When I was advocating strategic nonviolent forms of resistance against the coup in Egypt, criticizing those who called for armed “jihad”, I faced a barrage of personal attacks from online militants. The same is starting to happen now among fans of ARSA in Myanmar.
And, for anyone who has access to Google, I am an easy target.
From 2006 until 2013 I was imprisoned in the UAE; involved in a criminal trial, accused of murder, and ultimately convicted of manslaughter. I served four years more than the sentence I was eventually given, and was released. I already argued my case in court, already served my sentence, and I live with the consequences of that experience every day. I realize that this episode in my history is disturbing and controversial, and anyone is certainly free to decide upon this basis that I am a horrible person; and I am fine with that. Me being a horrible person, however, is not an argument that proves the effectiveness of armed struggle in Egypt, Myanmar, or anywhere else. Nor is it an argument that disproves the strategies I advocate.
And if the argument isn’t that I am a horrible person, but that I am a hypocrite for advocating nonviolent strategy while I have myself been convicted of a violent crime, then, of course, this logic must apply as well to those who advocate armed strategy while they themselves do not, and have never fought. If my “violent” history disqualifies me from advocating nonviolence, their lack of experience in fighting similarly disqualifies them from advocating armed struggle. Neither of these conclusions is, in fact, logical, of course, and I do not subscribe to this line of thinking, but if others do, these are points they might want to consider.
The useful discussion is not whether I am horrible or a hypocrite or anything else. No characterization of me as a person is actually relevant. The point is, can you prove that armed struggle in Egypt or Myanmar is effective? Can you refute the strategies I advocate? It doesn’t really matter to me if you think I am this or that, what matters is whether or not you can prove that I am wrong and you are right.
Until now I have not encountered anyone who can do this, which is why they prefer to engage in personal attacks. They cannot argue their position, and therefore want to prevent being required to do so.
For the sake of hopefully beginning a useful discussion, let me just concede from the outset that, yes, I am a horrible person; I have horns on my head, a reptilian tail, my breath smells like sulfur, and I steal children’s milk money. Now, can you tell me in practical terms why your strategy is a good idea?