It is so nice to see that, not all of us want war. I am more interested in knowing how come most of the peace rallies occurred in Seattle area? or I say west coast?. Any one from Seattle here? Very good and powerful demonstration. Recently there have been some serious anti war demonstration but Seattle always seems to be the #1.
No anti-war demonstrations around here. Not even any talk of it. I suggested it during school once and people looked at me like i was insane "Not want war..whats wrong with you? You smoking crack or something?". Oh, the brightness of my peers. I'd gladly attend a demo in my area though
I could of swore I seen a rally in SF in the papers yesterday. Maybe it was Seattle thoughPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I said this in another post but... Being in a war strips away all illusions about one's self and others. That is why heroics and trechery abound in wars. So many people realize that they themselves are cowards, monsters, fools, or backstabbers. A few find they are better. I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate. Strife is necessary to humanity in the same way fire is necessary to a forest. Without it the forest is choked by its own debris and vermin or vanishes after a fire finally does occur.
The difference here is that they aren't heavily armed nations with (possible) nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities.
And don't forget ... Don't forget that since violence taints protest messages, law enforcement loves to start violence. This was an economic protest, but still ... from the one place you'll hear it, the World Socialist Web Site. They did it in Seattle, too, at WTO-99. Nobody can prove the police planned with the Anarchists in that case, but they certainly did let the masked bandits run amok until they were gone, and then started the seige. As to the greater topic at hand, what can I tell you? My first draft of ideas came out incomprehensible, so its back to the drawing board. I will, however, leave you with the gist of it: it rains half the year, there isn't much to do aside from drink, we have really good drugs, and a youth crisis that leaves the survivors more often than not among leftist dissent. But, yeah ... you're bored, you have good weed ... why not smoke some and go hang out at the protest? I'll give it better thought later. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa So the police start it, you say? Wouldn't it benefit the protestors to start the violence, get all bloodied up, and have images on the news of cops beating them about? They love doing that. In the big S11 rally here a couple of years ago, people threw rocks and full food cans at the cops; one idiot tried to gut a police horse, cutting along its belly and across its back leg. So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs. They love it. Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man". Protest organisers here even have seminars in how to make yourself look hurt, how to make the cops look bad, and how to start trouble with the cops.
adam what about the batton charge at that highschool cause of kennet? and u DO realise that 5 police have been dissplined for there use of battons on the 11/9?
Asguard That "baton charge" was totally misrepresented by the press. Those protestors were breaking the law. Federal law says that protest/picket lines can not prevent people from doing their jobs, nor prevent access to any public area. Those lines were doing both. The police should have tossed them all in prison for breaking a federal law. Instead, they simply tried to move them. Now, in moving them, two matters arise: 1) Nerve pinches/holds as used. Those ranting and complaining about police practices kept saying the police were using lethal and damaing techniques. Unfortunately, the techniques used by the police are neither lethal nor damaging. They have been developed and used for a very long time specifically because they cause temporary pain and give the user control of the subject, and cause no damage. 2) The baton charge, the cops lining up and thrusting their batons ahead while stepping toward the protestors. Well, what were they supposed to do? These people were federal criminals. They were being nice and not throwign them all in jail, instead giving them the chance to simply move away. The protestors refused. As for the S11 thing... Five police have been shafted to make people feel good. Same as in the Rodney King thing in America. They shafted one cop and let the other off, to please both sides.
Yes, they do In many cases, they do. I've never heard a reason why the Guard started shooting at Kent State. Insofar as anyone can tell, it was just poorly-trained guardsmen. In Seattle, the police let a band of vandals run free as a pretext for laying seige to the people. Throughout the battle, the police maintained a public line that was not supported by reality. They would not be using wooden bullets--a lie ... at the moment our mayor made that declaration, city officials were in Boise loading up on rubber and wooden bullets. The police pushed the battle line up into Capitol Hill, where innocent people were not only gassed, but fired upon. In the aftermath, the police said it would have been easier to handle the situation if it wasn't for a law that prevents them from spying on anyone they want whenever they choose. Yet as our local presses pointed out, Direct Action and other protest groups had an open-door policy with their mission goals written on banners outside their buildings. Any police officer could have walked up and written those down for review, but it turns out that nobody did. Memos showed that the police were aware of the Eugene Anarchist group, and even suspected them of plotting violence. But they let the group run free anyway, and then used their vandalism as a pretext for gassing and shooting at everyone else. It was so bad that the fire department told our police chief to take a leap off a tall building when he asked that trucks be lent to hose the crowds. Anybody who remembers the WTO-99 debacle needs to know that responsibility for that mess goes squarely on the shoulders of our mayor (no longer in office) and our police chief (retired as a sacrificial lamb). Let's put it this way: the police knew violence was coming. When they dispatched their forces, the officers were in black, masked, and bore no insignia or identifying marks. (Oh, and when they are dressed as such for an event like that, they are exempted from their crimes; it's why we were all so pissed when the Sheriff was not allowed to fire an officer who was identified on videotape beating a woman while she helped an injured person out of the street, and then videotaped again at another location on the battle perimeter attacking innocent people with pepper spray. If we think of melodramatic examples--something we took a moment to think about in another topic we've been discussing--it is fair to say that if, during that period, an officer chooses to kill someone, even for no apparent reason, that crime will by law be exempted.) The article about Italy speaks for itself. I do have some respect for the police chief in ... I think it was Philadelphia, who dressed for combat and stood with his bicycle corp. He was even videotaped losing a battle and having bicycles thrown at him by the angry crowd. But when we stop and think of the violence in Washington, DC, and in Philadelphia shortly after WTO-Seattle, it does us well to remember that nations prefer to hold these types of conferences in the US because our law enforcement is better at suppressing dissent than in nations run by tyrants. There's some food for thought: in the land of the free, our police are more effective at shutting peoples' mouths than in dictatorships. You'd think so, wouldn't you? But strangely, it doesn't work that way. People in this town still have ill words for the protesters of November, 1999. Listen to American news; if protest violence is a story, our broadcasters support the police departments to the hilt. And why else would the Italian police hope to incite violence at a protest? Why would they want to bolster support for the protesters? Violence at protests, regardless of who starts it, is usually pinned on the protesters. Well, if we look at the climate of the last five years or so, I'd say it's in preparation for the inevitable. To the other, I'm surprised that the police had to start the violence at WTO-99. After all, they had announced weeks in advance that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would not be in effect in the city of Seattle during the protests. Actually, the police do try to hurt people there. Most American cops will admit to taking their shots when they can get them. On the other hand, I think of the delegate to WTO-99 who chose to approach the conference from the front and pass through the thickest part of the protest immediately outside the conference just so he could have the pleasure of pulling a gun on protesters, knowing that his diplomatic immunity would forgive him the attempted assault with a deadly weapon. Some of them do. I got to laugh at a friend who joined Direct Action on the front lines in '99. I used to have a great jpeg of him getting gassed by the cops. Absolutely priceless. While I get what you mean, that's a little like saying cops have manuals that tell them how to get away with murder. Oh, wait. They do. Fair enough. Of course, your predisposition against protesters is well-known to me. As I recall, it was one of our first ugly disputes. To the other, I take my hat off to them. I sat at home, waiting for the police to cross a certain line (killing someone), but thankfully it didn't happen. In the meantime, I salute everybody who went out and protested instead of sitting at home bitching like my brother, my girlfriend, my best friend and, consequently, me. It's one of those days I've come to regret. I should have been with the people. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bingo. It's the whole martyr thing. If they aren't being exploited and abused, make it look like they are.
Tiassa Yes, that was quite disgusting. Unfortunately it does indeed happen that way. But for the most part, I think it is the wannabe-martyrs who start it all. Are you saying the police are responsible for those vandals? Perhaps they were being nice, thinking "Perhaps the kids will calm down and be nice", but instead the kiddies continued being pathetic criminal thugs and the police were eventually forced to act. WTF were they using guns for at all? Silly. Sounds remarkably like Brasil. Sad country you've got there. Actually, I would suggest the USA is chosen as a venue so often also because they can get images of protestors being violent. Every time a television shows a protestor throwing a rock, their cause is discredited, and the WTO and such come out better. I guess you'd better go bomb Iraq and a few other countries then, eh? They can do that? The uni groups such as the Monash Uni Anti-War Coaltion do have seminars on how to: start violence against cops; start violence against cops in front of the press; make it look like you're in heaps of pain, et cetera. The cops do not have seminars on how to do those things against the protestors. All it would take is for one cop to mention such things to a non-cop, and there would be a royal commission.
Tell it to Solidarity Sounds a little like a faith declaration. Hmm ... well, let's try this from an internalized projection: • Wow, look at that protest. Oh, my, there's a bunch of masked people in black smashing windows. Should we do anything about it? No? Okay. Oh, look, they're gone. Now let's go smash the heads of the people who weren't breaking anything and also those who tried to stop the vandals. Do people wonder why the police catch shite in this country? Well, they're nice policemen and they have to stop all the bad protesters .... Too bad they didn't. They let the bad guys get away. But if anyone has anything to say about it, they're just a wanna-be martyr? Should they write nice letters asking the policemen to behave? And now we're back to why police so frequently incite violence at protests. Well, we as Americans have a right to lay it on the line and demand Constitutional adherence. International combat is a different thing. Maybe the peace protesters should start dropping napalm? That would be ... effective. It's all in how you say it. The "legal protest zone" consisted of two blocks' worth of sidewalk blocks away from the conference site. The point was that if the protesters obeyed "the law", the delegates wouldn't have to see them. But yes, the First Amendment was effectively suspended on the grounds that nobody ever goes to jail for those violations, and it would be months after the conference that the details would be sorted out. So looking forward to that, it seems logical to incite violence, if you're the police. It gives another distraction from the offenses against the Cosntitution. So when's the next major international conference in Australia? True. Not my protest. I had no conscience problems about not flying out to that one. That's why the police should seek the vandals, not assist them (e.g. Italy) or let them go free and attack the innocent people (e.g. Seattle). It's my city. It's my people. Adam, that kind of hardlined idiocy in this country is reserved for beefy war-hawks and pipsqueak pundits. The government is an institution. Authority is an institution. Each police officer that chose to dress in unmarked gear and take part in that idiocy has made a choice to stand with the institution, and not the people it represents. Government is an instrument of and for the people, not against them. I mean, I know it would be easier for you if the people were all dullards who accepted what their governments tell them. That's how you operate, isn't it? Government says, Adam nods, right? No? Not right? Well, why? Government serves people, not vice-versa. I remember Hempfest a few years ago, when Floater's performance was cut short. When they announced that the permit was up at 8:00 pm (a bullshit standard, as other events in the same place get to run until 1:00 or 2:00 am), the crowd naturally booed. But onstage, the band looked around and said, "Yeah, but you can't see the police out behind the stage. There's a lot of them, and they're in riot gear." Strangely, although there was as many as 40,000 people in the park at that moment, all of the stoners chose to not deal with it. We know what the police bring, and what conflict is worth. But, given that the police were in violation of the law via the equal protection standard, we, the people, had full right to tear them all new assholes. But we didn't. Why? Because a concert wasn't worth it. (It should be noted that the people never have the right to tear the cops a new asshole. If they want to ask for ID and then shoot you 41 times when you reach for your wallet, you're expected to be happy that they're putting in the effort. If five cops want to beat and then rape you with a toilet-plunger handle in a jail cell, you're expected to thank them for it afterward. Nonetheless, the police were in violation of the law that evening, and on many occasions since. But, since they're government, well?) Which is it, Adam: Is government for people or are people for government? In the US, we, the people, own the government. We just need to remind it once in a while. A suggestion: See if you can book an interview with Lech Walesa and then run your sentiments about protesters by him. I'd be very curious to learn what he told you. If your government is wrong, Adam, do you just follow orders? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa Damn this people asking questions and such, and me being silly enough to write long posts... Nobody's perfect. *shrug* Didn't say that. Just commenting on your odd country. Possibly. Again, the police (here at elast) do not hold seminars on how to screw with protestors in front of cameras. Only the protestors hold such seminars. The point of that was marking out your willingness to arm and expect violence. Or at least condoning such behaviour from others. Nice peaceful attitude. The WTO has been meeting here now and then over the last fivfe years or so, and CHOGM now and then. Actually the last CHOGM was a couple of months back. I think something is on next Wednesday, as someone in the Monash Uni Anti-War Coalition invited me to go along with them. Everyone is "the people". Even the bureaucrats in the Pentagon. Even the cops. You can't simply say that "the people" consists only of those out in the streets yelling about how much the government sucks. Where did you get that idea? If you must know, I very much dislike the institutions of government, police, and so on. I dislike borders and nations. I never believe what our government says; ours lies even more than yours does. I used to be in there, I saw a bunch of lies and the public crap that was presented instead. (And you would not believe how much of pretty much everything is pure bullshit.) But I also know those lies, and the insitutions, serve purposes. I don't like those purposes, but unfortunately some of it is necessary in our current society. And no, I do not advocate stasis. Pure theory. The government doesn't serve the people. Many think it should, but that is not the case. The government serves stasis, it serves its own continuance. I don't follow anyone's orders any more. I question the government and protest groups equally.
Here are a couple of frames from a comic I started writing once, just an idea I had. I keep thinking that some day I will have the time to finish it. It's all about conspiracies and such. The focal character at this point is a former bureaucrat/intelligence chap. ---------------------------------------- PANEL FOUR Character continues, "Then there are people like me, who watch and interpret, listen to the lies, make up new lies, twist and repeat old lies with new names attached, and pretend it's all for the greater good of our country and fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of us, around the world, just doing our little jobs. Listening for who spoke the lies in the first place. Altering the lies to suit our own purposes. Spreading the lies. Doing our bit for our respective employers." PANEL FIVE Character continues, "You want to know who the liars are? Me. Me, and people like me. There are more of us than you could ever kill or even count. And we don't even know why we lied in the first place. Nobody knows. Nobody knows the reason, the purpose. It's just a game, our lies versus theirs, seeing whose lie comes out on top, getting people to believe so we can build the future on that lie and make it a bigger lie. There's no purpose to it. No reason. And the saddest part is, I don't think any of the liars know that any more, or at least they don't give a damn." ---------------------------------------- Now, I included this sort of thing in the story because that's basically a large part of how the world around us works. It's actually quite scary, the rest of that section. Turn on the TV news at night, and a heck of a lot of the material comes from crap like that, if you could trace all the reasons and causes back far enough. Since semester ends in three weeks, then exams, I'm going to try writing a lot more over Summer, and this is one of the things I would like to spend some time on.
Governments are an odd breed. Originally installed to serve the people, people complain about their lies and secrecy and as Adam has mentioned most of these lies and secrecy are to try and protect the people. You could look at many examples, for instance if nuclear weapons had all the information that the scientists knew about at the time, and were working out released to the press, the public would have disallowed the use of them, which in turn would have extended a war. (Although 200,000 perished to end it and some areas are still off limits.) In recent times the use of depleted uranium shells to pierce tanks would have caused problems, and they wouldn't have been used, so secrecy covered it up until it was found out. In these cases you can look at the Militaries viewpoints: Time, if something takes too much time then there is a loss in trust, a loss in backing and most noticably a loss in agreement. Money, the world runs on capitalism (and wouldn't run without it.) Militaries receive funding budgets to do what they need to do, if they don't manage to do things within an alotted time, then it costs more budget which means cut backs in some areas. From a government point, most of the time they have very little control over the military, purely because in a democratic world political parties change with votes, which means no singular President or Prime minister has all the information. (there is multiple reasons for this, the easiest way is to say that a countries security is a multiheaded organism, is brains are split between multiple heads so if one should unforntunately get cut off, the organism can still think.) This in fact means that although there are Democratic elections for government, the real people that make the decisions are behind the scenes and formulate their positioning by very un-democratic means. (In ancient times if people wanted such positions they would knife the person that had that position in the back and take the position by force. "Et tu Bruté?") This is why many people in these positions really don't like Saddam Hussein, because he acts a mixture of President and Military leader. In most Democratic countries as mentioned a President or Prime Minister might speak out about what the military plans, but they are only Advised to do so, and Democracy can over-rule the military on occasion. [Edit:] Just looking a bit more at the UK method of Heirarchy, you could see how Peerage (Lords) and the military (Warlords) work in the same way. (I'm sure the military powers that be won't like being called Warlords though)
Have another sphincter, eh? Funny, as I look through your posts, I see phrases like: ... and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it. Specifically, it seems as if you were commenting on how stupid Australians are. I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting; it makes keeping track of when you're actually honest much more difficult. You know, Adam, when a cop has a peaceful protester on his face, is yanking his arms out of their sockets, is cutting open the flesh with the handcuffs, and is driving the guy's face into the concrete with his knee, and the guy is actually trying not to fight back, I think it's fair to say that a cop has been trained for it. And when they're automatically forgiven their sins, such as the criminals who laid siege to the people in Seattle in '99? I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap. In the meantime, it is the right of a citizen to protect himself. Why do police automatically dress in riot gear? They are presuming conflict. What I want to know is why you hate the idea of the people speaking out? Oh, that's right, there is no guarantee of free speech in Australia. (Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government.) Get me the dates ... maybe I'll fly down. Since you're desperate enough to try to hold me responsible for the acts of protesters in Australia, I might as well come down and give you a reason for that. Everyone is a person, but when you actively and freely choose to support the State against the people, you are an agent of "the State". Your brand of literalism is best left for people far less intelligent than you. That's what I find disturbing. I don't really think you're this stupid, and frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting. No, the People consists of all people represented by a State authority. As President Abraham Lincoln said, we have a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. If that government chooses to betray the people, it is our right and duty to resist. If a person chooses to align themselves with the government during that period, and to support crimes against the people, well, that person has made their decision. But you just seem to hate it when people gather to speak in a communal voice. Why is this? Because your repeated justifications of governments and condemnations of citizens really does make it seem like you believe people exist for the benefit of government. And, as a result, you wish to do nothing about the things you disagree with, and want everyone else to do nothing about what disturbs them? I don't know, man, I'm an American. I'm used to bullshit in large quantities being staked on other people's lives. In case you hadn't noticed, its how our government does business. Of course, we should all sit at home and keep it to ourselves when our government is out of hand. That's what the internationals want, right? They want Americans to support their government or at least keep quiet about our disapproval? Lying is only necessary for liars. If the people can't handle the truth, they need to educate themselves. In the meantime, if a government can't operate forthrightly, perhaps it shouldn't be operating. Not really. No government, people still exist. No people, no government. People endorse government--see the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Irish Constitution, heck, even the Australian Constitution. That's right ... I forgot the Queen still ruled Australia. How silly of me. Well, you usually have so much to say on behalf of governments and so much to condemnation to offer people that I do wonder. I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst. Don't blame American or Italian protesters for the stupidity of Australians. Alright? Easy enough? And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time. You know, when I was in college, my roommate was from Singapore. He was amazed the first time he saw an American demonstration, and related to me that if more than five people gathered in public, they were eligible to be arrested as subversives. Obviously this did not apply to family dinners, but he also taught me how to light my cigarette in Singapore. And the story he told was that he almost got arrested the day after his tour of armed service ended because when he met some friends, one of them wasn't up on the latest criminal trends, and covered the end of his cigarette in a certain way when he lit it. There was six of them meeting and going into a bar. They were immediately detained by the police as possible subversives planning (gasp!) a demonstration of free speech. Were they given an apology, having just gotten out of the armed service, for being treated this way? No. They were told to enter the bar in groups of three in the future. Maybe we should get some of those laws going? In the US, we can't do that because the right of assembly is protected. But in Australia, why not? And then you can all sing "God Save the Queen" from the privacy of your own homes and never have to worry about your screwy neighbors and their opinions ever again. Take American peace rallies, Adam. Would you rather the American people hash it out in their own streets? Or should we take it to the world with our jets and bombs and rifles? People may not like what our (U.S.) government is doing, but the force of the people in the streets is one of the things that can check a government instantly. So what would you rather, Adam? That the government for whose benefit the people exist go forth dragging the world into an irresponsible war that will most likely cost Australian lives at some point? Or would you like the protesters to get out in the street and fight the government they endorse and try to force it to behave? Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours. But in the end, what result do you want? Should the people demand propriety of their government, or should we let others suffer for our mistakes? The rest of the world knows to cheer the protests in American streets, and if they do turn violent, at least the violence is Americans fighting Americans about what to do, not Americans dropping bombs at will and destabilizing dangerous political balances. So what do you want, Adam? No, no, don't look to your Queen or your PM to tell you. Make a decision based on what you want as a person, as a human being, not as an Australian or a soldier or a white guy or an atheist but as a human being. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
