Overheard at the Peace Protests

[Dreadsox]

Some of these are not very peaceful protestors......Fight for Communism? Sounds Peaceful.

I love NY even more without the World Trade Center? How full of love are we.

The two guys holding the "Spartacus Youth League Signs" look so very youthful?

yes, support Iraqi resistence....The one that is made of people NOT from Iraq? The Al-Qaeda resistence? how PEACEFUL.

Oh...speaking of Al-Qaeda....let us celebrate the removal of the President of Spain....Let's encourage a bombing in Italy before their elections this year.

And yes...I am certain the CIA and Bush blew up the World Trade Center.

Oh...I forgot...Bush is the AntiChrist and he is working with Osama. I am not even going to post the Anti-Semitic signs that were seen there, at the PEACE rally.



All the photos the press will not show.....thank goodness for digital cameras and the internet.

 

[TylerDurden]

I'm sure you can find some pretty extreme "drop a nuke on Mecca now" types at a pro-Bush/war rally as well. Check a few random topics at freerepublic.com out. I wouldn't lump every pro-Bushie in with them, and I'd hope no-one would lump everyone who is anti Iraq war in the same group. There are very extreme views on both sides. They also make up a tiny minority on both sides.
That WTC one is f*cking disgusting.

 

[Danospano]

Taken out of context all those sound bites may seem inappropriate, but that's the nature of media, right? If we heard why they compared Bush to the Nazi regime, we might agree on a majority of their points. Likewise with the comments about fighting for communism.

Let's not be blind to the truth, even if it means that we're proven wrong.

The USA is the devil or the retard cousin to the rest of the world. We are going to get what's coming to us, because we allowed our leaders to determine what's right for the rest of the world; a world that doesn't want us involved.

I love America, but our leaders are screwing up our reputations overseas and to the north and south of our borders.

Preach on

 

[DrTeeth]

Heh, I could actually find myself agreeing with this one even though I might not have used the term war mongers . Other than that, the rest of the signs are disgusting. We all know there are extremist idiots on both sides on the fence. Not really something I would start a thread about.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Did you take the pictures yourself, dread? If not could you please tell us the source of them? Thank-you.

I've been on more demos than I can count and I've seen more placards I disagreed with than I remember. I've also seen over a million people who took to the streets to peacefully tell their leaders they opposed an illegal war and the death and destruction it would bring to Iraq. I don't agree with the messages on these placards and I know that the vast majority of anti-war demonstrators don't agree with them either.

Don't try to pretend that those messages were in the majority on Saturday's anti-war demonstrations.

 

[Dreadsox]

Did you take the pictures yourself, dread? If not could you please tell us the source of them? Thank-you.

I've been on more demos than I can count and I've seen more placards I disagreed with than I remember. I've also seen over a million people who took to the streets to peacefully tell their leaders they opposed an illegal war and the death and destruction it would bring to Iraq. I don't agree with the messages on these placards and I know that the vast majority of anti-war demonstrators don't agree with them either.

Don't try to pretend that those messages were in the majority on Saturday's anti-war demonstrations.

I NEVER said they were in the majority. And I have not put them all up. There were many.

I just thought it appropriate to show that there are things not shown in the print media. As Diamond has said in the past, money coming from places I think the average American would not be happy about. I have more pictures to back this up too.

And Fizz, the pics were emailed to me....so no, I did not take them myself. Of course we can derail yet another thread discussing such things if you like.

Finally, I would again POLITELY ask you to stop bringing in issues from other threads. You ask me to move on, yet you continue to make references to it, by my count this is the THIRD thread you are bringing this issue up in. Your PM to me indicated you would like to move on, yet your actions on the board lead me to another belief .

It makes me wonder if you are making an art of putting cute smilies at the end of sentences to attempt to make it look like you are not trying to cause trouble but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I was politie enough not to post them in your Peace picture thread, and would really hope that you would move on

 

[BVS]

Well like I've said of recent we're no longer in a world where a picture can tell a thousand words. Who knows the legitimacy of any of these. If they are then some of them are really sad.

Do we have people with f**ked up views in this nation? Absolutely, some hold banners at protest, some write it in a song, some have mainstream radio shows and some run our country.

 

[Leeloo]

Those are scary. It's extremist like that in any cause that hurt their cause more than help it, like some of the PETA extremists and the bloody fetus throwing prolifers.

I have an elderly relative who is convinced Bush planned and carried out 9-11. I've always thought that opinion was irrational and insane. Then there are those who think he could have prevented it, but how? The only way I see he could have stopped it was to listen to the Hickory reports about the large number of young Arab males in fight course and locked them up. Then he'd be called a racial profiler who denies human rights, so he couldn't actually do that.

So how did he cause it? BTW I'm not even much of a fan, but some of his criticism seems ridiculous. If the logic is that because of Bush they hated us enough to do it, that's a stretch too. They hated us long before they ever heard of Bush. The last time they tried to blow up the twin towers, in 1993, your beloved and perfect Bill Clinton was in office. If they had succeeded, who would have been blamed?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'll ignore the rest of your comments dread, because I don't wantt another fight, but I would ask that you don't refer to private conversations in a public forum.

Anyway.

The mainstream print media don't show a lot of things about demonstrations. They didn't show the Spanish police assaulting people who demonstrated outside the Popular Party headquarters last week.

It's rare to see pictures of individual protestors and their placards printed in the mainstream media so I wouldn't say the fact that the pictures you posted weren't printed is an indication of media bias. Indeed, the pictures themselves illustrate a strong bias on the part of the photographer (or if the photographer took more photos than are shown here, on the part of the person who chose only to distribute those pictures) as they include only placards which many would find objectionable and none of the placards with messages which rational people would not find offensive. (Yes, I do think that if you're offended by a placard saying "give peace a chance" or "stop the war" then you're not a rational person. )

 

[verte76]

These particular signs disgust and sicken me. They are not my views nor are they the views of responsible peace activists. You're always going to have a lunatic fringe element, in any group, period. I know who some of these people are. The Sparticist League is a Marxist-Leninist group that spends more time harrassing other leftists than they do protesting against the government. It would be stupid to pretend that these people don't exist. They do, much to my disgust.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The Sparticist League is a Marxist-Leninist group that spends more time harrassing other leftists than they do protesting against the government.

Although after several encounters with them, I certainly wouldn't describe them as Marxists -- in general they don't have a clue about Marx and tend to run away as soon as someone questions their interepretation of Marxism.

They have literally about 10 members in this country but you can guarantee you'll always encounter one when you're an anti-war conference or one of the larger demos. Isn't their paper called "Workers' Hammer" or something? When you see them at the end of the day they always seem to have the same number of copies as they did at the beginning...I guess business isn't too good.

The Sparts, as they're unaffectionately known here, are certainly not at all popular in the antiwar movement.

 

[verte76]

Although after several encounters with them, I certainly wouldn't describe them as Marxists -- in general they don't have a clue about Marx and tend to run away as soon as someone questions their interepretation of Marxism.

They have literally about 10 members in this country but you can guarantee you'll always encounter one when you're an anti-war conference or one of the larger demos. Isn't their paper called "Workers' Hammer" or something? When you see them at the end of the day they always seem to have the same number of copies as they did at the beginning...I guess business isn't too good.

The Sparts, as they're unaffectionately known here, are certainly not at all popular in the antiwar movement.

Well, OK, they're just a bunch of loonies. I had the misfortune to run into them in Ohio years ago when I went to a big meeting of lefties. They were there harrassing us. I wouldn't remember the name of their paper. From their behavior I certainly wasn't motivated to read the damn thing. No, I don't think anyone likes the Sparts.

 

[tackleberry]

So how did he cause it? BTW I'm not even much of a fan, but some of his criticism seems ridiculous. If the logic is that because of Bush they hated us enough to do it, that's a stretch too. They hated us long before they ever heard of Bush. The last time they tried to blow up the twin towers, in 1993, your beloved and perfect Bill Clinton was in office. If they had succeeded, who would have been blamed?

I agree. If you're gonna blame a "bush" for the 9-11 attacks, put the blame on George Bush senior. It was his "false" intentive war in 1991 in the Gulf, his need for his approval rating to rise before an election year, his world oil price monitoring, his deploying of 4000 U.S. troops stationed in Saudia Arabia that began this Al-Q. anger towards the USA in the first place. And it was Clinton who ignored the 1st WTC bombing, the U.S. embasy bombing in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing at sea. He thought by sending a couple of cruise missiles to Afghanistan he would "solve the problem."

And while I think Dubya's reaction to 9-11 and his diverting attention by making another "false" intentive war in Iraq is completely WRONG and ARROGANT, I don't think he is the one to blame for the 9-11 attacks. No one could have predicted something that horrific. The only thing you can blame Dubya for is his reaction to it....

 

[Salome]

well, I guess those people have the freedom to voice their opinion

most of those signs are sickening though

 

[Salome]

and even if these are only 0.003% of all the signs there

it's still sick

 

[STING2]

I agree. If you're gonna blame a "bush" for the 9-11 attacks, put the blame on George Bush senior. It was his "false" intentive war in 1991 in the Gulf, his need for his approval rating to rise before an election year, his world oil price monitoring, his deploying of 4000 U.S. troops stationed in Saudia Arabia that began this Al-Q. anger towards the USA in the first place. And it was Clinton who ignored the 1st WTC bombing, the U.S. embasy bombing in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing at sea. He thought by sending a couple of cruise missiles to Afghanistan he would "solve the problem."

And while I think Dubya's reaction to 9-11 and his diverting attention by making another "false" intentive war in Iraq is completely WRONG and ARROGANT, I don't think he is the one to blame for the 9-11 attacks. No one could have predicted something that horrific. The only thing you can blame Dubya for is his reaction to it....

Bush Sr. did not invade and occupy Kuwait in and unprovoked attack in 1990/1991, that was Saddam.

 

[tackleberry]

Bush Sr. did not invade and occupy Kuwait in and unprovoked attack in 1990/1991, that was Saddam.

No. But his son (Dubya) invaded and occupied Iraq in an unprovoked attack in 2003/2004.

 

[Dreadsox]

No. But his son (Dubya) invaded and occupied Iraq in an unprovoked attack in 2003/2004.

Sorry but Saddam was in violation of the Cease Fire Agreement from the Gulf War. Unprovoked nope!

But dang if we keep getting threads derailed.

 

[tackleberry]

Saddam was in violation of a "UN" resolution, yet the UN did not support the war in Iraq. Explain that to me. What gives the US the right to BREAK from the UN in an arrogant display of machismo, when Saddam violated a resoultion that was enforced by a UNITED NATIONS, yet I hardley think most nations were UNITED in this effort.

 

[Dreadsox]

If the US violated the law, explain why the UN has passed resolutions recognizing the action in Iraq as legit since the war?

 

[BVS]

 

[tackleberry]

If the US violated the law, explain why the UN has passed resolutions recognizing the action in Iraq as legit since the war?

I never said the US "violated the law," I want to know how the US can invade a country that violates a UN RESOLUTION when the UN does not support that invasion? Doesn't the "UN" make the resoultions? THe UN not the U.S.?

 

[Dreadsox]

Back to the thread topic....


How do you disassoiciate yourselves from these types of protestors? I wonder how you can keep sucj people out? Can;t the event organizers do anything about it?

 

[BVS]

Back to the thread topic....


How do you disassoiciate yourselves from these types of protestors? I wonder how you can keep sucj people out? Can;t the event organizers do anything about it?

Wouldn't that be censorship? You can't keep the nuts out of the right you can't keep them out of the left. It's like freakin Snickers, they're packed with nuts.

 

[Dreadsox]

I suppose, but if you are the organizer of the protest parade...and you pulled the permits for the parade, don;t you havea legal right to who marches in your parade? I am asking this out of pure ignorance on how this works.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I want to know how the US can invade a country that violates a UN RESOLUTION when the UN does not support that invasion? Doesn't the "UN" make the resoultions? THe UN not the U.S.?

You're right, of course. I think it's interesting to see the lengths some of the pro-war camp will go to to claim the war was backed by the UN. To any impartial observer it is blatantly obvious that the UN did not support the war, as shown by the US and UK refusing to have a vote on a resolution authorising the war as they knew they would be defeated. As you say, it's the UN's responsibility to enforce its resolutions, it's not up to individual states to take matters into their own hands under the pretence of enforcing the will of the UN.

 

[Rono]

I suppose, but if you are the organizer of the protest parade...and you pulled the permits for the parade, don;t you havea legal right to who marches in your parade? I am asking this out of pure ignorance on how this works.

I think we should not ban this kind of signs, at least you can see who those people ( with this signs ) are and what they represent.

 

[BVS]

I suppose, but if you are the organizer of the protest parade...and you pulled the permits for the parade, don;t you havea legal right to who marches in your parade? I am asking this out of pure ignorance on how this works.

Good question, I don't really know how this works...

 

[Dreadsox]

I think we should not ban this kind of signs, at least you can see who those people ( with this signs ) are and what they represent.

I would be more inclined to think that a peace rally would gain more credibility without them.

If they want to have a hate lie fest, let them pull their own permits.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I suppose, but if you are the organizer of the protest parade...and you pulled the permits for the parade, don;t you havea legal right to who marches in your parade? I am asking this out of pure ignorance on how this works.

It's quite possibly different in the US, but here the answer would be no.

In any case, I would be opposed to censorship of an antiwar march. For all you might dislike the Spartacist Youth League (and believe me, I do too) they have a right to be there and express their opposition to war. For all you might dislike people celebrating Aznar's failure to be re-elected, those people have a right to express their opinion.

One of the best things about the antiwar movement is its inclusiveness and diversity. I've been on demonstrations and seen placards from every major political party in this country - Labour against the war, Tories against the war, Lib Dems against the war, Plaid Cymru against the war and more. I've spoken to people who oppose the war from an isolationist perspective, believing Britain should only go to war to defend its national interests, not for humanitarian reasons. I've heard speeches from people who opposed the war because they're pacifists, opposed to any military action. I've read leaflets with elaborate explanations of why people oppose the war from a religious perspective. I've seen placards condeming the war because the money used to fight it could have been used to fund education or healthcare in this country. All on the same demonstration!

I don't agree with all of those views but I believe the antiwar movement is stronger and more vibrant because they are all represented. The worldwide demonstrations against the attack on Iraq were so huge and powerful precisely because they united millions people of otherwise diverse political opinion around one belief: War on Iraq was wrong.

So even if the legislation in the US did permit organizers to prevent certain people from demonstrating, I would sincerely hope they would respect the diversity of this movement enough not to do so.