`, 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``?   02:33`