> snitsnat wrote:
> You are evading my question. You can't have it both ways here. If you
> condemn property destruction and violence committed by American activists,
> you have to be consistent and be against it around the world.
I'm not a pacifist and in certain situations, I support the use of violence against oppressive governments. That doesn't mean for consistency I have to support someone shooting a meter maid for giving them a ticket.
The problem I have with the Black Bloc is not some sacrosanct love of property no matter what but the fact that their tactics are so spectacularly ineffective and counterproductive in the context of US politics.
But this is the problem with this whole worldview that sees theory embodied in tactics. For the rest of us, theory is a guide to developing the appropriate tactics in different contexts; the principles may be consistent but the tactics will vary based on those different situations.
But where your whole principle IS the tactic, you think consistency is using the same tactic no matter what the context is. If all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails. It's a warped and limiting theory of the world.
Nathan Newman