Rafie Ollah Shouhed, 79, suffered multiple broken ribs, elbow injuries and a traumatic brain injury during the Sept. 9 incident, according to the federal tort claim filed by his attorneys.
According to his claim, when Shouhed attempted to show agents proof of his employees’ work authorization, agents “cursed at him” and “violently body-slammed him onto the pavement.” Three agents then allegedly pinned him down, with one placing a knee on his neck, the claim stated.
“You don’t f— with ICE. We are here,” agents responded, according to the claim.
Alternatively, if the US keeps pretending that peaceful challenge is or has been effective in stopping these goons, more people end up getting disappeared into concentration camps.
Convenient assumptions that allow you to wash your hands of responsibility do not for a very historical precedent make. Civil protest requires an tacit and consensual agreement to the rule of law and to the idea that ‘courts’ and ‘rule of law’ exist mean something extrinsic to the individual: these clowns don’t believe that and are using the fact that you do against you.
This isn’t a fucking star wars movie, this is real fucking life. Every person kidnapped of the streets is a life ruined and family destroyed. If your argument is that we can only use peaceful means but peaceful means arent effective, you are responsible for the outcomes if you remove alternative approaches from the table.
The right to resist, and yes, violently when necessary, against tyranny is an in-alienable human right.
But violence is not an easy solution that doesn’t come with massive casualties of its own. A civil war would cause many deaths on both sides and should be the last resort and prevented if at all possible. I think there is still a possibility to undo the harm in a peaceful way but I have to admit those chances are decreasing.
The right is already using widespread violence on several levels. To say ICE isn’t violence is simply wrong, to say the numerous persecutions of people like judges, prosecutors and James Comey because Trump perceive them as opponents, to claim that isn’t violence is also simply wrong. Attacks on politicians in their homes even killing family members is also clearly extreme violence. To arrest a judge for upholding the law in her own courtroom, is exactly the kind of violence that will pave the way for fill fledged fascist system in USA. To arrest a school administrator for protecting his pupils against unlawful practices by ICE is the same.
The failure to stop ICE among other things is leading USA directly to fascism. Why should the pain be on one side only?
So to say the left should refrain from even talking about violence at this point is a bit steep IMO.
It’s more likely the left is like democrats in general, too little too late, as it is USA is steadily heading for a dictatorship.
Also to talk about resistance as if it means civil war is a slippery slope argument.
I didn’t say ICE doesn’t use violence
For fucks sake, you said it’s wrong to use violence to stop ICE, meaning people should just accept the other side is using violence, but refrain from it themselves.
That’s decidedly moronic, and how do you imagine you can defend that position from a moral standpoint?
You wrote:
If you think the left must remain peaceful, while the right is using widespread violence and wildly abusing any official power, there is only one way this ends, and that is with the right winning without a fight.
I don’t think fighting ICE is going to get rid of the problem before causing a civil war. And I also think that civil war is still preventable through peaceful means.
the “peaceful means” are We the People rolling over and allowing the alt-right to continue deploying military and Gestapo agents in our streets and communities.
~ Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, 2024
Of course it isn’t, and again talk about civil war is a slippery slope argument.
The post you originally responded to didn’t even mention anything about violence, but only that 14 days until the next big demonstration is too long, and strong worded letters are not enough, and you immediately conflate that to too much violence?
WTF???
Obviously if USA wants to keep their democracy, this cannot at this time be achieved without a demonstration of force.
A demonstration of force does not have to be violent, but it does require people to respond in force, as in many people showing up. And just as in war, you cannot win if you are not willing to fight.
Fascism can’t be beat by pacifism.
I don’t think that’s right. That post ended with:
Which has to be a veiled call for violence. We might all agree about the other parts of that and then in true anti fascist fashion we start fighting about this one.
E: typos
Power of the people, as in massive demonstrations, that can be shown without violence. But it needs to be shown the power is there if needed.
You are being naive and ahistorical. You want to support your argument? provide evidence. Because otherwise you are engaging in a dangerous fantasy, one that millions of others are also revelling in, while people are being violently kidnapped off the streets.
Consider that you may have been propagandized to believe that only “bad people” use violence. Look at every single kids movie, practically ever. It’s always the same tropes thatgoos guys can’t use the tools of their enemies, that good guys can never use violence, or if so can never engage in lethality.
The onus is on you to provide evidence that your suppositions around protest will be effective.
History shows a diametrically opposed view. History says that if you want to stop things like what are happening now, you need to resist early, fully, and by any means necessary. That in an illiberal system, protests will be ignored. And at by allowing things to become worse and further entrenched, a practical civil resistance becomes impossible when people keep thinking the institutions will save them.
How is that reasonable when you haven’t done so to support your own claims and position?
Anyway, I can come up with an example. The Nazi’s used violence of jews and political enemies (real and fake) to increase their grip on Germany. They used it to enrage their supporters and poison the public opinion against their opponents. The fire of the Reichstag and Kristallnacht come to mind.
I feel a little less sane after reading your “Jews should have been less violent in their resistance to the Nazis” opinion.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I mean I shouldn’t need to cite it. Its literally history, and if you don’t know these things, maybe you shouldn’t be in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism
And that’s just one among hundreds or even thousands of other examples. Its practically all of history that agrees with what I’m suggesting: Effective resistance which begin early and use all tools at their disposal are more effective than ones which begin late and or arbitrarily hamstring the approaches they are willing to engage with. The very act of what you are doing now, this conversation we’re having, a version of this played out among the Weimar political parties.
The civil resistance took too long to take the threat of Nazism seriously and allowed themselves their opponents to dictate the terms of engagement until it was too late to be effective. Nazism in Germany could have been stopped, but too many liberals either didn’t take the threat seriously, or had the mistaken believe that the institutions of the republic would save them.
And
That doesn’t support your argument. If anything it undermines it. By not resisting earlier, and more fully and more directly, Jews and Communists became victims of the Nazis. If you wait too long to resist, the door closes. If you allow your opponents to become entrenched, you make civilian resistance untenable.
Come now, that’s a double standard. My examples are also litterally history.
You link a generic wikipedia article. That’s fine, but could you be a bit more specific? How does it support your position?
I think it does support my argument. Here you make an argument to resist early, which I agree with. Not to resist violently.
The fire of the Reichstag was blamed on a communist and the Nazi’s used it to their advantage. They used an emergency law to effectively get rid of the democracy.
The murder of Ernst vom Rath was used to vilify jews and stage the Kristallnacht.
These were acts of violence that the Nazi’s used to their advantage. Violence can backfire like that. Whether it was really their opponents doesn’t matter, what matters is that they can blame them. And if it really is their opponents, great. Then it’s easy to blame them.
And to clarify, I do think that a point can be reached that violence does become justified and the only option left. I just don’t think the US has reached that point quite yet.
Show me evidence where non-violent resistance has been effective at stopping regimes which have stopped believing in/ following their own rule of law.
And more broadly, my point is that if you wait until:
That use of violence will be utterly ineffective. Violence as a form of practical resistance needs to be on the table, from the beginning. This hand-wringing around the use of violence is an ineffectual liberal response.
You’re just here to argue, or because you like the sound of your own (ignorant) words.
Yeah, why be charitable. I’m obviously just a pretentious asshole because I seemingly disagree with everyone here.
Charity is fine for purely performative exercises, but it’s now to the point where these arguments and discussions have real bearing on people’s ability to live and survive. The basis of charity is that both parties must fundamentally agrees that the other side is human, and that is not the situation when discussing fascism or white nationalism.
The choice to not fight now is the choice to sacrifice people without the privilege of a racial, gender, or immigration status which is preferable to a white nationalist ethnostate. Maybe you have that privilege or maybe I have that privilege: but the difference between us is that I’m willing to sacrifice my privilege to fight for those who aren’t afforded the same courtesy a despicable fascist might afford me, simply based on their assumptions around my skin or gender identity.
You wanting to police the use of violence until it’s too late for that violence is something fascists are fully aware of, and which they have historically been able to manipulate to their advantage. If every time a fascist stuck their head up above the sand, it got cut off, there would be no basis for this conversation.
How can you disagree with everyone here, if you’re not listening to them? You are drowning in your own “wisdom”…