If politicians decides politically to use the military for violence against anyone or anything, is that political violence? And if yes, does that means there is legal political violence?

[–] Hupf@feddit.de 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The struggle of class against class is a what struggle?

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

Westham United?

[–] Sternhammer@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

For the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which politician? If the president does it, it counts as an Official Act and is perfectly legal.

[–] WereHacker@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I just feel it gets very complicated very very fast. If our military is ordered (by our fairly elected goverment) to attack another country without a reason acceptable to international law, it might be legal here, but illegal in the country being attacked. It might be perfectly reasonably, but that doesn't matter, it is literally political violence, both illegal and legal at the same time. Being against political violence or violent political official acts gets messy faster than you can yell "Saddam had WMDs". I don't know if I am trying to make a point, but I think it is hard to condemn political violence per se, without having a long hard look in the mirror.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It was illegal until up to a few weeks ago.