They weren't armed. They only had machetes, "In those early days, we didn't know anything about using guns." I grew up with tons of guns, you don't have guns and at the same time know nothing about them. Had they guns they would have used em instead of shooting fireworks at the gangsters.
None of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
You shouldn't let the politics of the situation cloud the obvious. If they didn't have guns, it would not have played out the way it did. That doesn't mean that what they did was good, or that how the government handled it was right. It just means that the availability of guns was a critical determinative factor. That also doesn't mean they were the sole factor, either. It can also be true that the government treated them with kid gloves. But it's pretty clear that they would not have done that if they weren't armed.
What I understood is that a number of protesters came armed to the teeth, but nevertheless did not shoot a single bullet even when they were storming the house.
"There are no armed guards", "It felt more like a summer street fair festival" picture of armed guards with semi-automatic rifles "Why do you think this is notable?"
Patient use of firearms and other guerrilla tactics, I would say. If they weren't armed, it wouldn't have mattered how long they just sat there and waited for American troops to leave.
How did they coordinate not bringing guns? Or did they each individually realize this strategy without coordination? I think you’re giving them too much credit here.
reply