What's the deal with War Protesters getting violent?

[Royal Dragon]

What's the deal with War protesters getting Violent?

I mean, they are demonstrateing for a PEACEFUL solution to the situation instead of a violent war, right??? Yet they are sometimes getting violent themselves to prove thier peaceful position?

Is it me, or does that make no sense what'so'ever?

How is it peace lovers feel totally justified in getting violent to assert their views of peace, but when the US government does the same thing (Only on a larger scale) it's wrong?

Is it Me??????? Or is this really Fu(ked up?










Yes, this was inspired by Monkey Slap's incedent.

[Suntzu]

Mob mentality…

FBI plants to discredit the protesters goals…

some people are just joining in because its like one big party and really have nothing to do with the 'cause'…

some folks are just a_holes…

most(?) of the violent acts are committed by young dudes… and you know how young dudes act…

police batons hurt… and some folks will hit back… and u know once the cat is ut the bag…

that's about all I can think of right now :shrug:

[fa_jing]

Hey, did you all see how the protesters took over Lake Shore Drive for several hours yesterday evening?

I would hate to have been in an ambulance trying to get to the hospital when they stopped traffic!!

For those who don't know, this is a critical thoroughfare connecting south, north and downtown Chicago.

I definitely respect other's opinions about the war, just am really curious why they haven't been protesting Saddam for the last 12 years? Protesting Genocide in Rwanda? Protesting anything else other than the US?

[Suntzu]

I definitely respect other's opinions about the war, just am really curious why they haven't been protesting Saddam for the last 12 years? its called a Trade Embargo :shrug:…

Protesting Genocide in Rwanda? wait until the lil Rwandians move into their neighborhoods…

Protesting anything else other than the US? they wont get there 15 minutes of fame…

[red5angel]

Rd, didn't you know that the only way to fight violence is with violence? Ironic considering most of those people, young dudes included will tell you any other day that violence accomplishes nothing. That is why I am of the opinion that most of the protestors that are out there protesting, actually care very little about the war....;)

[Black Jack]

Most of the wannabe hippy greaseballs could not find Iraq on a map if the reward was a pound of hash.

They make me sick and I think they are vile. Period.

[Suntzu]

That is why I am of the opinion that most of the protestors that are out there protesting, actually care very little about the war.... I cant disagree with you there…

[red5angel]

I have seen plenty of peaceful protests around the US and the world and that is a great way to make a point, especially about peace. Tearing up the streets, throwing rocks and sticks and burning things is not the way to go about it. If you watch closely you can see the difference in the crowds as well. The violent protests are often full of young people, college goers or high school kids, and older people who "look" like protestors. The wuiet protests are often filled with people who like like your neighbors, or your co-workers, or the kind of people you see on the bus on the way to work. I may not agree with their views but I am willing to bet the latter group feels more about the war then the former.

[Badger]

It's the same mentality as Anti-abortion people bombing abortion clinics.

They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Protesting is a waste of time anyway. Do they really think they will change anyones mind because their jumping around & screaming like a bunch of idiots?

They do have the right to do so EXCEPT when it infringes on the rights of others. Which alot of these SOBs think they have the right to do.

Try that BS in Texas. We would love the target practice.

Badger

[Black Jack]

I am talking about the 1st group. It does not take a genuis to figure out the agenda of that filth.

I don't agree with the second group either but peacefull demonstrations are their right and I support that as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, I think it is in very bad taste IMHO though, I understand vocal protests in America before any violent conflict, but once our troops are committed underway, the people should shut their pie-holes and support them in their efforts.

[GLW]

First, EVERYONE has the right to demonstrate.

However, DEMONSTRATE does NOT mean that you resort to violence or intimidation.

It also does NOT mean that those that disagree with the demonstrators OR the police have a right to treat the demonstrators in an abusive manner.

Having said this, it also does NOT mean that a demonstrator has any right to become violent, destructive of other's property, or break the law. I do NOT include the trumped up charges that some police departments have used in the past of distrubing the peace when the protest is peaceful.

Demonstrators have a right to be seen and heard...but NOT on private property. That IS breaking the law. That is where the anti-abortion folks go afoul. They go onto private property and do damage.

Having said all of this, there is NEVER an inappropriate time to protest.

Using Black Jack's reasoning, there was NEVER an appropriate time to protest the Viet Nam war.

Demonstrations and protest are part of free speech and are what the US is founded on.

If you feel that this nation is NOT strong enough to engage in some activity AND have protests going on (that old Constitution thing) then you are saying that you feel that martial law is necessary...Martial Law is the ONLY time that the Constitution allows for the wholesale abridgement of free speech.

Those that demonstrate in support of what is happening ARE BEING GOOD CITIZENS.

However, those that are demonstrating AGAINST what is happening ARE ALSO BEING GOOD CITIZENS.

Those that demonstrate - regardless of the cause - that violate the precepts I put forth, are being irresponsible, possibly breaking the law, and hurting their cause.

[KC Elbows]

For good or ill, protests have been conducted dishonestly by the protest movement and broken up dishonestly by the authorities in the past, and that past shapes where we are today. In the sixties, there was actually a unit of martial artists in the protest movement who carried signs with thick poles and marched in formation to create a deterrent in case the police tried to illegally break up protests they attended. To my knowledge, they never had the misfortune to be at a protest with such police corruption.

The fact is, the history of protests in america has a lot of bad blood on both sides. It by no means started in the sixties.

I think protests serve a purpose, but agree that some people are *******s. I really doubt we would have antitrust laws without protests of the past, but I could be wrong.

[fa_jing]

Man, I could spot Iraq on a map for a pound of Hash.

Hash browns, right?


ah....ahh ...ahhhh.. Hasheesh!

Excuse me. (wipes off monitor)

[Black Jack]

Fa Jing:D

GLW,

No...that's not my reasoning, protest all you want as an American, but IMO once a war starts you should support your troops and your nation, I am not saying to ban anybody from doing a protest, with the exception of harsh punishments for those lowlifes in Chicago last night and others like them.

I think the protests during Vietnam did much more bad than good.

[ZIM]

What I'm not understanding is this: why isn't there a single protest going on against the UN? They mishandled the dam ned thing, not just france or germany. We make pious noises about being 'global citizens' but nobody will step up to that plate. If there is one, is there any coverage?

I suppose you could send an email... inquiries@un.org

[PaulH]

Here is an interesting alternative viewpoint of good and committed anti-war protestors in the Middle East where the actions are from the UPI:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

[red5angel]

PaulH, the saddest thing about this whole thing is that these people who are protesting want to deny what is going on in Saddam. They are so caught up in the 'glory' and the 'unity' of fighting the 'man' that they can't see past their faces.
Someone, it may have been you posted a good article on some Iraqi expatriates trying to get some word in at a protest and not being able to, even being stopped by the likes of Jessie Jackson. These people don't understand and don't care.

[BeiTangLang]

All I can say is, I hope they do not impede any medical emergency patient trasporters. I know if any of my loved ones were injured & they were in the way of my vehicle they would be in it deep. I see that as a threat to the lives of the injured & would respond as such.

[PaulH]

Red5Angel,

Coming from a brutal oppressed communist background, I have been starved, imprisoned as a minor, and witnessed untold brutal treatments of innocent lives being slaughtered and destroyed by dictator, I felt compelled to let the oppressed people of Iraq voice their true fear and hope to the world in order that their misery soon be ended in celebration and with understanding.

Regards

[ZIM]

Fu ck tha protests- go on to something more useful! We've got our own stuff to do. Letting the media blitz blind you is what 'they're' after... stay informed. Some sites:

http://www.intelcenter.com/

http://www.terroristwarning.com/

http://www.emergency.com/ennday.htm

http://terrorismdigest.com/directory/index.asp?CatID=122

edit: under the first, there was this-very neat!
http://www.intelcenter.com/linkanalysis.html

[Laughing Cow]

A few points I would like to point out.

1.) Being anti-war does not neccessarily equal being pacifist or anti-violence.

2.) Those acts of violence are usualy done by a minority that are often drunk, hyped up or radically orientated, those are usually the same people everytime.

3.) Once mass-hysteria sets it a lot of people will simply go with the flow.

Cheers.

[BeiTangLang]

And the "Peace activist/Anti-War" organizers know this happens historicly time & time again,.....so, are they really there to protest an action, or are they there for their own self gratification & publicity!?!

IMHO, they are just there to cause problems for the rest of te people who are already concerned & possibly scared about the events already. I am all for just running their @sses over if they are blocking any roadways!
I'd be advertising for 4 Wheeled drive vehicles & tire companies.
Maybe I should get a sponsor.
(Geez...)
:D :p :D

[red5angel]

PaulH, I served in Somalia and saw how other countries and cultures can have a total disregard for the welfare of its people. I think if we took bus loads of these protestors over to visit Iraq before the war had started, I bet things would be very different now.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Stumblefist

Laughing Cow posted:

1.) Being anti-war does not neccessarily equal being pacifist or anti-violence.
========================
That's so wonderful LC! I have a great idea for you.
You can form a unit called:
"Violent Anti-war Protestors for Peace".
You can call it the "Roasted War Beefers"!

Why DON'T you come over here so that I can shut your ****ING Mouth for good for you.
And I can promise you ot won't either be painless nor quick. You ****ING MORON.

You are so ****ING narrow-minded and arrogant that YOU can't see past your own ****ING nose.

I am STILL waiting for you to go to IRAQ and do the RIGHT thing.

Guess your Couch, TV-dinner and shouting your mouth from behind you PC is as much danger as you can take.

So BIG Guy grab your gun head to IRAQ and kill a few People.

YOU are ALL talk and insults, adn most prolly a pimple-faced, chicken chested 13yr old who thinks his 2 inch willy is a cruise-missile and dangerous weapon.

****ING *******.

[GLW]

“but IMO once a war starts you should support your troops and your nation”

That is the key there. To those protesting, they ARE supporting the nation and the troops. The reasoning is that they support the troops but NOT the administration that is deploying them. In this vein of reasoning, the best way to support the troops is to REMOVE them from harm’s way and the best way to support the nation is to be very vocal about what they consider is an administration that is acting against the principles and interests of the nation.

This is WHY the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is such a good thing. It dates back to the Revolutionary War. At that time, there were those who supported the King (torries) and the revolutionaries. The magical thing there was that when the revolutionaries won, they did NOT exact extreme revenge on the torries. Had the torries won, the revolutionaries would have lost all property, probably been at the minimum jailed or executed.

We have a HISTORY of protesting and opposing each other during conflicts. About the only exceptions have been WWI, WWII, and the Korean War. The Korean War HAD its protesters but they were in the shadows due to the anti-communist sentiments and precursors to the witch hunts. WWI and WWII were different beasts.

You ARE entitled to your opinion. You ARE free to voice it. I AM free to disagree with you. As long as those marching are doing so honestly and non-violently, they should also be free to do so…and you should be free to think it is a bad thing….BUT NOT to take away their right to do so.

In regards to those using violence, don’t arrest them for protesting and don’t even do it at the protest if you don’t have to. Do it afterward. To do anything but prevent the violence only fuels it. There is a fine line here…but the problem has always been that the authorities do not even look for that line.

While I may not agree with many of the things China does or for that matter what they did at Tienanmen Square, during those protests, they realized that to go in and start arresting people initially would be to make things go very badly. Instead, they did their arrests afterwards. There is some wisdom in that.

“I think the protests during Vietnam did much more bad than good.”

And that is your right to have that opinion. However, there are many of us that disagree with you. I am sure that Daniel Ellesberg is one of them.

[Laughing Cow]

GLW.

Great post and I agree.

IME, experince things really start to get out of hands once the police and riot controllers try to subdue a few renegades.

Most of the protesters are usually not aware of those ongoings till they go home and see it on TV.
I have seen a big difference between how protests are handled in the east and west.

Also in most countries protest marches need to be organised, route planned and police/goverment notified of it.
In this case than the Police will actually protect the protesters against violence directed at them, as well as reroute traffic, etc.

If those steps are not taken the protest is declared illegal and the cops are free to take action against the protesters.

Cheers.

[Radhnoti]

GLW-"As long as those marching are doing so honestly and non-violently, they should also be free to do so…and you should be free to think it is a bad thing..."

Amen to that. It's a bad thing. Lowly and beneath contempt. Only the fact that this country is SO great allows them the right to hurt it so.

Protesters should grow up and get with the program, the war is on, it's time to unite. Many articles I've read indicate that the N. Vietnamese would have given up without the aid and comfort those protesting the Vietnam War provided.

Make your statements AFTER the war is won.

[red5angel]

GLW-"As long as those marching are doing so honestly and non-violently, they should also be free to do so…and you should be free to think it is a bad thing..."

absolutely.

[ZIM]

stumblefist, my friend, after a lot of uncalled-for comments, that was REALLY uncalled-for.

LC- wow. :eek:

"When you have to kill a man,
it costs nothing to be polite."
- Sir Winston Churchill
(1870 - 1945) Prime Minister of England [and thats for both of you!]

-----------------------
Out of morbid curiousity, I went to Saddam's website. Here. (http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/epage1.htm) I keep getting 'cannot find server'... Are they updating??? WILL they update or go offline? Watta tragedy... ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Stumblefist.

In order to loose an argument I first need a worthwhile opponent.
:D :D
And not some sort of moronic ****wit.

Keep sprouting your rubbish, and don't forget to visit your shrink and take your medication.

The one with the REAL pent-up aggresion is YOU.

As to what I will do, I will let you know when I knock on YOUR door.
I am VERY good at tracing People via the Net.

Have fun.

ZIM.
;) :D

[rogue]

Please let diplomacy work!

[Oso]

ok didn't read this thread yet but...



Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be "Using a deadly weapon inside city limits," or "Creating a traffic hazard," or "Endangering bystanders," or other misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct.

An authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth, and it is doubtful that any have survived the trouble there... regrettable, as the had the biggest mouths and smallest brains of any of the primates. The small-mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the Galaxy at the very wave front of the Diaspora; there is no need to protect them. But they often shoot back.

I keep telling you guys...Heinlein's got an answer for everything.
:)

[prana]

I am not joining the peace protest cause they usually arent peaceful, tis simple.

Though I am the few minority that things silent prayers can actually help a little, there, I qualify for the mental institution.

[scotty1]

"but once our troops are committed underway, the people should shut their pie-holes and support them in their efforts."

If somebody genuinely believes that the war is a bad thing enough to protest about it, then they're not suddenly going to be behind the policy that put the troops there. GLW is right.

[ZIM]

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense.
...Heinlein's got an answer for everything.


He does indeed have a [well-written] answer for everything, but I won't say its always the right answer, even if it may be righteous or self-righteous...;) [like the no_know impersonation?]

For myself, I feel that ONLY a true 'warrior' can choose mercy or choose pacifism [though never 'passive-ism'] or choose anger and war. Everybody else is forced to those extremes by circumstance and character defects.

;)lest anyone think I'm claiming the title 'warrior', I'm not! Just learning to be one!

Next, if I was a citizen of a dictatorship my duty would be to do whatever the dictator says. Thankfully, I live in a democracy, so my duty is to do exactly what I would do in peacetime: ensure that democracy remains. Otherwise, the soldiers return to a dictatorship and they fought for nothing.

Last: the protesters are a non-entity to me. I don't support their aims- they think on a small scale. They do raise one interesting point: at which point does the electorate get repesented in the new style of warfare? This new doctrine of war is instantaneous and cannot be successfully fought by an enemy, currently. Call it the Digital Divide. The Pres. could just wake up and say, "I hate Italy. Send a missile." Our system of checks and balances has to be updated to account for this, IMHO- the Founders didn't carefully craft that for naught. And FWIW, I think ours is the best of all possible systems.

That IS being taken into account by our enemies. Solution? First strike high-altitude burst. Then: "where *do* they get those wonderful toys...?" So they'll reverse-engineer. Voila! New arms race.

$.02