1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors
 

http://cellar.org/2003/peaceatins.jpg

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
 

Congratulations, you just fell for the notion that any "protestors" could ONLY have the purest possible motives, and not just be looking for an excuse to trash stuff.

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).

Yes, it's impossible to believe that some of the peace protesters might be a little 'odd' and decide to do something like this. That is an impossibility, whereas it's MUCH more likely that it's a government or media conspiracy.

If you look at the cracks made in the window, you can see Saddam with little devil horns, so I'm voting for the government/media conspiracy vote.

Instead of the peace protesters being the only thing between the you and another Vietnam, I would argue that there is a lot more than that, including diplomatic international pressure, of which little has to do with the local peace rally (or peace violence, or whatever). Besides, if it DOES happen, it won't be another Vietnam, not even close.

-mike

"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;) )

If you're interested in contributing to an interesting debate or providing interesting conversation, then say something else besides this ridiculous statement.

BTW, assuption boy, I'm too old to volunteer and additionally, am not pro-war. To me, the best option (yes, that means the one that I would favor above all else) would be the newly discussed option of Exile for Saddam and family, and *no* war. Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple. And if war does happen, I don't think it will go smoothly but it won't be anything like Vietnam, (of course, mostly due to technology), but the outcome WILL be different. (If you think Saddam's regime will still be in power at the end of the 'war', then you're wrong.) America might not 'win', if winning implies super low casualties, or status quo within the international community. However, the regime change in Iraq will happen, as opposed to what happened in Vietnam. If you believe that Saddam's regime will be in place after a full scale military conflict, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

By the way, did you read the article or visit the source of this media conspiracy? It's certainly not pro war and seems to be quite pro peace. Or is that just a front? Unless you believe that it's a front, I don't think you even LOOKED.

I don't know what else to say. You came out with some statements saying "Congratulations, you've just fallen for a media scam" to anybody that believes that a peace protester really did this damage. Aside from the fact that I believe you're quite wrong, you've got to realize people will respond the way they did. And they don't neccessarily deserve the "So are you just bad at this? Or do you have some kind of agenda?" crap.

-mike

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
 

Wow - you called what I said ridiculous. What a smashing rebuttal. And it was your best one, too, as we'll see...

Oh - foolish me. Allow me to repeat myself. "If you're against it, I've mistaken myself." But I'm glad you pointed out you're too old as well. Just in case.

Go team. Which paper did you read all this in? Or did you figure it out "yourself?"

What a nuanced foreign policy you have. Your "best option" is Hussein surrendering peacefully rather than defending himself. How erudite of you. You're clearly not after conflict at all.

I'm sure you're not concerned with what's happening in Iran, or Pakistan, or Israel/Palestine, or North Korea, or any of the other interesting "opportunity problems" that might be related to this conflict.

In fact, I'm sure if we get lucky and things don't turn ugly you'll be there, pointing fingers and blaming people for having considered any of the risks...

But it's all academic to you, of course... you're too old to fight.

What are you even talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not complaining about an article - this is about people conflating criminals with peace protestors.

I'll add...
As I hope should have been clear in my post, I'm not making that assumption.