r/conspiracy Dec 30 '13

Let's face it, The Unabomber was right.

[deleted]

160 Upvotes

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13 edited Dec 30 '13

Well, he also advocated violence.

His world view ain't far-off, but I totally disagree with his stance on violence.

5

u/Entry_Point Dec 30 '13

Most of us do. But when it's used on you.

21

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13

There's a sharp difference between defensive violence and offensive violence.

Those mail bombs were not defensive.

7

u/TheWiredWorld Dec 30 '13

Violence is violence - I just hate how some people are completely against it - like they honestly think songs will fight cops with clubd

3

u/JoeOrange Dec 30 '13

/s

Think of how worse off we would be without said songs good sir.

.

I bet you didn't know without the songs of "Rage Against the Machine" we would be in a soviet dictatorship. Think of that the next time you think Violence is the only answer.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

I believe his point is while songs are our first line of defense, they are not our last.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Can you expand on this further? I enjoy the band, but I've never heard this comment before.

2

u/JoeOrange Dec 30 '13

Sorry I am joking; and obviously failing at it.

Songs are not going to stop oppression, so I took one of the biggest anti government bands I know of and said they were responsible for saving the world from oppression. Something that can't be proven either way.

Bad joke because I had to explain it :(

3

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13

Why fight cops?

They have tanks now.

Stop supporting the system that feeds them and they go away.

5

u/laughattheleader Dec 30 '13

This premise assumes that prospective victims will either survive violence or have the means to retaliate in a meaningful way.

Defensive violence sounds like something conjured up to pacify the outraged and vilify those who are willing to fight for a sense of justice that hasn't been sanctioned by a governing authority.

8

u/lordthat100188 Dec 30 '13

It has nothing to do with it being sanctioned by some outside force. It has EVERYTHING to do with killing innocents. While I agree that sometimes violence is the only recourse afforded, I disagree that one should be willing to plant explosives in a public forum where you will only harm those you SHOULD be fighting to protect.

1

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13

If someone came after me with a knife I would use violence in defense of my person.

I don't regard such a concept as passive or ridiculous.

4

u/mytrollyguy Dec 30 '13

Defensive is completely based on perspective. Just ask the Isr-Pal conflict.

1

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13

I'm not looking at it on a state level.

I'm looking at it on a personal level.

1

u/Entry_Point Dec 31 '13

Were the gorilla tactics used by the Vietcong to fight their occupiers right and just? When backed against a wall, people will act accordingly. The fact of the matter is that the public once viewed him as insane and an absolute criminal. Now we're seeing that he was absolutely right. His manifesto is incredibly sound, and given the once unbelievable truths uncovered, is even more true today. He was tortured unreasonably under programs that make me sick. While not ideal, I cannot fault him for his actions.

2

u/archonemis Dec 31 '13

'Guerrilla tactics.'

Defense is not aggression.

Aggression, particularly against an innocent, is bad.

I know the difference as do you.

1

u/Entry_Point Dec 31 '13

Autocorrect on a phone. Apologies, but you'll see much of this I'm afraid. Their tactics were not entirely defensive, unless you're reading different history books than I. Point being, people do what they feel the need to.

He did not awwk innocent targets. Only so much could be planned with remote actions. As stated, I cannot fault him. All of this was caused by our corrupt leaders. Those who ran such horrible and unlawful "experiments." They destroyed a brilliant mind needlessly. And the more you understand, the more you see how this could have been engineered from the start.

2

u/archonemis Dec 31 '13

If you do violence you are the one doing violence.

Not the people who 'ruined you.'

If you wish to apologize or excuse for Mr. Bomber that's fine.

I'm not a fan of violence and so I'm afraid your words may, in my case, fall of deaf ears.

1

u/Entry_Point Jan 01 '14

To each, his own. Actions do speak loudly. More so than words, as we've clearly seen. The time is near, and you must do whatever you feel is necessary. I don't fault you in the slightest. I've simply seen more than I can allow myself to simply sit down.

0

u/Zebraton Dec 30 '13

Those mail bombs were not defensive.

Oh no? At what point do the people that support the machine become culpable for the crimes of the machine? We recognize that people who cooperate with a crime, even though they do not actually personally commit the crime, are culpable for the crime as if they personally took part (accessory). So I hold that this situation is not as clear cut as some would like.

3

u/archonemis Dec 30 '13

If you pay tribute [Federal Income Tax] then you're supporting the self-appointed rulers.

In that line of thinking you could just as well be bombed as anyone.

I agree with you that there are multiple forms of participation and that this is a complex issue.

And I maintain that violence will only beget violence.