Why the anti-war using more violent means in protesting than the pro-war?

What "violent means" and what would those who are pro-war be protesting?

:m: Peace.

for example, blocking a road.
what do you think the pro-war are protesting?

Originally posted by yinyinwang
for example, blocking a road.
what do you think the pro-war are protesting?
The anti-war side block roads and smash unoccupied planes when they can.
The pro-war side bomb, shoot and napalm 10,000 innocent civilians to death, along with an undisclosed number of conscripted soldiers.

Offhand, I'd say the anti-war side was the nonviolent one...

How does this even qualify as a paradox? They're anti-war, not anti-violence.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
The anti-war side block roads and smash unoccupied planes when they can.
The pro-war side bomb, shoot and napalm 10,000 innocent civilians to death, along with an undisclosed number of conscripted soldiers.

Offhand, I'd say the anti-war side was the nonviolent one...
but did you notice that the pro-war are facing armed enemies while the anti-war are enjoying the tolerance of the protested.
So, think again.

Violence: [n] an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
[n] the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence"
[n] a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc. Originally posted by yinyinwang
...blocking a roadWhere's the violence?
...what do you think the pro-war are protesting?I could not begin to guess, as I have never seen
one protesting... they seem to be getting their way.

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by Nasor
How does this even qualify as a paradox? They're anti-war, not anti-violence.
if not anti-violence, what is the point of anti-war?

Originally posted by goofyfish
Where's the violence?
...what do you think the pro-war are protesting?I could not begin to guess, as I have never seen
one protesting... they seem to be getting their way.

:m: Peace. [/QUOTE]
yes, they protest to enemy, not friends.

I'm sorry, I did not understand your reply.

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by goofyfish
Violence: [n] an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
[n] the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence"
[n] a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc. Where's the violence?I could not begin to guess, as I have never seen
one protesting... they seem to be getting their way.

:m: Peace.
comparing with the war, it is not violent.
but comparing with the order, it is disorder.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
if not anti-violence, what is the point of anti-war? Perhaps they are protesting against some particular war rather than the concept of war in general. Maybe they aren't against war in principle, but don't feel that the war is worth the cost in this particular case. Maybe they don't like the goal that the war is attempting to achieve.

So they are anti-something else, not war.

The vast majority of 'anti-war' protestors are really only protesting some particular war. You would have a hard time finding an anti-war protestor who believes that violence is never justified for any reason. Most of the people who protested the Iraq war or the Vietnam war would probably not have protested involvement in, say, World War II. I'm sure that there are some ultra-pacifist antiwar protestors, but I doubt that they're the ones committing violent acts of protest.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
comparing with the war, it is not violent.
but comparing with the order, it is disorder.Then your opening premise should be changed to be...?

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by Nasor
The vast majority of 'anti-war' protestors are really only protesting some particular war. You would have a hard time finding an anti-war protestor who believes that violence is never justified for any reason. Most of the people who protested the Iraq war or the Vietnam war would probably not have protested involvement in, say, World War II. I'm sure that there are some ultra-pacifist antiwar protestors, but I doubt that they're the ones committing violent acts of protest.
I agree that they are not anti-violence in protesting. they want something else.