Why is it acceptable for the left to resort to violence?

[taxman]

Indeed. I've had threats of violence from several posters on here because I have had the temerity to not agree with their views.

 

One question I'd ask - Do you think that the right would have such disgusting scenes of jubilation at the death of Tony Blair? I very much doubt it. With that in mind you have to ask who is the nasty party now - because it seems very much to be Old Labour's appropriate tag at the moment.

 

Of course not, he didn't polarise a country and ruin millions of lives. He may have been incompetent but how many MPs aren't?

 

A similar question was asked last night by some fawning Thatcher lover, asking if people were jubilant and joyous about John Smith's death.

 

Well d'uh. Of course they weren't, he was never in a position of power to do anything. If he'd come to power then shut down all the banks, brokers, hedge funds etc and made everyone in the South of England unemployed then I've no doubt the Tories would celebrate his demise.

[SpikeMac]

No, you definitly havn't...

.

 

I most certainly have.

 

You should slow down a bit and think...

[mikem8634]

In answer to the thread title; it isn't, they don't and nobody said it was anyway did they?

 

It is unacceptable for anybody to behave violently (unless it is defensive in nature).

 

The left, as a political term, covers many people who have never acted violently in their lives, including my nan. The right, equally so, apart from the bit about my nan.

 

Your question may have been more accurate if you had framed it differently - why do some people feel it is acceptable to act violently sometimes? The answer, I imagine is a fairly complex one involving childhood, upbringing, morality, substance misuse, group dynamics and many other factors.

 

What is unacceptable is to imply that violence is solely attributable to one part of the political spectrum, when history displays exactly the opposite to be true, and to further imply that all people, of any particular political persuasion, are all part of one homogenous group and, therefore, somehow responsible for the extreme acts of the few.

[TJC1]

Why was it acceptable for the right to resort to violence when they lost elections in Spain and Chile?

 

True. Violence is not the preserve of the left. It spans all political ideologies.

Franco, mussolini, Hitler etc. Etc. They were right wing last time I checked.

 

Then, you get idiot daily mail journalists writing stupid pieces about the violent left with no factual basis at all except a picture of a few broken windows and another unrelated picture of some actually peaceful looking socialist party members.

[andygardener]

Of course not, he didn't polarise a country and ruin millions of lives.

 

I think most Iraqis would disagree. And most Britons.

[taxman]

Sorry, were they part of the UK back then? Have I missed Blair stumbling into another war and accidentally annexing some country by mistake because they couldn't get weapons of mass distraction ready in 45 minutes?

 

 

The thread title is "Why is it acceptable for the left to resort to violence?"

 

I was asking why you and others think it was acceptable for the right to resort to violence.

 

Do you see?

[Obelix]

Of course not, he didn't polarise a country and ruin millions of lives.

 

Neither did Thatcher. You could ask an Iraqi opinion on that question though. Just saying like

 

Now when you've finished spluttering in self rightoues synthetic false indignation consider this.

 

The mines would have closed anyway. So would shipbuilding, and heavy manufacturing, and all the beloved jobs, because they were all being offshored because the UK was deeply uncompetitive - and the reason for that goes back to the late end of the 60's.

 

Think about it - if it was just Thatcher, then as soon as she went you coudl restart all those jobs again. After all if we were so good at them, it'd be easy to get them started up with that highly skilled workforce.

 

But we didn't. Why? Because it was simply too damn expensive to do so - and the sole reason for that was because other countries had it cheaper because they have cheaper labour and cheaper standards of living.

 

Sure we could have close everyone out and become protectionist. We have a word for that sort of economy. It's called North Korea.

 

We did what we had to - we started to turn into a knowledge economy as that's where the money is to support an expensive place to live. Sink or swim. Some people didn't like it, some people wouldn't do it, one feckless oaf apparently spent 32 years doing nothing, and to justify this they wanted a beating stick. So they picked Thatcher, rather than jsut realising that the decline of such industry was a large conglomeration of reasons, but ultimately, the reason is because that's what happens to evolving economies.

[taxman]

I think most Iraqis would disagree. And most Britons.

 

How did he ruin most Britons lives?

[skinz]

In answer to the thread title; it isn't, they don't and nobody said it was anyway did they?

 

It is unacceptable for anybody to behave violently (unless it is defensive in nature).

 

The left, as a political term, covers many people who have never acted violently in their lives, including my nan. The right, equally so.

 

Your question may have been more accurate if you had framed it differently - why do some people feel it is acceptable to act violently sometimes? The answer, I imagine is a fairly complex one involving childhood, upbringing, morality, substance misuse, group dynamics and many other factors.

 

What is unacceptable is to imply that violence is solely attributable to one part of the political spectrum, when history displays exactly the opposite to be true, and to further imply that all people, of any particular political persuasion, are all part of one homogenous group and, therefore, somehow responsible for the extreme acts of the few.

 

 

Yes, but can we get back to the obvious Modus operandi of the OP please. You talking all sense just puts a spanner in the works.

[Jessica23]

Indeed. I've had threats of violence from several posters on here because I have had the temerity to not agree with their views.

 

One question I'd ask - Do you think that the right would have such disgusting scenes of jubilation at the death of Tony Blair? I very much doubt it. With that in mind you have to ask who is the nasty party now - because it seems very much to be Old Labour's appropriate tag at the moment.

 

I reckon there'll be a fair bit of jubilation from parts of the left when Blair dies. I certainly wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.