPs. As they set fire to the homes of some MPs I would
> agree with you that they used political intimidation. However as they
> targetted MPs that supported them I'd question how effective it was.
>
> So my asserting that they didn't blow people up or threaten to kill
> people stands as correct unless you post something that proves
> otherwise.
>
> I like it when you dig a hole, then bluster and goad someone into
> filling it up with you at the bottom. Normally I wouldn't bother.
>
> Like I keep saying the violence of the suffragette movement did not
> get them the vote. While they were acting like modern extreme ARAs
> neither of them will achieve their goals via violence. ( ARAs have
> seen drastic drops in public support after big violent acts)
>
Firstly, to be classed as a terrorist you don't have to actually
succeed in blowing someone up. Secondly, as I said to begin with, the
Suffragettes were clearly terrorists by modern definition, which
clearly goes to prove that one woman's terrorist is another woman's
freedom fighter and motorists can be regarded as terrorists too.
Try this for size:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Suffragettes_bomb_David_Lloyd-George's_hou...
"The British Women were fighting for Women's Liberation and proceeded
to interrupt speeches here and there and to march peacefully for their
rights, but were not heard. Queen Victoria was not in favor of woman
suffrage, and her Prime Ministers at the close of the nineteenth
century, the liberal William Ewart Gladstone and the conservative
Benjamin Disraeli, would not offend her by supporting woman suffrage
bills in Parliament. The movement then grew more violent and mailboxes
were burned; churches and country homes were burned; an attempt was
made to bomb David Lloyd George's house because he refused to support
women suffrage. Women carried bricks under their skirts to Oxford
Street and a signal was given by blowing a whistle and the group of
women threw the bricks through the windows and this tactic was named
"the Argument of the Broken Pane." Many suffragettes wound up in
prison where they went on hunger strikes and were force fed through
the nose, leading to serious infections. A 'Cat and Mouse' bill was
passed providing that women in poor health be released from prison
until they recovered, at which time they would be rearrested."
Clearly extreme terrorist acts by modern definition and countered by
the usual State oppression, and all they wanted was a vote, fools!
But how were they to know then that voting would achieve nothing and
they would remain still unequal right up until the present day? What
they didn't realise, like all voters, was that shuffling
representatives around does nothing to change an entrenched system.
