This is the essential problem with liberals. They utilize ‘data’ as a buzzword to confirm their biases through the use of unscientific studies (‘unscientific’ with respect to the nature of the sample size and methodology).
-sigh-
Take the East Timor case study they cite. It’s wrong, as East Timorese led a violent struggle against Indonesia for decades.
This is the kind of study that would portray
the liberation of South Africa as non-violent resistance despite Nelson Mandela founding UmKhonto we Sizwe to forment armed rebellion in South Africa and the ANC, in 1986, adopting violent resistance in the townships to render South Africa ungovernable.
I’ve been mocking you incessantly because it’s easy, you’re wrong, and a typical liberal
Your dumbass didn't read shyt, you didn't even realize that the person who did that study was a former army recruit and PRO military violence before they did the study. They did the study on a dare that their military violence position couldn't be backed by the data.
And how are you going to claim there's a sample size problem when they looked at 323 conflicts, literally every one they could categorize between 1900 and 2006?
You also think I'm a "typical liberal" when I'm actually a socialist. I was lauding the real Nkrumah on here before you even had a login.
Your East Timor example is particularly bad, yes they tried violence extensively and it FAILED. The vast majority of rebel violence against the Indonesian occupation in East Timor occurred during the mid-1970s to early-1980s, and it was completely quashed. Fretilin's military collapsed, nearly their entire leadership structure was killed. By 1989, there was so little effective armed resistance left that Indonesia felt they had gained complete control of the situation and opened East Timor up for tourism again.
Nothing had improved in East Timor's fight for independence until the Santa Cruz cemetery demonstration in 1991. THAT demonstration by unarmed activists, the largest in East Timor history at the time, was put down brutally by Indonesian forces just like they'd put down all the earlier violent rebellions...but this time it backfired. A massive solidarity movement led by churches, human rights groups, and peace activists rose out of the ashes of that massacre, which dramatically increased international pressure on Suharto and eventually helped lead to his resignation in 1998 and East Timor's independence in 1999.
There's no serious argument that a violent rebellion that peaked in the late 1970s and got completely stamped out by the mid-1980s was somehow the magic bullet that brought East Timor freedom in 1999. Yes, they had comparatively small outbreaks of rebel violence here and there at times afterwards, but they weren't politically significant. Only the Indonesian violence was significant in the 1990s, and even time they wielded it, it backfired on them.
You're "mocking" me cause it's all you have. Your claim that nonviolent resistance had hardly ever worked, and that it only worked against "humane" leaders, already proved how little you've actually engaged with these questions.