Violence ahead of G-8 summit

Of course the violence is unacceptable. I, as a peaceable demonstrator for certain favorite causes, just resent it when discussions or news articles lump both sorts together. And, while you are correct in part that demonstrations can be exercises in futility, demonstrations were instrumental in (1) getting LBJ to halt the bombing and (2) they resulted in voting and other civil rights for blacks - just two instances.

I just think that you when you peaceful protestors see someone at a protest getting violent, you ought to beat the $#!+ out of him. That'll solve the problem, and quick.

Peacable people don't go around beating up people. Crowd control is the cops' job.

I don't find it online now, but the Swiss are always shocked by any demonstrations.

Edgar
Consider this: When people see and hear stories about demonstrations what is usually the main thrust of the story. The peaceful demonstrators and their causes or the violent and destructive ones and their radical causes. The answer is obvious. Therefore what impression is the general public left with. IMO The violence turns people off and results in all demonstrators being tarred with the same brush.

It was a joke.

That's what I was saying, au. People only hear the key words: demonstration; violence. That is the crux of my complaint.

Edgar
When was the last time you saw a story in the paper or on the news that lauds something good? The media is only interested in the sensational. Why? because they give the public what it craves.
My point is that these demonstrations due to the violence damage more than help the cause..

The peaceful ones have a hard go of it because of others' preoccupation with violence - which is a smokescreen to avoid dialog with the opposition anyway - but, the governments they are speaking to can count, and they can see how many quiet ones there are, even when they don't acknowledge it. These people are probably more likely to go home and vote than some idiots wrestling with cops. They have a natural right to peacefully assemble and they should never let the violent ones keep them away.

edgar - I don't think anyone is suggesting that the violent ones should keep the peaceful, law-abiding protesters away, I am (and I believe others are) suggesting that the peaceful, law-abiding protesters need to keep the violent ones away.

At the beginning of this thread the language was all directed at violence and the repercussions. The peaceful folk were only slightingly included at all.

Why don't the peaceful protesters use their own tactics to prevent the "black block" from splintering off and creating havoc? Do tell.

Once again you are considering that all who protest are the same in belief and ends. Not so. If some splinter away that is their divergent beliefs speaking. Surely you don't think all non protestors are the same? Otherwise, why don't you stop G W Bush from persuing his murderous policies. It must be your place to do it, since you are a non protestor.

Once again, edgar, I see nothing that anyone has written that means what you are arguing against. NOBODY is saying all protesters are the same, so why keep arguing against a point NOBODY has made?

I read the point. Therefore it was made by somebody.

Well, perhaps I simply missed what you interpret as meaning this:

Can you show me what someone wrote in this discussion that means this to you? (Or are you going to join the, "how dare you ask me anything" crowd?)

Scrat go to this link:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=anti%2Dwar+peace+protesters

Click on the first link Google returns.

It's another Google bomb by Steve Lerner, a 22-year-old right wing Toronto student who also did the frech military defeats google bomb.

What Edgar is complaining about is quite common.

Not in this discussion it isn't. That is where he leveled the complaint. That is where he claims to have read it. That is where I have not seen it written.

I stand by my complaint, and then move on with my life.