Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh
Protesting is a lesser form of terrorism in the fact that the purpose of terrorism is to displace the everyday life of normal civilians. So when things have to shut down due to a protest taking place, it is a lesser form of terrorism. For example, if a man has a deli on a street where there just happens to be a protest on today, and no one can come to his deli, and he loses all his business that day, then in effect those protesters were disrupting the normal flow of daily society, and this, to me, is a lesser form of terrorism.
|
I've gotta say, I'm with Ian and Deckard on this. By your reasoning, the farmer's market that happens every Tuesday evening by my work that cuts off easy access to a few local restaurants would also qualify as a "lesser form of terrorism".
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrrh
And the protesters may have justification in speaking out against what is happening, but the reality is it wouldn't be happening, if they weren't protesting.
|
This, I simply disagree with. Number one, none of this would be happening if the elections had been held in a way that didn't suggest such strong implications of vote tampering. That -
not the protests - is what's at the root of the whole issue.
Number two, this wouldn't have become such an international point of contention if the Iranian government hadn't responded to the protests with such outrageous violence.
And third, I agree that the protesters are justified in speaking out, so in my opinion, they should have a forum available to them to voice their concerns. That forum has traditionally been through peaceful protests. Would you have people with justified issues be silenced and forced to just accept the situation as it is, with no avenue for attempting to affect change available to them?