1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors

It has to be noted that this was a minority of the protestors in San Francisco, but apparently a sub-group of the main protest broke off determined to do damage, and used the day to turn over newspaper boxes and bust the doors at the INS, above. They also took out a main window at a Starbucks (natch) and hit other such corporate symbols with their message in spray paint and whatnot.

The irony of violence breaking out at a war protest is pretty rich. The message of the protests was already confused enough. It's easy to take remarkable pot shots at the whole thing and its organizers.

If the shit really hit the fan, here's guessing most of these mental midgets would quickly soil their shorts and dive into the nearest Starbucks for physical cover, hoping to find the biggest possible SUV to drive out of the worst trouble... again, all irony-proof. What can you say about people who believe that by turning over newspaper boxes they are "targetting the corporate media"?

The exact same thing happened, in the exact same city, although on a larger scale, prior to Desert Storm. The irony of that struck me then, as well, to the point that i added the following verse to a 'protest' song I was writing at that point:

"Picked up the old newspaper, saw people protesting for peace
Out in San Francisco, man, they acted like a pack of beasts.
Breakin' windows and burning cop cars, I can't believe that its true
I guess out in 'Frisco, the slogan is 'Give me peace...or I'll kill you!' "

A note

[delurking]

One thing to note is that there are people who attend any protest in the area, just to vandalize property in the confusion. These vandals may not have any sympathy with the protest's cause.

Consider this

The government was notorious for using agent provocateurs in the Vietnam days. This is similar to their infamous program of finding the most out-there militant black organizations and arranging money and press exposure for them. If you can't find a good straw man, you manufacture one.

That's just insurance, of course. Who is surprised when the ignorant and the criminal element take advantage of any circumstance to loot or riot, for fun or profit? Look at what happens after any sports game, St. Patricks Day parade, New Years, etc. Think about it. Why is this different? If it sounds ridiculous that peace protesters were violent, that's because it is.

This spin comes from elements within the media advancing a pro-war political agenda. It's an old, old, OLD technique. You will see other things associated with the peace protestors too - naked race baiting (throwing them in with Arab radicals chanting for the end of Israel, terrorist sympathizers), as well as some "quotes" from "organizers" hand-picked for their ignorance and flippancy.

Congratulations, you just fell for a classic media scam.

Looks like there are some lessons (not even that old) that we'll need to re-learn again... these peace protestors are all that's between you and another Vietnam.

amen brother.

Re: Consider this

Classic

The fallacy of opposites.

"If you condemn slanted reporting of protest activities, you must be claiming all protesters have 'the purest of motives.'"

The fallacy of conflation.

"Even when the writer is making a point about the separation of two ideas/objects/groups, they are artificially rejoined. i.e. All protestors must be the same as these criminals (who 'trash stuff')."

So are you just bad at this? Or do you have some kind of agenda?

Yeah, peace protesters are above reproach, right?

Wolf's right.

As with anything, people will look at this event (see picture) and slant it to their own belief re: the current situation (war with Iraq).

"Wolf's right."

No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.

So, have you volunteered for the Army yet?

I mean, I'm assuming you're for the war. At any rate you seem pretty sure it will go smoothly. If you're against it, I've mistaken myself. But if you're for it, you're getting ready to go fight it, right?

*snort* I always love it when sprouts lecture publically about a war they read about in history class.

snort

Or when people make assumptions about the age of others.

Or forget that a few "sprouts" lost parents or other relatives there...

There seems to be a LOT of unfair grouping going on regarding these protests. I think the war is bullshit therefor I'm must be a commie, wrong I'm a Libertarian. Some folks, that I assume are left anarchists, based on earlier protest tactics, decide its a good opportunity to trash property so one side assumes they're working for the gov and the other side assumes this little fringe represents the rest of the movement. Maybe we're all just a little or a lot tense because the shit is about to come down and we all want to be on the moral side. (That would be my side btw )

Whatever the motivations of the people involved were, one thing seems clear. The spin that goes on completely eliminates the effectiveness of protesting. It just undermines it's credibility.

Even if you argue that protesters really do like to destroy shit, the outcome is the same: undermined credibility. That's certainly not helpful for spreading your message.

Downhill from there

The picture is about as relevant to anti-war demonstrations as it is about Eagles fans. It does not even represent a significant minority of either group. At best it is 'proof' that we should ban alcohol in the US.

Now had this been a picture of Chicago summer 1968, or civil rights riots of the same period, or even Seattle during the start of the next round of GAPP, then the picture would have been relevant - have some significance. But the picture is about as relevant as one Saturday night outside a wild bar. It only demonstrates that some people will be violent for almost any reason. It is the stuff that makes Liza Thomas Laurie a popular news women in Philadelphia.

Re: "Wolf's right."

No

I wish I could be gentlemanly and compromising about it. No, you really are wrong. It's quite simple: you tried to attribute something to my statements which is false: that I believe "any 'protestors' could ONLY have the purest possible motives." To this you add the subtly add the charge of "conspiracy theorist." I don't suppose you want me to repeat my earlier response (to which I notice you make no specific reply). Why compromise with that?

(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)

You go further, and now I feel so must I. It's grim, but we're not just discussing politics anymore. All this quiet patriotism is soaked in blood.

You "support" our troops? I doubt they feel your support.

You're implying that if the army doesn't support the lifestyle to which you're accustomed, that clears you of the responsibilities that go with your opinions. But I get the feeling you already know better. There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job."

I know many of the people you "support." You seem as though you should know well enough already that by accepting this conflict you do the opposite of supporting them. Do you imagine that you turn your back on them by opposing sending them to the gulf? It's on the altar of this kind of credulousness that they'll be sacrificed (in small numbers or great, who can predict?), not to defend their country, because by every indication Iraq threatens us less than Saudi Arabia, and not to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because then they would be on their way to North Korea or Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are indisputably known to exist (in the former in abrogation of an important disarmament treaty, and in the latter, in the hands of the single most likely people to use or lose them), but to further the interests of a western oil cartel.

Advice: nothing makes a discussion worthless faster than questioning others' motives and ad hominem attacks.

Once someone starts attacking me, rather than my ideas, I stop paying attention. I advise everyone else to do the same.

We've kind of had a vicious cycle of that in the cellar lately though. It's been kind of annoying

This guy is new, and probably didn't read as a lurker long enough to establish clue-ness.

If s/he catches the feel of The Cellar™, s/he'll stay. If s/he doesn't s/he'll get frustrated and wander off.

(*shrugs*)

Don't care, really.

Funny

"This guy is new, therefore..."

It's just, while nothing I said was ad hominem, that was. Good for a chuckle, I guess.

*Convulsed with laughter and gasping for breath, Hubris Boy struggles back to his keyboard. Wiping a tear from his eye, he stares incredulously at his monitor. Yes, it really does say what he thought it said.*

Hmm.

You could try actually making an argument?

Or does the last insult win?

Option, the way I've come to think of the cellar is a group of friends sitting around drinking beer [wine/relaxing beverage of choice] and shooting the breeze. We're all friends here, or at least not strangers. We all have viewpoints on this issue and how to resolve it. Some are wackier that others -- Mine involves packs of rabid weiner dogs and lots of hemp. tw's a good soul, just have to have him breath into a paper bag once in a while.

There's no need to blow a seal.

Now, wait a minute... HB's note made me think about it, and I feel tw has made the most important point of all:

Or:
sometimes, you have to go to war, and then, some people will be violent for almost any reason. The defensive offense or the offensive defense. I dunno. War should be the last resort, threat of war is a tactic.

I am confused. But I do know that knocking over a newspaper box is just stupid, meaningless vandalism.

Or watching a PETA protest and seeing that many people are wearing leather shoes. Ya know, their hearts are in the right place...

Actually, it was a leather jacket I saw at a fur protest in Seattle. I don't know if said person was actually participating or watching, but of course the camera focused in on them. The talking head didn't point this out in the newscast, but it was there. I still have my leather jacket, and wore with the understanding and glib explaination that I wasn't wasting said cow. I now don't fit into it. Between 23 and 30 I added three inches to my height. I'm trying to remember the last time I ate cow flesh. I've been eating a lot of chicken and pork in various oriental/semi-oriental ways.

The shoe comment actually came from my brother. Usually I buy from local Volume Shoesource. Not a lot of leather there to choose from.

-- Hoping Quzah doesn't notice that the factories that produce for Volume Shoesource underpay their workers --

Quote:

Originally posted by Uryoces There's no need to blow a seal.

Awww

Hey, why not, it's the internet after all.

Uh

The prospect of going after China is a joke, Pakistan is our new friend and we've already discussed why there's no military option in DPRK. I'm not saying military action is justified in Iraq, but if we're looking for a war we can win, it's the best option.

Hmm

Mentioning China was indeed a joke. As for the rest, Pakistan is "our new friend" who is also the chief financial and military backer of the Taliban, and who is on the verge of nuclear war with India and home to an unelected government (whose figurehead speaks English with a charming British accent) beset by popular Islamic fundamentalists. Can you say Iran-before-the-fall-of-the-shah?

As for North Korea... why don't you catch me up? Why, again, is there no military option?

If all you're looking for is a war you can win, invade Saudi Arabia. You have about as much of a pretext.

Isn't it rather hypocritical of our nation to go around taking other people's weapons away from them, and then keeping our own?

Saudi Arabia is our big oil friend. Invading them makes about as much sense as shoving a pencil in your eye. It's just one of those things you don't do.

Like I said, Pakistan has no problem because they're our new buddies. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but <b>that is the way it is</b>.

I gave a really short overview of why we can't attack DPRK here. It is by no means exhaustive, but should be a good overview.

Personally, I'm not at all looking for a war. I am not at all convinced we need to be attacking Iraq. I also have a friend that's been called up (as has Cellar user Tobiasly), and I'm not at all interested in hearing that they're coming home in boxes. I'm just trying to look at this from a realist perspective. If we are going to attack someone, Iraq is probably the best option. :\

Sorry

I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis.

The first bad sign is that you took my example of Saudi Arabia literally, as if it were a suggestion.

The second bad sign is that your argument on why we won't attack Pakistan is because "they're our friend, and that's the way it is" (emphasis removed). I really don't like to dignify this kind of non-thinking with an answer, but I'll stoop anyway: Iraq used to be our friend too, until they became our enemy.

Your reasoning behind not attacking North Korea is funny when you compare it to the situation in Iraq. In my opinion, though some of the points you make are grounded, you conclusion is specious. I think attacking Iraq is more dangerous than attacking North Korea. You have a unilateral American invasion sparking the kind of anti-American sentiments that could drive a revolution in Pakistan (and put nukes in the hands of fundamentalists) - fomenting conflict and ultimately revolution in Pakistan has been one of Al Qaeda's big missions (ref. the recent terrorist attacks in India). You have the ability of Iraq (or another regional power technically "at war" with Israel) to do something nasty in former Palestine which will draw the Israelis into the conflict. That will cause a variety of alliances among the U.S. and the arab states to unravel. Then you have the chem/bio wildcard. What do you think the Israelis will do if a flight of SCUDs carrying chemical weapons hit Tel Aviv? If you have nothing to lose, and you're looking at "regime change" (death and/or American prison, not just for Saddam, but for his officers), that's exactly when you contemplate doing that kind of stuff.

You point out the troops in the Korean DMZ that are at risk for a missile strike... hmm... yeah... those troops in the DMZ are just immobile hostage-troops, from the special "Human Target" brigade (unlike our troops deploying to the gulf right now, of course).... North Korean missiles really make it impossible to confront them militarily...

In fact, unlike in East Asia, a messy, spiraling conflagration in the Middle East will do nasty, unpredictable things to the oil supply, and thus, the global economy... But we can risk all that - it's not as worrisome to you as South Korea throwing a "shit fit."

Anyway, North Korea will rest much easier tonight, upon hearing that they have nothing to fear militarily from the U.S..

I think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd usually try and explain it, but you're obviously a waste of energy. So please respond to this in an uppity, condescending tone. Then let's keep an eye on the news and see whether or not I'm right about us attacking DPRK.

"Uppity and condescending." Yes sir.

I see. You have an answer to these points - you just don't feel like sharing. I must really be missing out.

Interesting misdirection on your part there. If you check back, you'll see I'm saying it's less sensible to attack Iraq than North Korea, not that we should (or will) attack either (though attacking Iraq does appear to be a foregone conclusion now). So your suggestion that watching the news well tell us anything about this disagreement is just more proof you're either not paying attention, or don't want to...

Option, couched in Dave's bitter sarcasm is good advice. Don't be so condescending towards people. Even if it is warranted, most people will just stop listening to you when they feel they're being attacked. This isn't logical on their part, it's just how people are. It doesn't matter how brilliant or right you are. If you condescend, they're just going to go on the defensive.

However..

We had this discussion a long long time ago, about paying more for goods so that those making them could earn a better living.

I noted that I usually buy "Made in the USA" stuff, and generally for that reason - because I know that I'm paying a bit more so someone can live a better life. The effect is that less money goes toward supporting companies that exploit cheap labor overseas. It's not much, but it's something everyone can do.

I'm not vehemently against taking work overseas, but I find it disappointing that the higher-ups are reaping fat cash that should be going to the workers.

Wow, I hope I don't sound so much like option when I get all hissy about stuff.

Probably do though. I can't wait until we have enough bandwidth that we can just record voice diatribes instead of having to write them out. So much subtley is lost, and then there's the spelling...

Anyway, I think more and more rich, white folks (like me) are trying to be ethical in their consumption of consumer goods. While it might be better for 'Ech', my hypothetical asian exploited worker, to make $.25 a day working in inhumane conditions than it would be working for $.07 a day on a farm. It would be much nicer for me, and for him, to know that he was making a decent local wage and had some say in his working environment. If a company can build a reputation with this in mind, I think they would be rewarded in the marketplace, although they might have problems achieving monstrous economies of scale.

Industrialization can be a bastard, it certainly was in this country, and whatver we can do to help is, IMHO, worthwhile.

But whatever. Going back to the original posting though...

tacitus is a troll, and generally admits as much.

Woo-hoo, three warblog bans...and counting.

Regardless of the guy's approach, I think he has a point.

Can you imagine if there was a pro-war march organized by, say, the KKK... and the right decided to go in with the KKK because of its useful experience in planning marches and recruiting sign-holders and etc...? Because that's what the antiwar did with this one.

Stalinism has long ago been shown to be the scourge of the earth, resulting in millions upon millions of useless deaths, and every two-bit dictator around the world who decides to take over fashions themself as Stalinist.

You just don't put in with these sorts, and especially not when there's an important point to be made and important dialogue to be had.

So what was the strategic objective of that guy(s) who trashed the newspaper machine, et al? And for that matter, what was the strategic objective of posting it?

UT, I think you're talking to me. So, anyway, if you want to debate the logic of the position that any participation by an extremist group paints the entire things as extremist, go ahead. But you're going to have to work for it.

You'll have to start by finding out how many ANSWER people are hardcore commies first.

I mean really, it's like saying. "So you don't want to march with ANSWER, eh? When exactly did you decide to become FOR more war and racism?"

The conversation goes no where. Ask 99% of the people who went to the protest and they'll tell you they were there to protest an invasion of Iraq.

<i>Can you imagine if there was a pro-war march organized by, say, the KKK... and the right decided to go in with the KKK because of its useful experience in planning marches and recruiting sign-holders and etc...?</i>

It's not a march organized by the KKK. It's a march organized by the group called "Black People are Smart, Successful and Intelligent."

See?

Discussing the point

Dave, yes, option is uppity and condescending, that's the problem that I and others had here.

Regardless of the fact that he seems to be an a-hole, he does have an interesting viewpoint on things. I find the argument from both sides to be entertaining at this point.

-mike

It doesn't matter what the people were there for if their presence is successfully spun as lemmings for extremists. If the end result is less support for their cause, they might as well have stayed home. I'm not saying that's exactly the case here, but then, the end of the story hasn't been written yet.

Of course, if we don't show up the pro-war amen corner gets to pretend that the anti-war side lacks support. Republican radio set a nice little trap for us there.

Amusing sidebar, I've been listening to NPR the last two days. If they were this skeptical of Clinton, they wouldn't have lost me back then.

It doesn't matter what the people were there for if their presence is successfully spun as lemmings for extremists.

UT, true, which is why I'm taking my time to fight that spin.

It seems the only people trying to spin it that way are the pro-war folks. And even then, it's just some of the sillier ones.

Also, it's a stretch. Since even ANSWER's home page isn't trying to take credit as a 'huge march for Stalin'. The only people trying to give them credit for such a thing are those that want to discredit the showing, which seemed to be about 200k, from what I've heard.

And I haven't heard much. Its seems that even since the 400,000-850,000 Man March, the Forest Service has shied away from making official estimates of crowd sizes. Which might be a nice opportunity for someone who wants to specialize in such a profession.

uryoces,

thats the exact same nightmare i have. its especially frightening when your bosses boss actually *tells* you how much cheaper it is to have calls routed to india, followed by a mumbled 'but we wont do that'. makes you wonder when the hammers going to drop.

~james

Re: 1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors