, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 and igff the bearers simply let it go, there'd be no violence... 
 That sounds almost like the Tibetan government-in-exile's claim that "violence to a Tibetan is killing someone; if you don't kill them, and only beat them up, and they run away, it's not violence" (I'm paraphrasing, but the exact quote is in 2008 Tibetan unrest.)  but you'd probably resent that comparison.
 Let's try an almost exact analogy: "The robbery victim should have just divvied up all the cash to the robber. If she'd just let go, there wouldn't have been any violence". Or: "Britain should have just surrendered. If they had just let go of their country, there wouldn't have been a war". What's wrong is wrong is wrong. A person has the right to defend their person and legally obtained possession, and you can't justify crime (not including political crimes) or violence against a civilian by a political cause. 
 Yes, the flame attendants themselves are idiots, too, and they are "thugs" when they are pushing the British olympic chief. But they are within their rights as far as violent criminals are concerned. What do you expect them to do? "simply let it go so there'd be no violence"?  (Talk) 02:33