You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Why Civil Resistance Works the book that 2x figure comes from has some major controversy about cherry picking data as well as playing with the definition of peaceful protest.
If peaceful protests worked (as good as this article suggestions) the BBC wouldn't be writing about them.
Yeah, look at the Iraq war protests, they didn't amount to anything because they were peaceful and easily ignored by the media.
This was going to be my counterexample too. Millions protested in the US, UK, Australia, and elsewhere before any troops were committed and it still didn't help. I dont have solid numbers but I'd be shocked if less than 3.5% of people were involved. They were the biggest protests ever at the time.
I personally feel like a lot came out of it, though. The USA left Iraq for example.
The USA actually still had troops in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. And the protests were to prevent an invasion from happening in the first place, not to go in, kill a million people and then 2 decades down the line throw up your hands and say 'that was a mistake' with no consequences for anyone that pushed for it.
In 2007 there were 170,000 troops in Iraq
In 2010 there were 88,000
In 2024 there were 2,500
And the number there should be is 0, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. People didn't want a war in Iraq in 2003, there were mass peaceful protests, and yet it still happened.
The number absolutely should not be 0. It's a nation which actively funds and mobilizes religious extremists who imprison or execute homosexuals and treat women as cattle.
EDIT: in this context Iraq/nation meant the local populace, not the government
Which wasn't the case before the invasion, when there were 0 US troops. Why the fuck do you bring up current day when I'm talking about protests that happened over 20 years ago (by people who knew the current outcome was likely)?
Are you confused about which comment thread you're in? You said initially that the protests 20 years ago of the Iraq War were impotent and I pointed out that the US Involvment in Iraq sharply declined as a result of those protests, despite anti-NATO religious extremism presence growing in the region for many of the following years.
Jesus fucking Christ this post alone should be considered an act of violence for it's sheer depravity and mockery of millions of deaths. The US did it's thing in Iraq for 15 years, utterly failed, made lots of people rich and then they left. How dare you claim that was success for the anti-war movement. What is wrong with you? What the fuck is "Anti-NATO religious extremism?" This is a suspiciously nonsensical statement, especially when NATO wasn't even in Iraq. Is a chat bot writing your responses for you?
NATO is still currently in Iraq, the US 2,500 troops are only a part of the effort to hamper ISIS.
NATO went to Afghanistan. France (part of NATO) was so against Iraq that they wouldn't let the US use its bases for refueling. American politicians officially renamed French Fries to Freedom fries because they were mad at France and other members of NATO did not support Iraq and sent no troops.
Technically NATO has never been mobilized anywhere, but when multiple NATO members go somewhere we call it a NATO operation.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+principle+of+collective+defence+is+enshrined+in+Article+5%2Cattacks+against+the+United+States.
Yes but neither Iraq or Afghanistan were responsible for those attacks so NATO has never been mobilized. The US invasion of Iraq, as you already stated before, was not agreed upon by several NATO members including France.
NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) is currently lead by France.
Nato was mobilized for Afghanistan.
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/06/20/nato-s-engagement-in-afghanistan-2003-2021-a-planners-perspective/
So you're saying NATO was mobilized without Article 5 even though NATO members voluntarily enterred Afghanistan? You seem to not understand what NATO is, it is a mutual defense pact that forces its members to participate in a war when one member is attacked, and that has never happened.
I already linked with sources that Article 5 was invoked and Afghanistan was a NATO mission, not the US and some allies.
Article 5 was not invoked on Afghanistan, Article 5 was invoked over a year possibly 2 years prior after 9/11 which was not perpetrated by Afghanistan.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared an Article 5 contingency through a series of resolutions of the North Atlantic Council enacted between September 12 and October 2, 2001, done in response to the September 11 attacks in the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_5_contingency_(2001)
Nato went into Afghanistan in 2001.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm
The USA went into Afghanistan in 2001, NATO operations officially started in 2003, as per the articles you just linked.
NATO ISAF sent troops in January 2002. ISAF took command in 2003.
"Deployed in 2001 – initially under the lead of individual NATO Allies on a six-month rotational basis – ISAF was tasked, on the request of the Afghan government and under a United Nations (UN) mandate, to assist the Afghan government in maintaining security, originally in and around Kabul exclusively. NATO agreed to take command of the force in August 2003 "
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69366.htm#%3A%7E%3Atext=ISAF+was+first+deployed+in%2Coperate+in+a+secure+environment.
2001 or 2003. Your claim that NATO never mobilized in Afghanistan is false.
The protests didn't do anything to that, it was the insurgency causing a steady supply of body bags to come back.
I find it hard to believe 9 other people as misinformed as you scrolled this far into this thread to upvote your theory that US troops never left Iraq they just died.
Sure, everyone else is wrong, and you're right even when you're seemingly deliberately misreading everything. If you're not trolling, you should probably get yourself checked.
post hoc ergo propter hoc. the invention of Facebook was just as much a cause of leaving Iraq. or flat screen TVs. or Blu-ray disks.
which is to say the protests didn't change anything.
Politicians making decisions based on public opinion has a lot of cause and effect relation. By all accounts it would have been easier to maintain a 40k to 100k presence in Iraq than it was to pack everything up and leave.
please prove a casual link between protests and the ending of the war
People opposed the pointless war whose only winners were Exxo n Mobil.
People voted the party who started the war out of power.
The opposition party withdrew from the region.
doesn't sound like the protest had any impact. sounds like the votes were the only thing that mattered.
By that logic no protest has ever had any impact. You sound like a real bootlicker rn.
nonviolence protects the state
So does being anti-protest, bootlicker.
I'm not anti protest. I'm challenging the assertion that the Iraq war protests worked.
You have challenged the assertion that protests in any way affect the outcome of elections or what choices politicians make.
anyone can read what I wrote and see this is a lie
Peaceful protest works great under two conditions:
Just a metric fuckton of participants
The implicit threat of violent protest (e.g. Malcom X behind MLK)
Meaning they aren't somehow making money off whatever you're protesting...
The article pointedly says that non violent protests were more successful because a lot more people were involved than in the violent protests.
Claims without any supporting evidence aren't that interesting.
Edit: OP changed his post after I called him out for not referencing any sources
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
You can also read the original book and check the examples.
P.C. this is article about the fourth mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes. There are 11 casualties during this series of protests.
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
Which states
Police killing protesters makes a violent movement?
They're not exactly an armed group of combatants coordinating attacks.
Research.
Research?
Do your standards measure up to that?
I'm not the one making claims. If you want to make a claim cite a source.
The article also made claims. Did you check them?