OT - Local Peace Demonstration Violence

[NoMyths]

Just received this from an acquaintance, and it infuriates me. Regardless of your views on the war, there is no just reason to threaten protesters who are behaving in an organized, lawful, permitted display. These kids are camping out and fasting. They don't need threats of violence, so if you're someone who believes that threatening people you don't agree with is the right thing to do, why don't you move to Iraq where they embrace that sort of behavior?

I've emphasized key parts.
---

"The participants of the Peace Awareness Fast and Encampment are in serious need of your support.

"I want to ask everyone to--if possible--take time to support the Peace Awareness Fast and Encampment on the [major public university] Memorial Mall. Last night we had a scary situation. At around 2 am we had 20-30 college age men begin to converge on our camp. They were split into three groups on the edge of the mall and were communicating with each other on cell phones, so it looked well planned. One group hung a noose in a tree on the edge of the mall. We quickly called the police, and they had at least six patrol cars on site in less than a minute.

"While we hope this (like past incidences of egging, rock throwing, knocking tents down, etc.) was part of a prank meant to scare us into silence, many of us who have been camping are concerned that our lives are being threatened. We want to maintain our 24 hr a day rally for as long as we can, but we need more help.

"We need people who can pledge to stand guard with us from midnight to 4 am every night. The more people we have, the smaller the chance anyone will try to harm us. The [university] police department has been vigilant in their efforts to protect us, but they have to answer calls in the entire campus area and cannot always respond as quickly or in as many numbers as they did last night.

"I understand that not everyone shares the same political beliefs that our coalition does, but I ask that if you cannot come out in support of our cause, please support our right to speech and peaceful assembly. If you can keep watch with us from midnight to 4 am any night through Apr. 7 or help in any other way, please call me at xxx-xxx or drop me an email. Thank you!"

---

I'd also like to point out that the more people who gather for protection, the more people needed to harass them. Seems like a situation that could get out of hand. Why can't pro-war folks allow the pro-diplomacy folks to express their opinions, when they've followed the laws for doing so?

[Fritz]

Like the "pro-diplomacy folks" never get violent....

[Bee]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[stkelly52]

This does bother me, just as the violence of many of the peace pretest does. A relitivly few idiots making the rest of the group look bad.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
2 wrongs don't make a right.

certainly, I just don't like seeing one side painted as reasonable and non-violent, and the other as bunch of thugs.

[NoMyths]

I'm not painting one side and not the other. If she had sent me an email about attacking a pro-war demonstration I would have posted it with the same type of commentary. Violence cannot be the solution we resort to when people don't agree with us.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
certainly, I just don't seeing one side painted as reasonable and non-violent, and the other as bunch of thugs.

Well there's no doubt there are thugs on both sides of the protests.

I don't see anything wrong with them asking for protection as long as they aren't protesting violently. Sounded to me like they were doing some kind of sit-in starvation thing (no thanks, I like my donuts too much ), but not really harming anyone.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
I'm not painting one side and not the other. If she had sent me an email about attacking a pro-war demonstration I would have posted it with the same type of commentary. Violence cannot be the solution we resort to when people don't agree with us.

I do not doubt your intentions at all, but you must admit that "why can't pro-war folks allow the pro-diplomacy folks to express their opinions, when they've followed the laws for doing so?" is a little leading.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
Well there's no doubt there are thugs on both sides of the protests.

Sadly this is true.

Sadly I have been thugish in the past. From that point of view I can say that there is a certain fanaticism inherent to youth.

[MylesKnight]

Why do people get so wrapped up into what others are protesting for or against and think they need to physically harass them... Like I give a damn if some person chooses to sit in some grassy area and not eat for days at a time..

I've got my views, you've got your views, so be it. It's not like Colin Powell or George Bush cares what we think anyway..

By the way, if you really want to protest, protest at election time by voting out of office the people who are making these decisions you disagree with and bringing in people who are pro-your particular agenda. All other protest efforts are pretty much useless in the end, aren't they?

[CamEdwards]

I don't condone violence against these people. I prefer psychological torture.

Let's all order a bunch of pizzas, then sit down next to these folks and enjoy our dinner.

Seriously, there's no excuse for violence against these people. They're not doing anything to anyone but themselves.

[sabotai]

"I don't condone violence against these people. I prefer psychological torture.

Let's all order a bunch of pizzas, then sit down next to these folks and enjoy our dinner."

LOL...now that's funny.

[JPhillips]

I just read about a radio host that said all of the protesters desrve "a bullet to the head". I wonder if we will see the same outrage over this as we have over Daschle or Rangle. Somehow I doubt it.

[sabotai]

"I just read about a radio host that said all of the protesters desrve "a bullet to the head". I wonder if we will see the same outrage over this as we have over Daschle or Rangle. Somehow I doubt it."

What radio host?

Please say Rush Limbaugh!!

[JPhillips]

No it wasn't Rush. This guy was Richard Condon of KOOJ in Baton Rouge, LA. If you want to contact the station email:

[email protected]

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I don't condone violence against these people. I prefer psychological torture.

Let's all order a bunch of pizzas, then sit down next to these folks and enjoy our dinner.

Seriously, there's no excuse for violence against these people. They're not doing anything to anyone but themselves.

I guess you get dinner and a show.

[fastnee]

NoMyths,
It is interesting that you would, however, characterize the protestor's as "pro-diplomacy" (12 years wasn't enough?) and those that have the opposite view as "pro-war." Why not "anti-Saddam" for the non-protestors, and "supporter's of Hitler like dictatorship" for the protestors? If you are going to label, you should be even handed about it. Of course violence against them is asinine, but labeling the other side "pro-war" is ignorant.

[Havok]

For some reason this doesnt bother me that much. I guess after watching so called "peace protesters" pull a cop of his horse and beat the shit out of him or disrupting traffic in major cities for no reason, i've lost all respect for so called "peace protesters".

Someone should tell them to get there hippie asses inside and stop acting like naive children (aka the french). One day they'll grow up and think... "Dam wtf was i thinking".

At least the Hippies in the 70's were fighting for a decent cause. These dumasses now a days are protesting just to protest.

[Easy Mac]

Of course, during the 60's and 70's, the hippies protesting weren't thought to have a noble cause. It's nice to see hindsight is 20/20.

[Havok]

well... alot of those hippies were freaking dumasses also. Booing and spiting at our soldiers when they came home. Like it was there fault the president half assed a war.

Im glad we went to vietnam but we should have fought it 100%, not 50% like we did. If we really wanted to win that war we could have. And vietnam today would be alot more like South Koren instead of the shit hole 3rd world country that it is today.

But that wont happen in iraq. Bush isnt a push-over. He will finish the job and in 20 years from now we will all look back at what he did and be dam greatful for it. Espically Iraqi's

[tucker342]

Originally posted by JPhillips
No it wasn't Rush. This guy was Richard Condon of KOOJ in Baton Rouge, LA. If you want to contact the station email:

[email protected]

What!!! It wasn't Rush? That's surprising.

I can't stand Rush.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by fastnee
NoMyths,
It is interesting that you would, however, characterize the protestor's as "pro-diplomacy" (12 years wasn't enough?) and those that have the opposite view as "pro-war." Why not "anti-Saddam" for the non-protestors, and "supporter's of Hitler like dictatorship" for the protestors? If you are going to label, you should be even handed about it. Of course violence against them is asinine, but labeling the other side "pro-war" is ignorant.

I use "pro-diplomacy" (to my knowledge, my own invention) because "anti-war" doesn't really cover the range of protests. "Pro-war," on the other hand, is the widely used term; as such, it's disrespectful for you to call me ignorant for using the standard lexicon there. "Anti-Saddam" doesn't work because many protesters are against Saddam; they just don't feel war is the best way to deal with him. I won't respond to the other phrase.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Havok
For some reason this doesnt bother me that much. I guess after watching so called "peace protesters" pull a cop of his horse and beat the shit out of him or disrupting traffic in major cities for no reason, i've lost all respect for so called "peace protesters".

So it's okay for those who are pro-war to be violent but not for the anti-war group. Gee. Let me guess. You probably fall into the pro-war group, right?

[fastnee]

NoMyths,

Anit war you dont want to use, but pro-war is ok because it is the standard lexicon? Talk about a double standard!
First, you did not address the whole basis of my complaint with your post. By describing protestors as "pro-diplomacy," you assume many things about them that you should not. You assume they think continued diplomacy would work, and infer, since it is a term of your own creation, that diplomacy remained a viable solution. You assume, by labeling those that throw rocks at the protestors as pro-war, that they are enjoying that people are dying because Saddam would not disarm. They could just be stupid kids doing stupid things, who, if caught throwing rocks, shoud be charged with assault and battery. Just because you believe that using the "standard lexicon" protects you from being ignorant, does not make it unfair for me to label your use of that term as such. If you want to make a point that violence towards peaceful protestors is wrong, fine, but dont assume that those who support the troops and believe that Saddam is pure evil are "pro-war." Why not respond to the "other phrase?" If it is your position that Saddam would have peacefully disarmed and would never be a threat to the security of America, and you would choose to appease him, then you in fact support a man who has killed and tortured scores of his own people on a whim. If you are going to post about the war, come prepared to defend your position. There are legitimate arguments on both sides about why we should or should not be there, but your original post clearly shows a bias on your part that you have yet to explain.

[NoMyths]

Whatever.

[Ben E Lou]

Back to the original message....

It happened at 2am, and it was 20-30 "college-aged men" and "they were split into three groups on the edge of the mall and were communicating with each other on cell phones, so it looked well planned."


Sounds like a bunch of drunken frat boys looking for kicks late one night to me. These guys don't deserve to be lumped in with any "pro-war", "anti-Saddam", "pro-Iraqi freedom" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement.

[fastnee]

NoMyths,

Your response is not surprising.

SkyDog,

My point exactly. Don't lump them together, which is exactly what NoMyths did.