Are violent revolutions a just response to oppression?

  • Everyone reacts the same

    Valuable leadership skills include the ability to delegate, inspire and communicate effectively. Bahsar Al-Assad has none of those skills, Therfore he should not be a leader. He kills his own people, and this is not only happening in Syria, it is also happening in China, Mexico,etc. These people fighting back arent just fighting back for no reason. Something major has to happens to upset the people therefore, they respond. A whole country dosnt wake up one day and say we are going to be voilent towards our goverment. Their leaders are the reason they are fighting back. They have the right to fight for what they believe, especially if their leaders already broke out into violence. Thank you now i stand for questioning.

  • Violent Revolutions Not Unjust Response

    Oppression is violent in whatever form. So violent revolutions in response to oppression are not unjust, and in fact should probably be expected in most cases. It is not the best way to effect change. Oppressors tend to be better equipped and better organized and able to crush a rebellion, so more peaceful, indirect means are probably better. Please, violent revolutions cause a lot of collateral damage. But justice? It's a just and natural response to oppression.

  • Sometimes it's a case of the straw that broke the camels back.

    When a group of people are oppressed for a long period of time, they can either become cowed and lose their will, or they can become angry, and stay angry. There will come a point where the oppressors add one more indignity, and at that point the people explode because they have had enough. Everything they have held in while being oppressed comes out and the result is a violent revolution. Yes, it is a just response. I don't know of any successful non-violent revolutions.

  • Violent Revolutions do not always have to do with oppression

    Oppression is a matter of perspective. The word oppression itself doesn't even have a negative intent, it merely means to control. The connotation it has come to represent is something entirely different. Oppression needs not be present for a violent revolution. Sometimes the violent revolution is carried out by those that would be the oppressors. This comes in the form of a military coups such as what happened in Egypt. The people may just not like some foreign policy decisions. The military has the power to take over any country.

  • No, They Aren't

    I do not believe violent revolutions are a just response to oppression, however they are often the only way to get justice quickly. Non-violent revolutions don't bring much impact for the most part so they are not viable answers sometimes. Violence is bad, we can all agree with that, but it does offer power.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.