Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
G8 protester killed

By MSBob in News
Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 10:42:01 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Latest news on the G8 summit. One protester was shot dead after throwing a fire extinguisher at the police car. The BBC has the coverage on this event here


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o here
o Also by MSBob


Display: Sort:
G8 protester killed | 247 comments (223 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
Even better coverage (4.21 / 14) (#1)
by MSBob on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:37:18 PM EST

of the incident itself is at Reuters here.
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

D'oh, JS turned off here (4.50 / 4) (#12)
by Perpetual Newbie on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:56:14 PM EST

And a Reuters article that shows up as something besides a blank screen on a HTML webbrowser is here

[ Parent ]
Welcome to sunny Italia! (2.94 / 17) (#2)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:39:56 PM EST

With 20,000 cops and soldiers running around so full of machismo that the testosterone is sweating out their pores, fondling their guns and playing with those big clubs they bring out for these events, it's not particularly surprising that one of Italy's finest bully-boys would get a bit trigger happy and kill someone.

This is, after all, a country with a police force (the Caribinieri) who are part of the military and not a civilian institution. From the G8's perspective, Italy was a good choice for hosting an event like this.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


military police (none / 0) (#127)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:04:52 AM EST

This is, after all, a country with a police force (the Caribinieri) who are part of the military and not a civilian institution. From the G8's perspective, Italy was a good choice for hosting an event like this.

The Caribinieri are not the normal police force; they are the military police. Italy has a normal police force, but, as is standard practice in many European countries, they also have a military police force, which is much more heavily armed and trained in dealing with terrorists. Generally they only patrol airports and ports, but they're sometimes called out to assist in riot control. In Genoa the local police were very understaffed to handle the rioters, so the Caribinieri provided much of the riot control.

Italy's certainly not alone in having a military police force - the cops armed with sub-machine guns that you see when passing through many German, French, Greek, and Swiss airports are not members of the regular police force.

[ Parent ]

Now look what's been started (3.50 / 12) (#3)
by MicroBerto on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:43:02 PM EST

I am not at all in favor of these riots, but killing him was an absolutely awful decision. First off, it was unecessary to kill him because he didn't have any more 'ammo'. How many fire extinguishers can a person have to throw??

Second - Look at what this is going to start! These riots are going to spread globally, thanks to one cop that had to aim at someone's head rather than abdomen/shoulder/leg. I don't even want to see this develop.

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip

were you there? (3.20 / 5) (#41)
by gibichung on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:59:32 PM EST

I wasn't, so all I can do is make a reasonable conclusion as to what happened. Do you really think the police officer didn't have a good reason to shoot the "protester." The reports I've seen so far don't explain what happened, except that a man was shot assaulting a police officer, so let's give the benefit of the doubt to the peacekeeper and not the ski-masked rioter, ok?

Second - Look at what this is going to start! These riots are going to spread globally, thanks to one cop that had to aim at someone's head rather than abdomen/shoulder/leg. I don't even want to see this develop.

It's unfortunate that deadly force was (had to be?) used, but I don't think these protests are in danger of spreading worldwide, when just about all of the professional protesters are already in Italy. Their positions simply aren't popular enough for riots to spread without a pretext (such as a G8 summit). And as long as the "protesters" wear ski-masks and burn and loot, the protests aren't likely to spread to the common people.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

benefit of the doubt? (4.25 / 4) (#45)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:06:02 PM EST

What, would you say, have the Caribinieri (or pretty much any police force) done to warrant giving _them_ the benefit of the doubt?

An insignificant number of civilians have shot another human, even in self-defence; a very significant number of police have done so, only rarely in self-defence. This is especially true of military police like the Caribinieri.

Why, therefore, should we extend the benefit of the doubt to a man who is paid by the State to keep its people in line rather than to a man who is paid by no one to stop them?

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
benefit of the doubt... (3.66 / 3) (#54)
by gibichung on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:42:06 PM EST

The police officer deserves the benefit of the doubt because he was under attack from a rioter wearing a ski-mask. It's obvious who started the fight. The police officer is a human being too -- one who was attacked while doing his job. Which of them was more likely to force this, the police officer or the fanatic?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Re: benefit of the doubt... (4.00 / 4) (#60)
by jonnyq on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:17:13 PM EST

Why do we even care who is more likely to force it? It is much more relevant to worry about who did force it. And that, at this point in time, is something we don't know.

I don't come down from the fence on this issue, but I have seen some independent video footage of the behavior during riots (e.g. Seattle/Quebec), and I am very reluctant to believe that the police are completely blameless. Who is forcing the issue when police are ripping off gas masks to spray mace directly into eyes?

As I said earlier, what happened is completely unknown, so we should not be quick to jump to conclusions either way.

[ Parent ]
Question (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by pyramid termite on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:03:16 AM EST

After getting his face blown off by two bullets, what kind of threat do you think the man still represented that he had to be run over by a jeep?
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
It's Just Meat (none / 0) (#193)
by Logan on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 01:46:31 AM EST

After getting his face blown off by two bullets, what significance is there in his being run over? Unfortunately in this case, jeeps are not VTOL capable.

Logan

[ Parent ]

Stones, Too (2.00 / 2) (#74)
by SEWilco on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 06:33:13 PM EST

The Reuters article says that the rioter's group was also throwing stones. There was plenty of life-threatening ammunition available, and it was being used.

[ Parent ]
Jeep, Too (2.50 / 2) (#90)
by ksandstr on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:10:22 PM EST

The members of the Italian paramilitary force had a jeep under them. If they'd have had any respect for human life (either their own or the fire extinguisher-wielding martyr's), they'd have gotten the fuck out of there.

A good soldier avoids getting anybody killed where at all possible -- this was a simple demonstration of utter lack of respect for human life, a murder in cold blood.


--
Somebody has to set Imperial America up the bomb.

[ Parent ]
What? (4.00 / 2) (#102)
by physicsgod on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:50:50 PM EST

It's not the police's job to protect human life, it's their job to enforce the laws of the country. The police in question were supposed to be there, running away would have been reneging their duty. Does this justify shooting the person? I don't know, as of right now there just isn't enough information, and we're not a jury.

As for you comments about soldiers, I refer you to Gen. Patton's statement: " No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country...you did it by making the other poor bastard die for his country!"

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Uh, those guys aren't PAID.... (3.50 / 2) (#134)
by John Miles on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:09:12 AM EST

... to "get the fuck out of there." They're paid to keep a crowd of 100,000+ potentially-violent anarcho-slackers from putting the city under their own politically-correct brand of martial law.

It's quite unsettling to see how little the typical K5 and /. reader understands of soldiers and soldiering.

I guess that naivete is a small price to pay for a world free of major continental wars for almost half a century. But still, it's a curious thing to see people acting surprised and outraged when someone physically assaults a policeman or police vehicle and gets blown away for his trouble.

All I can say is, get used to "surprises" like this. There will be more to come.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0) (#202)
by delmoi on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 05:26:18 AM EST

Actualy, they were trying to 'get the fuck out of there'
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Fight or flight (none / 0) (#213)
by John Miles on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:13:36 PM EST

Sure, I don't doubt it.

But it pays to think about what happens when you deliberately trigger the fight-or-flight instinct in people who are carrying guns.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0) (#201)
by delmoi on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 05:25:35 AM EST

If they'd have had any respect for human life (either their own or the fire extinguisher-wielding martyr's), they'd have gotten the fuck out of there.

They were surrounded by protestors. The only way they could have 'gotten the fuck out of there' would have been to run over someone
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
it's about time... (3.89 / 19) (#10)
by gibichung on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:50:38 PM EST

Let me clear something up beforehand: I don't take human life lightly, but in a way, I'm glad this happened.

These violent protesters have to be stopped. They, not the police, are the ones who are responsible. They must see these protests as an excuse to go out and destroy things. If they were serious about what they claim to be protesting for, they wouldn't riot like this. The people who turn to violence and mayhem not only keep their own messages from being heard, but they frustrate the otherwise peaceful protesters, many of whom feel they aren't being heard unless they're destroying something. It breaks down into a lawless riot, incited by "protesters" who are out to cause trouble. So, I don't feel sorry for one who was killed while physically assaulting police officers. Maybe the rest of them will wake up and realize that this isn't all fun and games.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

bah (4.10 / 10) (#18)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:03:20 PM EST

You're seriously misunderstanding this. The idea you're pushing here is that depth of commitment to a change shouldn't matter and you should just parade about in the officially sanctioned manner rather than to express yourself to whatever degree your commitment warrants.

Peacefully parading about with signs and slogans looks nice, but has never achieved anything by itself. It serves to demonstrate the number of people objecting to State action who are possibly only a catalyst away from stepping up to the ranks of the revolutionaries. The parades demonstrate the mass feeling, but mass feeling doesn't change State behaviour; only a direct (and easily perceived_ threat changes State behavior.

Revolution by the oppressor's rule book really isn't possible; I hope you can see that. To some people, these events are merely a polite way to tell the bosses that you think maybe they're going about things the wrong way; to others, with more serious commitment to real change, these are the early precursors to a revolution to sweep capital out of the social decision-making arena.

You shouldn't judge the more committed's actions by the criteria of the less committed, any more than you should judge the folks parading around peacefully by the criteria of the folks throwing molotov coctails. They're involved in different milleus and pursuing different goals with different rules.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
I do understand... (3.33 / 3) (#32)
by gibichung on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:31:18 PM EST

Peacefully parading about with signs and slogans looks nice, but has never achieved anything by itself.

That is simply wrong. What you should say is "peaceful protests by small groups of radicals have never achieved anything." The reason these protests fail is because they aren't popular with the general population. The point of a protest should be to increase awareness and bring popular support to your cause. These protesters aren't trying to court popular opinion, they're not trying to educate the masses of a just cause, they're simply trying to cause trouble. Peaceful protests CAN work, but only when they are popular with the people. Violent "protests" that involve mass vandalism and looting can't be intended to bring the people who's property they're destroying around.

It's obvious that these protests are failing... and not because of any government or corporate "oppressors," but because they aren't popular with the people -- and they aren't trying to be.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

gets some polls for that (4.00 / 4) (#43)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:01:01 PM EST

I suspect you're wrong on this one, but naturally niether of us could actually _prove_ our assertions. ;-)

Every poll I've seen on NAFTA and friends, for example, has shown a significant majority opposed to its actual tenets (while showing a significant approval of the treaty's passing, which just goes to show that how the media covers a topic controls how it will be dealt with). The same goes for environmental regulation, legal control of capital migration, workers' rights enforcement and social responsibility requirements for corporations. It would seem that the mass of Americans certainly does agree with the basic points of agreement shared by the protesters.

On the topic of violence, as another commenter pointed out, the passive protests of Ghandi and King only succeeded because of the contrast to (and demonstration of a constituency for) the violent minorities in their constituencies. Both were considered harmless crackpots before the more violent edge of their supporters grew lartge enough to force attention onto them.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
yes but... (4.00 / 3) (#52)
by gibichung on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:34:58 PM EST

You make a good case but not for your last post.
You're supporting the idea that the general population could be very sympathetic to these protesters' cause, if they were better informed. I think that public awareness of all problems, real and perceived, can only be a good thing. However, in your last post you suggested that only violent revolution can succeed. But you said it yourself, violent revolution is not what the people want. If the people could be brought around, then the democratically elected governments will have to listen to them. So rather than courting the people, these protesters go out and destroy public property and violently confront the peacekeepers. Surely if these protesters believed so strongly in what they say they're fighting for, they would care enough to try to do it right. But they don't even try... they riot -- they loot and burn.

On the topic of violence, as another commenter pointed out, the passive protests of Ghandi and King only succeeded because of the contrast to (and demonstration of a constituency for) the violent minorities in their constituencies. Both were considered harmless crackpots before the more violent edge of their supporters grew lartge enough to force attention onto them.

That is true, but only to a limited extent. Ghandi and King brought about change because they could relate to the people, because they cared enough about their causes to do them the right way instead of letting uncontrolled violence break out. They fought with words instead of bricks, and their successes should be enough to prove that it does work when public supports you. If these protesters cared as much as they claim to, they'd act in the best interest of their causes.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

minority (3.66 / 3) (#57)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:47:46 PM EST

If there's one point that the mainstream press often gets correct in covering thes protests, it's that the "violence" is only from a small minority. (Let's leave aside for the moment the ludicrousness of calling property destruction violence.)

This is exactly the situation King and Ghandi were in: they were the spokespeople for the moderates in a movement with a very violent edge. Both men were able to be taken seriously only because accepting them was prefereable to alienating the moderates and encouraging them to support the more radical fringe by rejecting them. The "anti-globalization" protests are similar in that regard, except that (to date) the rulers have been unwilling to accept the representatives of the vast moderate majority within the protesting community, preferring to try to paint them all with the violence brush in an attempt to convince the non-participating mass to write off the entire thing.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Now we see the violence inherent in the system! :) (3.00 / 1) (#83)
by Type-R on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:42:19 PM EST

(Let's leave aside for the moment the ludicrousness of calling property destruction violence.)

Uh. So if I put a bomb under your car, and blow it up (with out you being hurt), you wouldn't take that as a violent action?

How about if I smash the glasses you just put down so you could rub your eyes?

IMHO inciting violence is a violent act in itself. If I hire someone to kill my enemy, I'm still tried for murder (at least in Canada, and all the Law&Order episodes I've watched ;)



[ Parent ]
on violence (4.00 / 2) (#87)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:02:41 PM EST

We need to maintain a difference between damaging people and damaging property. Property is just stuff, you know; it's replacable. People, as unique individuals, are not.

Because of this, I reserve the word "violence" to refer to damage to people in my own use. Though most dictionary definitions do not explicitly state this, the implication is present. The dictionary.com definition, for example, is "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing". While it is possible to damage property, only people may be violated or abused.

In the U.S., unfortunately, the law does maintain a difference, but you actually get in more trouble for damaging property than people (unless they are rich or powerful people being damaged; try mugging Bill Gates; you'll get a sentence that would seem severe to a multiple-murderer).

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Media Control (4.50 / 6) (#56)
by Anatta on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:47:43 PM EST

Every poll I've seen on NAFTA and friends, for example, has shown a significant majority opposed to its actual tenets (while showing a significant approval of the treaty's passing, which just goes to show that how the media covers a topic controls how it will be dealt with).

If you ask me: "Do you want energy to run your home?" I would say yes.
If you ask me: "Do you want to save the piping plover?" I would say yes.
If you ask me: "Do you want energy to run your home, even if it may mean not saving the piping plover?" I would have to think about it.

It's not necessarily the media somehow controlling how a topic is dealt with, but rather not going through basic cost/benefit analysis when polling. By not fully explaining the consequences of a proposal, polling responses get horribly skewed.

A good example of this would be the Vermont Dairy Compact: if you went out polling around New England and said "Do you want the government to save the livelihoods of these Vermont Farmers, so that when you come visit Vermont you'll see lots of cute cows wandering around the pastureland?" most would say yes... but if you asked: "Would you be in favor of a highly regressive tax (more severe on the poor, percentage-wise) on a consumer staple like milk in order to ensure an inefficient industry gets billions of dollars in aid by the government?" people wouldn't be so quick to say yes.

The NAFTA polls reflect this; poeple by and large seem to support NAFTA, yet when environmental and labor issues come up, they don't necessarily support them. Perhaps if the questions were phrased in a way that suggested that such regulations would result in extending poverty in developing nations, the populace would not be so quick to sign on to them...

The bottom line is that polling tends to not be too accurate for anyone, and that people on both sides of an issue shouldn't necessarily use polls to judge the sentiment of the populace.
My Music
[ Parent ]

Check. No polls. (none / 0) (#92)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:35:44 PM EST

So then how do you find out what large groups of people think? Send one reporter out to ask a couple questions to two of them, and then report that they represent 20,000 people? Guess? Imagine?

You have a track record of taking statistics like polling data or financial figures that support you and accepting them at face value, yet quibbling endlessly over those numbers that contradict your preconcieved beliefs. That too, is the bottom line.

"Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
--Alice in Wonderland
[ Parent ]

Polls and Financial Data (none / 0) (#109)
by Anatta on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 11:02:19 PM EST

You have a track record of taking statistics like polling data or financial figures that support you and accepting them at face value, yet quibbling endlessly over those numbers that contradict your preconcieved beliefs.

Polls, huh? I don't recall using polls to prove my point on anything (at least not polls to guage sentiment; polls of "how much did you pay your worker?" are to me much more accurate than "do you want to save the piping plover?"). As to financial figures, we're talking about an entirely different story. While there is some manipulation of financial figures, you can't fudge as much as with polls, though you can certainly selectively report.

I don't recall getting too many numbers from others that I quibbled over, other than in terms of causation (e.g. what was the cause of X and Y?). Certainly I don't recall receiving many numbers from you to back up all of your statements...
My Music
[ Parent ]

You're forgetting the "red zone" (3.00 / 2) (#88)
by ksandstr on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:06:53 PM EST

The way the authorities set up their "come here and we'll fucking kill you" zones is so that if you restrict your sign-waving and chanting to the non-red zone, the relevant bigwigs won't ever know that you were there. If they don't know that a group that cannot be trivialized by mainstream media articles is there, representing the people of the world, demanding change, they simply won't know or care.

Like someone else said in this same story, you can't achieve a revolution by following the law.


--
Somebody has to set Imperial America up the bomb.

[ Parent ]
Well, (3.66 / 6) (#50)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:23:50 PM EST

There are only two possibilities here. Either violence on the part of the protesters is not justified, or else nobody has any right to complain when the protesters, who are attacking people, after all, get a violent response.

Elsewhere, you claim that this is all because Italy is a fascist military police state. Well, guess what? In just about any country in the world, if you attack a cop with a weapon, makeshift or otherwise, you will likely die, and all the more likely in chaotic conditions such as, say, a riot/protest event. That's why you don't do that.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
false dichotomy (4.00 / 4) (#61)
by samth on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:28:12 PM EST

There are only two possibilities here. Either violence on the part of the protesters is not justified, or else nobody has any right to complain when the protesters, who are attacking people, after all, get a violent response.

Actually, there are lots more possibilities. Furthermore, I don't think you are dumb enough to have missed them, but I'll point out at least one: The police, who outnumber the "violent" protestors by something like 2 orders of magnitude, should avoid confrontation with unarmed but potentially violent protestors.

I can't resist also pointing out one more alternative: not turning nice cities into police states so that leaders can be protected from the people the supposedly represent.

Given a choice between Libertarianism and ravenous martian spores, I ask you, do I look good in this Bernaise sauce? -- eLuddite
[ Parent ]

Well, (3.25 / 4) (#63)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:35:45 PM EST

So, you outnumber the protesters 2 to 1. Now, you still have a job to do - protect a given area from a given group of people. They - or at least some of them - are willing to hurt you in order to get into that area. How will you "avoid" this confrontation?

As for the situation(ie, the fact of having the meeting in the first place,) it is not unreasonable for leaders to meet. It is not unreasonable for people to protest. It is not unreasonable for cops to protect themselves against violence. It is unreasonable for civilians to attack the police without provocation as a form of "protest."

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
orders of magnitude (4.00 / 3) (#65)
by samth on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:52:57 PM EST

From what I can tell from news reports, there seem to be between 200-500 "violent" protestors. There are 20,000 police and military. Further, the protestors are fundamentally unarmed, whereas the police have all the machinery of the modern police state at their disposal. So I think that shows the police reaction to be very disproportionate.

Also, I did suggest that not turning Genoa into a walled city would have been a good idea. In Melbourne, where there were no walls around the center of the city, there was a blockade, but everybody lived. Adding 20,000 heavily armed troops is unlikely to improve anything about the situation.

Given a choice between Libertarianism and ravenous martian spores, I ask you, do I look good in this Bernaise sauce? -- eLuddite
[ Parent ]

Ok... (2.25 / 4) (#67)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:03:18 PM EST

Maybe to you and me, it makes sense to talk about what the cops should or shouldn't do, and that's all well and good, but if you were staring down a heavily armed force that outnumbered you a hundred to one, would you or would you not attack them? If so, then you are not merely violent, which might be justifiable, but a violent idiot, which is not, and we'd all be better off without you. You don't have to think the cops are upstanding paragons of virtue in order to fail to sympathize with this clown.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
What? (3.00 / 3) (#68)
by Ken Arromdee on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:05:58 PM EST

What does the police's superiority in numbers and arms have to do with anything? This isn't some kind of medieval duel. The police don't have to, and shouldn't have to, give violent protestors a fair chance at winning.

[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0) (#242)
by Arkady on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:13:09 PM EST

Why, if "It is not unreasonable for cops to protect themselves against violence", is it also not unreasonable for non-cops to do so? I wasn't in Genoa, but of the footage I've seen from it and earlier protests, the violence seems to start when the cops start whacking and gassing people because somebody smashed a window (or destroyed some other piece of property). In Genoa's case, it seems that the cops got violent after people started trying to tear down their wall.

Now, damage to property and damage to people are very different things and the police response to the first is usually the second. Why should people not fight back when attacked by police? Please consider this question from an ethical, not practical, stance (as we already know that cops tend to get trigger-happy when you fight back). ;-)

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Yes but.... (3.75 / 4) (#64)
by Elkor on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:49:00 PM EST

The people involved in different milleus are located in the same venue.

The violent protestors are (in some cases) taking advantage of the biomass of the non-violent protestors to cover their actions, identities and numbers.

They are hoping that the police won't risk coming after them because of the numbers they are mingling with. They are likewise trying to stir some of the peaceful protestors into joining them in violent activities. One person smashing a window without reprisal encourages 10 others to do the same.

In turn, the enforcement has no idea who in a large crowd is a violent protestor and a non-violent protestor.

It is difficult to tell by looking at someone what their motives are, whether they will be violent or not. So, when one person starts becoming violent, they work to suppress the entire group because one persons actions may be an indication of the intentions of the rest of the group, or may act as an encouragement to the others.

It is a matter of group dynamics and group psychology.

If the violent protestors don't want to be judged by the peaceful standard, they need to not associate (i.e. occupy the same area) as them, and vice versa.

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
Help me! (4.00 / 4) (#85)
by Anonymous 6522 on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:49:42 PM EST

I'm being oppressed! We must rise up against our oppressors! (you know, The Man and stuff) We must riot and destroy people's businesses, because that guy's cafe is totally making kids in Africa starve and get AIDS, totally man, totally.

Seriously now, I don't see any oppressing going on in the western world, and these riots just look like a few thousand kids, that are dissatisfied with something or other, throwing a temper tantrum because they aren't getting their way. They don't live in totalitarian regimes, they can vote, they have a say, even if it's a small one, in govenment policies. If they can't affect change through normal democratic means, it's probably because there is a large majority who don't agree with them, and like things the way they are.

[ Parent ]

At the end of the day... (4.00 / 3) (#133)
by John Miles on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 03:49:11 AM EST

it's probably because there is a large majority who don't agree with them, and like things the way they are.

... it's precisely that "large majority" that people like Arkady are steeling themselves to fight. You can see it in their rhetoric: they're oppressing us. They are killing the planet. They have all the money and power. They are shooting innocent protesters.

What you have to understand is that for people like our W. B. Yeats-quoting friend, there has always been, and will always be, a them. They can't bear the thought that the majority of their countrymen are reasonably happy with their lot in life; they can't tolerate the plague of popular contentment that democracy and capitalism are threatening to unleash upon even the darkest corners of the Third World. To the fellow you're arguing with, the contented are the enemy. Why? Because he will never, ever, win them to his ideological side.

Not in this lifetime.

Not until people forget the horrors that his anarcho-leftist comrades unleashed upon the world in the last century.

After that, who knows? Even Yeats understood that what goes around, comes around. Reading through the myriad apologies he's posted to this story, you've gotta feel a little sorry for Arkady: he was born either a century too late or a century too soon to get in on the fun.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]

a century off (4.00 / 1) (#241)
by Arkady on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:00:56 PM EST

I like that; it's an amusing characterization. ;-)

It is also, however, merely more pointless ad hominem rubbish, rather than a rational argument. It niether demonstrates your claim that a majority supports one position or another on these issues nor substantiates a claim that "democracy and capitalism" even have anything to do with it (much less are involved by creating some putative positive impact).

Let's see some poll numbers for the first and some significant quality of life indicators for the second, eh?

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
You mess with the bull, you get the horns (4.35 / 14) (#14)
by slick willie on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:57:37 PM EST

Correct me if I miss the sequence of events:
  1. Protesters throw firebombs, among other things, and generally are having themselves a looting and destruction spree.
  2. Police forces nearby are trying to prevent this.
  3. Someone ends up getting shot.
Not much of a surprise here, kids. It's like striking a flint near gasoline, and then acting amazed and outraged when it has the temerity to catch fire.

I don't have any problem with protests -- it's a fundamental right. But, for crying out loud, violence always begets violence. It's a simple equation, and always true. Don't let the lessons of King and Gandhi go unlearned. Look around and see what non-violent protest has accomplished.

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

as an inhabitant of the USA (4.42 / 7) (#19)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:07:07 PM EST

... you are in prime position to see what violent protest has achieved. People only listened to Gandhi and King because of the existence of more violent alternatives. Before Malcom X rose to prominence, King was the "wild-eyed extremist".

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
As an inhabitant of the USA, just past July 4th... (4.40 / 5) (#42)
by jabber on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:00:47 PM EST

Certainly true, and none should forget that the whole country idolizes a bunch of vandals who threw perfectly good tea into the brine. :) Even back then we were all bitching about free trade, the sale of imported goods at unfair prices, yadda-yadda...

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

poor comparison (3.50 / 4) (#46)
by xdc on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:08:11 PM EST

as an inhabitant of the USA ... you are in prime position to see what violent protest has achieved.
This is not a revolution. The anarchists that are violently attacking police and looting local merchants are not protesting in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, the American Revolution was not fought by a bunch of rampaging imbeciles on a mission to break stuff. I think you are equating two very different types of violent action, and that this is a poor comparison.

This is not to say that a sizable number of the protesters aren't ostensibly opposing bad policies. The violence, however, is foolish and excessive, damaging the legitimacy of the protesters' cause in the minds of many decent people who might otherwise see eye-to-eye with them on these issues.

[ Parent ]

serious misunderstanding (5.00 / 6) (#48)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:17:38 PM EST

First, whether it is or is not a revolution is really a question better answered by those involved; many do in fact consider it to be one, either as a continuation of the centuries-old revolution against capital and the State or as the early stages of a global revolution against the Capitalist Sate. It's really for them to decide whether they're waging a revolution, not for you and me back here in the U.S., comfortably watching them die on CNN.

Secondly, to say that "the American Revolution was not fought by a bunch of rampaging imbeciles on a mission to break stuff" shows a serious lack of knowledge about the American revolution. During the lead up to that, Boston practically made a city sport out of rampaging around breaking stuff (preferably English stuff, of course, but they weren't picky). The American revolution started with riots in the streets, just as most do, and progressed to organized warfare only when it became necessary for the colonists to fight off an organized army (rather than the single army units they'd been fighting in the streets).

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Talk about a lack of historical knowledge (3.50 / 2) (#115)
by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:14:34 AM EST

Most of the violent episodes before the Declaration of Independance (except for Lexington and Concord, nobody knows what happened there, my guess is a "peaceful" show of force that got out of hand) were the result of the actions of Sam Adams (yeah, the same guy on the beer), who was somewhat of a firebrand. The Continental Congress tried every reasonable means it had to avoid violence, and only when those courses were exhausted turned to war. Remember that part about "repeated petitions...repeated injury"?

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
good grief (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by Arkady on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 03:21:14 AM EST

It's completely ludicrous to lay the events of over 100 years at the feet of one man, particularly the ones that happenned before he was born. Boston had made a habit of rioting before Sam Adams was a twinkle in the milkman's eye. Niether he nor the Continental Congress were involved in the vast majority of Boston's rioting.

In the context of this discussion, it's also ludicrous to use the phrase "every reasonable means" when (among many other things) they never tried capitulation, which is what's being advocated here. If capitulating doesn't fall under reasonable means for America's revered Founding Fathers, then why does it for these moderns?

And surely you don't think the part about "repeated petitions...repeated injury" wasn't just put in there to pretty it up for posterity? ;-)

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Mass. Riots (4.00 / 2) (#177)
by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 08:55:20 PM EST

Seven riots before 1757: two were boundry riots, two were food riots, and one each of anti-impressment, anti-prostitution, and anti-markethouse. Between 1757 and 1775 there were 4 riots in Boston: one against a whorehouse, one anti-customs riot involving the sloop Liberty, the Boston Massacre (spurred by Sam Adams), and the Boston Tea Party (again spurred by Sam Adams).

Each Continental Congress sent a petition to King George III stating the demands of the colonies, only after the outright rejection of both petitions by the King did Congress beging discussing Independance.

If you are faced with a choice between capitulation and violence, and you choose violence you are at war. In war people get killed, it's how these things work. So take your time in deciding, but if you really want violence you'll get to deal with the greatest military force in human history. Should be interesting to watch.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Someone ends up getting shot. (4.00 / 5) (#22)
by drivers on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:15:46 PM EST

Nice passive sentence. No actor - No guilt, no blame. It just sorta happened. Try this on for size: An Italian policeman launced a tear gas canister at the head of a 20 year old man, killing him.

[ Parent ]
details (4.00 / 3) (#25)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:18:27 PM EST

While the exact details are probably unimportant, all the accounts I've read have said that he was shot with two bullets in the head.

Actually, that would mean that the details are important. A tear-gas cannister could be an accident, a bullet could not.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
I've heard different versions (4.50 / 2) (#30)
by drivers on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:27:25 PM EST

I've heard pistol shots, I've heard tell of projectiles. I've also heard that in addition they ran over him twice. If it wasn't a gun, then this raising the interesting question of police tactics with regard to so called "nonlethal" weapons being used incorrectly such as at point-blank range.

[ Parent ]
How about this, then? (3.00 / 4) (#66)
by slick willie on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:02:45 PM EST

  1. A bunch of thugs and cretins are looting for no other purpose than to loot.
  2. Police, being human beings and prone to error are nearby to prevent the looting, and protect citizens from being hurt.
  3. A thug tries to brain someone with a fire extinguisher, and is killed dead before he can do the same to an innocent bystander.
Is that a better language reference for you? Does that frame it in the correct moral context?

It's possible that the killing was a horrible accident. Have you ever fired a rifle? There is a tendency to tense up, which causes the barrel to rise. Perhaps he was aiming for center of mass (which is how he should have been trained), and with the noise, smoke and adrenaline pulled the shot. Head shots are damn tough to make, even under the best of circumstances.

"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address

[ Parent ]

brain a jeep, get run over (4.00 / 2) (#71)
by drivers on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:47:17 PM EST

A thug tries to brain someone with a fire extinguisher, and is killed dead before he can do the same to an innocent bystander.

From what I understand he was trying to "brain" a jeep. It also doesn't explain why they proceeded to run him over after they shot him. (assuming the news reports are correct.)

Destroying property should not be a capital offense.

[ Parent ]

There were people in the jeep (none / 0) (#97)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:07:48 PM EST

The shot(s?) were probably fired to protect them.

Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things
[ Parent ]
true (none / 0) (#108)
by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 10:42:48 PM EST

They also were heavily armed and armored Caribinieri. A cannister such as he was holding, even if it did get through that little teeny window, would have done them no harm at all. That's what those StormTrooper (tm) outfits are for, isn't it?

Since they were in no danger of harm, it certainly can't be called self-defense; that's what most countries would call "murder" if it weren't done by one of their minions.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Self-defence (none / 0) (#117)
by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:20:39 AM EST

At least here in America only relies on the *perception* of mortal danger. If you're a cop confronting a mob of stone-throwers and you wind up on the ground alone your survival time would be measured in minutes. You see someone trying to either stun you or disable your vehicle it's not hard to see the perception of danger. Not to mention Italy has had some problems with terrorists in the recent past, in fact I predicted something bad was going to happen this time.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
in a jeep? (none / 0) (#131)
by Arkady on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 03:15:28 AM EST

You'd have to have a serious paranoid streak to be sitting in an armored jeep, wearing riot gear, toting some big ass sticks and guns and yet feel in mortal danger from someone chucking a fire extinguisher at you.

-robin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
In a jeep, yes (none / 0) (#137)
by Pseudonym on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:26:16 AM EST

If you have a look at this photo from just before the shooting, you can see fairly clearly that the jeep had no window at the back. I can also see bare skin of a person inside (looks like a hand) so certainly not all of his body was protected. I'm not paranoid by any means, but I would have been scared.

What I don't understand is that you seem to regard the "big ass sticks and guns" as some form of protection from the idiot with the fire extinguisher, but you complain when he used his gun in precisely that way. What did you have in mind as an alternative? "I have a big ass gun, so the fire extinguisher will just bounce off my head"?



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Sticks, guns, jeeps... (none / 0) (#178)
by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:00:34 PM EST

Are completely useless in a mob fight, unless you're willing to kill people. If you are in a jeep surrounded by a mob the only way to avoid getting dragged out and beaten to death is to run people over. If you have a gun and are confronting a mob the only way to avoid losing your gun and getting beaten to death is to shoot people (and if you shoot people you shoot to kill). If you have a stick and are facing a mob your only hope is to brain anyone who gets close to you until backup arrives.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Uh (none / 0) (#200)
by delmoi on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 04:59:38 AM EST

First of all, the jeep had big open windows (which you can see in the pictures), and secondly the protestors also had 'big sticks' and 'riot gear' as well.

And lets not forget the fact that these cops were fleeing. Thats right, they were running away. Which means they were obviously pretty scared to begin with.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Pictures Showing Self-Defence (none / 0) (#155)
by SEWilco on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:00:08 PM EST

Picture One shows that the attackers were swinging blunt spears at the police. Does anyone think that being hit by the end of a board or pipe is not likely to cause injury? If they were trying to only break the windows, they'd be swinging their weapons to hit with the side of the objects. These attackers were trying to squish the police inside their vehicle (like a "mortar and pestle").

Picture Two shows people on the side backing away from the police with drawn gun. It is also apparent that the vehicle is trapped between the crowd and a building.

Picture Four shows why the body was driven over -- the attacker was still blocking the police's only escape route.

[ Parent ]

Revolutions (4.13 / 15) (#15)
by slaytanic killer on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:57:58 PM EST

I voted this +1FP, and though I'm glad that you submitted this, I really think it's best to direct the conversation so it doesn't degenerate. The main themes I see are:

  • I'm sorry for the death, but the guy deserved it. (Some will leave out the disclaimer.)

  • He wasn't arguing against global trade, he was arguing about specific policies that will take away rights from developing countries.

  • This guy doesn't really care about all those issues -- there are other avenues than shootin' & lootin'.

  • And Dubya cares about developing countries? That explains the Kyoto Treaty, right? Despite all the rhetoric, this is not a humanitarian maneuver.

  • World Trade -- kills protesters dead.

    Round and round we go, with the same old topics. But it's intensely hard work to avoid this in the article, and it's our fault if conversation retreads the old pathways. So thanks for the heads-up.

  • tasty photo from IMC.. (2.90 / 11) (#20)
    by nyar on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:09:33 PM EST

    be patient, it's slow.. and rather gruesome, which is why I'm submitting the link as opposed to including the image itself.

    http://italy.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=3765&group=webcast

    Intresting picture, interesting comments after it. (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by mindstrm on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:57:09 PM EST

    I notice a few things; people say 'remember, it could have been you'. Well, I wouldn't be throwing shit at cops.

    Yes, this may be an overreaction; after all, smashing a cop car is vandalism; killing could be murder.

    But, let me tell you this.. if this was, say, somewhere in the US, and say, your car got stuck in a riot, and say, some rioter started shouting obscenities and what appear to be threats at you, then picked up a heavy metal object and proceeded to smash your windshield in your face, and you shot him in the process... would we call you a murderer?

    People have to have *some* restraint. Passive resistance and outright violence are two different things.


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he shouldn't have been rioting (3.78 / 19) (#21)
    by thenick on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:09:36 PM EST

    Why did the troops shoot the protester? Because he was trying to kill them! The protester thought he could run around assaulting police officers and destroying private property without consequence, and he got burnt. Maybe this will make people realize that running around in black masks and rioting for no apparent purpose actually has consequences. He took a chance and it backfired, so I don't feel so sorry for him.

    I do feel sorry for the small business owners who had their shops looted and destroyed. Most of these people are getting my month to month and have just lost everything. Most people think that destroying a McDonalds sends a message to the corporate HQ that they are fed up, but the rioters don't realize that the individual restaurants are franchises, owned by local businessmen. If I owned a shop that was being threatened, I'd be standing in the front with a shotgun asking everyone if they feel lucky today.

    "Doing stuff is overrated. Like Hitler, he did a lot, but don't we all wish he would have stayed home and gotten stoned?" -Dex
    brainless (2.90 / 10) (#23)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:15:46 PM EST

    I'm sorry; I'd like to take most posts on K5 seriously and treat the posters as intelligent adults with whom I may happen to disagree. In this case, however, it's obvious that you haven't got a clue.

    Re-read that bit in your comment about "rioting for no apparent purpose", then go do a bit of research on what's going on in the world. You'll either gain some understanding of what the world is like or the vacuum inside will make your head implode. Either would be an improvement. ;-)

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    So what IS going on in the world? (4.10 / 10) (#26)
    by MSBob on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:19:46 PM EST

    The rioters seem to be concentrating on some vague "globalization" issues that are meaningless unless you define the specific consequence of globalization that you disagree with. NONE of the protestors even mentions the human right abuses going on in Chechnya (a part of one of the G8 countries). Now that would have been a real cause for a demonstration. As it stands however, they seem to be just bored suburban kids looking for thrills as they have a very limited understanding of world affairs.
    I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

    [ Parent ]
    Still why the violent protest? (3.33 / 6) (#29)
    by Orion Blastar on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:24:32 PM EST

    Why not a peaceful one instead?

    Is destroying property and getting people killed worth the protest? Or would it be better to have a peaceful protest and tell the world your side of the story?

    The world is already one big mess as it is.
    *** Anonymized by intolerant editors at K5 and also IWETHEY who are biased against the mentally ill ***
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Still why the violent protest? (4.66 / 3) (#36)
    by Perpetual Newbie on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:48:51 PM EST

    Is destroying property and getting people killed worth the protest? Or would it be better to have a peaceful protest and tell the world your side of the story?

    Which brings the question, would a peaceful protest tell the world the protestors' side of the story? There are loud grumblings from people saying it wouldn't. The Battle of Seattle was a few days into the protest, but before violence broke out the protest was barely covered in the media. Presidential candidate Ralph Nader would rally 100,000 people at a time to support him, and the media didn't cover it. There have been a series of Seattle-sized non-violent protests that have not been covered in the media; Only the protests where violence has occured have been told to the world. Of course, the protestors deserve a bit of blame for not being able to get their message out to the world themselves, rather relying on the media to cover them.



    [ Parent ]
    Well... (4.50 / 2) (#82)
    by Wah on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:41:51 PM EST

    one could be cynical as all hell and remark that since the U.S. media directly represents the interest of big business, they have no reason to cover the protests unless a) there is enough going on for people to watch and b) it furthers their interest.

    Violent protests fit the bill perfectly since they have violence and can be used to stereotype protestors as dumb punks with nothing better to do, thus solidifying the status quo and convincing Joe 6'er that nothing is wrong.

    Peaceful protests don't, since to report on them would be supporting the protestors by relaying their message as content and that would weaken the status quo since any information which implies things are not o.k. is usually seen as just that.

    Which is to say, if you can show someone doing something wrong, the people at home have nothing to fear. If you show someone saying how things are going wrong, then the people at home might do something about it. If you were in power, which situation would you prefer?
    --
    Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life ©® | SSP
    [ Parent ]

    But here is another view to the story (none / 0) (#246)
    by Orion Blastar on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 11:27:25 AM EST

    when they use violence it makes the protesters almost look like terrorists. Is this what they had in mind? It almost paints them as the bad people instead of the wealthy they are protesting against.

    Debt is not an easy thing to overcome, most US Citizens are up to our eyeballs in debt. Student loans, house loans, car loans, credit cards, etc. It all adds up. It creates wealth for the banks, credit card companies, lenders, etc but it takes wealth away from the people who are in debt. Sometimes those interest payments are a lot to pay off. I imagine countries that owe money may be in bad shape this way as well. Billions in debt and not able to use the money to improve their economy or help their people because most of their money is going into debt payments?

    Yes the US Media is controlled by big corps, the top 5% rule our country and our economy. I am not sure why politicians who only seem to serve the top 5% keep getting elected and re-elected in the US, I know that myself and others are not voting for them. It seems the canidates I vote for are hardly ever elected. I guess a majority of the people are fooled to vote for the canidate that does not serve their best interests?
    *** Anonymized by intolerant editors at K5 and also IWETHEY who are biased against the mentally ill ***
    [ Parent ]

    quick synopsis (4.16 / 6) (#33)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:35:38 PM EST

    Big question; the quick synopsis would be that those in posession of capital control _almost_ everything and are now attempting to close the remaining gaps as they become apparent.

    Globally, the vast majority of humans are ordered and controlled by the very small minority in most parts of their lives. Travel and the dissemination of ideas are limited to the interests of capital; the organizations by which people once hoped they could build a better society have been subverted to the interests of business. Mammon reigns virtually uncontested in the public eye.

    The world produces enough to feed every person on the planet, yet millions die from hunger. Even in the United States, that great bastion of freedom (it is illegal to be too poor to afford a place to sleep off the streets) and equality (a foreign national was arrested this past week just for pointing out that Adobe makes shoddy software at a conference), thousands are starving, millions are hungry and those who run t6he government crow about the booming economy.

    The dissatisfaction with this state of affairs reaches into most classes even, to a small extent, into the ruling class itself (witness Bill Gates' father organizing a group of _very_ rich people to contest removing the estate taxes in the U.S.).

    The degree to which different individuals are dissatisfied and the extent to which they are willing to go to express that and force a change is different for each person. The methods by which they pursue this are therefore also different. This is as it should be: we are each following different philosophies and prusuing different goals; our views of the world and how it should be are different. Why then should our behavior be identical.

    -robin

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    Prove it (none / 0) (#111)
    by coryking on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 11:32:47 PM EST

    "...(a foreign national was arrested this past week just for pointing out that Adobe makes shoddy software at a conference..."
    "...(it is illegal to be too poor to afford a place to sleep off the streets)..."

    Show me the link. I want proof. Until then, I dont belive you, and this is just hand-waving.

    [ Parent ]

    cripes (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Arkady on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 03:13:51 AM EST

    To take them in order, the foreign national's name is Dmitry Sklyarov and, to quote from the Register's article on the subject, he "was arrested by the FBI and charged with distributing software that violates the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act ... He was arrested on Monday after making a presentation entitled "eBook Security: Theory and Practice" at Defcon, the annual hacker's convention in Las Vegas." Specifically, this was a paper on how to bypass the copy protection in Adobe's e-Book files; Sklyarov is also the author of a program to demonstrate this.

    As for it being illegal to be too poor to rent, I don't need a citation on this one. I have personally witnessed the sweeps made by the San Francisco police in which they round up all the holeless people and take them off to jail. The garbage trucks come by shortly afterwards to drag whatever possessions they had off to the dump. Surely you've heard of vagrancy laws?

    -robin



    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    Thought experiment (4.57 / 19) (#27)
    by Delirium on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:22:28 PM EST

    Imagine how different the reactions would be from all sides - the mainstream, k5, Indymedia, etc. - if the protestor succeeded in killing the policeman he was throwing things at.

    So you mean (3.28 / 7) (#75)
    by Wah on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:01:08 PM EST

    think for a second that he committed a crime? Does that crime carry the death penalty in most places? If not, your thought experiment is pretty stupid and the summary execution still despicable. Or are you saying that we would think about it differently if a man died doing his job protecting the peace? Duh.

    Screw it, shoot 'em all.
    --
    Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life ©® | SSP
    [ Parent ]

    self-defense (3.66 / 3) (#123)
    by Delirium on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:53:05 AM EST

    Throwing a large, blunt object is generally considered "assault with a deadly weapon," and while in court this would not result in the death penalty, in the actual event the person being assaulted is in most cases justified in using force (including deadly force) in self-defense. I.e. if you came into my front lawn and were about to throw a fire extinguisher at me, I would be justified in shooting you to protect myself.

    And yes, I do consider people who dig up cobblestone streets, throw petrol bombs into crowded areas (such as prisons), and throw objects at police vans to be criminals.

    [ Parent ]

    Woah there! Locale! (3.66 / 3) (#151)
    by _cbj on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 11:28:52 AM EST

    I.e. if you came into my front lawn and were about to throw a fire extinguisher at me, I would be justified in shooting you to protect myself.
    The correct self defence from flying fire extinguishers is jumping out of the way, not shooting the thrower in the face until he's dead. Remember this is Italy, not America.

    Besides, wasn't the guy attacking a car rather than a person?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, do you know where the cops were? (3.50 / 4) (#156)
    by nads on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:06:09 PM EST

    The car was surrounded by a mob of angry protestors. They were suppose to jump out into that crowd? Yea RIGHT. And going back to the hypothetical, you are much safer off if you shoot the person than try to jump out of the way (assumming you know how to fire a gun). And you are justified since an exitinguisher could kill you. I'd just recommend shooting at a leg.

    [ Parent ]
    No (3.00 / 4) (#171)
    by _cbj on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 05:04:55 PM EST

    The police didn't need to avoid the extinguisher for two reasons: it had been thrown at a car, and it had been thrown. This was plain murder. Fortunately for civilisation, it seems to be being investigated as such.

    [ Parent ]
    It should be investigated (3.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Steeltoe on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:19:02 PM EST

    But neither of us were there, so any judgement we make is solely biased. Have you ever been in a car with a violent mob around you throwing heavy objects and stuff? Nope, me neither.

    - Steeltoe
    Explore the Art of Living

    [ Parent ]
    Biased, yeah (1.00 / 1) (#224)
    by _cbj on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 04:56:02 PM EST

    I'm biased by the dozens of newspaper pages, hours of news coverage and live video footage of it. What are you biased by, the clueless K5 hordes?

    (Oh, the policeman wasn't in the car. It was plain hotblooded murder.)

    [ Parent ]
    Uh... (none / 0) (#247)
    by nads on Tue Aug 07, 2001 at 06:08:26 PM EST

    The picture shows that the back window of the jeep was shattered. It looks like the guy is about to throw it through that gap. If a heavy large object hits you in the head, you have a very good chance of dieing. If it knocks you out and you are surrounded bya violent mob, you have a good chance of dieing. Just because he thew it doesn't mean it couldn't kill somoene. You don't need a gun to kill.

    [ Parent ]
    protesters vs hooligans (4.31 / 19) (#31)
    by Speare on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:30:00 PM EST

    I respect the right for protesters to get together and demonstrate against things they feel are wrong. Civil disobedience included: chain yourself to a staircase to make it more inconvenient for the officials to meet or ignore.

    I don't respect the right for hooligans to show up under the pretext of demonstration, justifying their wanton destruction and violence as a demonstration of their civil frustrations. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Attack a riot control officer and be killed. Torch some cars and storefronts, and be pepper-sprayed and maced and bludgeoned with batons if necessary until you cease, and then be arrested.

    Free trade has nothing to do with the violence here. The same hooligans will be violent when their soccer team loses, or an immigrant grocer is acquitted of a crime, or at any other time they think they can blend in with civil frustrations.

    Violence is not civil, so it cannot be civil disobedience.
     
    [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

    dead...and for what? (3.50 / 6) (#34)
    by pallex on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:46:09 PM EST

    Its hard to imagine anyone having their mind made up one way or the other by someone throwing rocks and stuff at the police.
    Down with globalisation...down with organic mango from africa, down with cheap transportation of raw materials used in many household objects, down with developing countries exporting skills and employees from '1st world' countries...


    [ Parent ]
    hooligan? (3.50 / 2) (#37)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:51:21 PM EST

    Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide some evidence that this fellow was merely a hooligan and not (as good grace would expect us to extend the benefit of the doubt) a man sincerely committed to improving the lot of the humans on this planet by convincing the ruling class to ameliorate it's rule? Or a sincere revolutionary attempting in the only way open to him to prevent the ruling class from making the plight of those so unfortunate as to have been born without access to capital?

    Or are you just guessing?

    -robin

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    Well, (3.81 / 11) (#51)
    by trhurler on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:25:20 PM EST

    If he was stupid enough to think he could change the world by attacking a police officer with a fire extinguisher, then this is a case of natural selection. If not, then he was a thug, and he got what he deserved. Either way, that's life. Attack a cop, and bad things happen to you.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    obnoxious (4.60 / 5) (#53)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:40:20 PM EST

    Now you're just being obnoxious.

    Whether one can successfully attack a cop has no bearing on whether you should. They statement "Attack a cop, and bad things happen to you", in fact, expresses quite well one of the best arguments for attacking cops and equally demonstrates one of the important points of these protests: the ruling class applies different rules to itself and its minions than it enforces against the rest. The rule should be "attack a person and bad things happen to you".

    Those without the resources to mount a "normal" revolution must do it one peson at a time.

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh? (3.44 / 9) (#62)
    by trhurler on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:28:46 PM EST

    I didn't say that bad things won't happen to you if you attack a random guy on the street. What I said is, if you attack a cop, bad things will happen to you.

    Furthermore, if you are in fact fighting for some kind of revolution by violent means, then you are at war, and it is both childish and pointless to complain that your enemy fights back.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    yes, if you attack anyone you get shot (4.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Delirium on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:57:58 AM EST

    While this is an argument used, it's also a false one, as it is in fact correct that if you attack a person bad things happen to you. If you throw a fire extinguisher at a police officer, he shoots you. If you walk into a store and attempt to throw something at the clerk, he may very well shoot you (if he is armed). Generally violently attacking an armed person leads to you being shot, regardless of who the person is. In this case the "protestor" was attacking a military policeman, which is probably one of the single most stupid things I can think of.

    [ Parent ]
    John Hancock and Nathan Hale: fools & thugs (4.00 / 2) (#230)
    by anonymous cowerd on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 07:51:24 PM EST

    In Boston in 1770, who were the cops? And in 1776, who hanged Nathan Hale?

    Attack a cop, and bad things happen to you.

    Glory isn't a bad thing.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

    To honor our dead, not a moment of silence, rather a lifetime of struggle.
    [ Parent ]

    hooligans (2.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Delirium on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:55:44 AM EST

    In my humble opinion, you just stated three long-winded synonyms for the word "hooligan." If you are tearing up cobblestone streets, throwing the cobblestones at people, and torching people's businesses, you are a hooligan, regardless of how you try to justify it.

    The fact that 95% of them are under the age of 23 also adds to the suspicion that there wasn't even any coherent political backing.

    [ Parent ]

    Somebody else... (3.00 / 1) (#159)
    by nads on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:33:24 PM EST

    .. in this thread stated that the man had a criminal record consisting of weapons and drug charges. Combined with his behaviour at the protest, that would not exactly make him a saint. I do believe the police were attempting to use self defense, but they should have shot at another part of his body, rather than his head. Of course under the circumstances, it is sort of understandable.

    [ Parent ]
    Tough one. (3.53 / 13) (#38)
    by jd on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:52:32 PM EST

    Against:

    • Nobody "deserves" death, and it's not for any person to play God.
    • The protestor had already thrown the extinguisher. Unless he had a catapult and a 6-round magazine for it, it's unlikely he posed any further threat to anyone.

    For:

    • If you start a fight, don't blame others for finishing it.
    • There is no call for hooliganism or vandalism in any kind of protest.

    Neither for or against:

    • Police are human, too. They react to what's happening. Survival instinct and gut reactions can result in tragedy.
    • If the person wanted to become a martyr, then they've succeeded. They're getting talked about, everywhere. If they wanted to draw attention to the talks, the same thing applies. The police' job is to secure the area, which they also succeeded in doing. Therefore everyone achieved their aims.


    Tough one. (2.57 / 14) (#39)
    by jd on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:53:37 PM EST

    Against:

    • Nobody "deserves" death, and it's not for any person to play God.
    • The protestor had already thrown the extinguisher. Unless he had a catapult and a 6-round magazine for it, it's unlikely he posed any further threat to anyone.

    For:

    • If you start a fight, don't blame others for finishing it.
    • There is no call for hooliganism or vandalism in any kind of protest.

    Neither for or against:

    • Police are human, too. They react to what's happening. Survival instinct and gut reactions can result in tragedy.
    • If the person wanted to become a martyr, then they've succeeded. They're getting talked about, everywhere. If they wanted to draw attention to the talks, the same thing applies. The police' job is to secure the area, which they also succeeded in doing. Therefore everyone achieved their aims.


    Are you high?? (3.25 / 8) (#59)
    by gridwerk on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 04:16:11 PM EST

    The protestor had already thrown the extinguisher. Unless he had a catapult and a 6-round magazine for it, it's unlikely he posed any further threat to anyone.
    He just demostrated he is prone to violence. If I pick up my chair and smack someone with it and they take away my chair am I no longer a threat? Hell yeah I am . I still have my monitor, keyboard and desk to throw and hit with.

    [ Parent ]
    Stupidity is a capital offense (4.50 / 12) (#44)
    by wiredog on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:02:45 PM EST

    What I found interesting were the reports of citizens fleeing the city to get away from the "protestors". Way to get sympathy from the common man, guys.

    From the CNN report:

    "A police officer is critically injured" which is guaranteed to generate shooting.

    "the protester may have been hit by a brick". If so, sounds like friendly fire.

    "About 200 protesters threw a petrol bomb into a local prison", which will also cause police to start shooting.

    The important point:"the violence was caused by a limited faction of anarchists, who came to the Meditteranean city not to protest over the G8 summit, but solely to fight the police."

    Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things

    You, sir, are wrong. (3.33 / 6) (#84)
    by ksandstr on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:49:35 PM EST

    "the protester may have been hit by a brick". If so, sounds like friendly fire.
    Please take a good, long look at the Reuters photos from immediately before and after the shooting (mentioned elsewhere in this story) - does the gruesome amount of blood on the ground look like the kind of amount you'd get from a reasonably fast brick to the front of your head? What about he wound(s) in his head? The guy was shot in the fucking face! Twice!

    Anything else that you may hear about this specific occurrance (i.e. the guy getting shot in the face twice, then run over by the same jeep) is merely PR damage control by Italian and other authorities, which CNN unfortunately seems to be sucking up like the good tools of the establishment they are.

    "About 200 protesters threw a petrol bomb into a local prison", which will also cause police to start shooting.
    Let's do some quick math, shall we? By conservative estimate there were about a hundred thousand (100000 or 10**5) people who would fall under the "protestor" group tag. If 200 protestors were said to take part in the attempted (they didn't do any significant damage, judging from the information currently available) firebombing of the local prison (in order to prevent it being used for the detainment of arrested protestors - the actual prisoners had been moved elsewhere for the duration of the bigwig meeting), that leaves us with at least 99800 protestors who didn't. This is something that many people forget -- the vast majority of the protestors are far more peaceful than your average pi^Heaceke^Wcop. Judging the protestors as a homogenus group, which they aren't, based on the acts of the more militant minority is just plain stupid.


    --
    Somebody has to set Imperial America up the bomb.

    [ Parent ]
    Play with fire, get burned (3.75 / 4) (#95)
    by wiredog on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:03:28 PM EST

    From my comment (from CNN) the violence was caused by a limited faction of anarchists, which you apparently didn't read.

    The guy who got shot (yes, the reports are now saying he was shot) was throwing a fire extinguisher at a police vehicle. Throwing large heavy objects (also known as "blunt instruments") at police will get you shot. The technical term for his action is "assault with a deadly weapon". I say again, doing stupid things will get you killed. Thus, stupidity is a capital offense.

    Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things
    [ Parent ]

    Blunt heavy instruments (3.00 / 2) (#141)
    by juri on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:57:46 AM EST

    Yeah, he was obviously trying to murder the car. Got what he deserved, he did.

    [ Parent ]
    Deserve? (2.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Steeltoe on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:35:13 PM EST

    He didn't have to "deserve" anything. This is what can happen when you assault a policecar with a _heavy_ fire extinguisher during a massive and violent uproar. I don't see what "deserves" has to do with anything, because what happens will happen no matter how you argue about it. If you want no part of it, you have the choice of _backing off_. Just as the policeman had a choice of never joining the force. Now it's too late, such is life.

    - Steeltoe
    Explore the Art of Living

    [ Parent ]
    Even simpler math (4.50 / 2) (#116)
    by pyramid termite on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:16:02 AM EST

    I'm still trying to figure out how 200 people managed to throw one petrol bomb.
    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    The two hundred protesters... (4.50 / 2) (#122)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:11:04 AM EST

    ...all must have thrown one, very large, petrol bomb together.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:05:30 PM EST

    Bucket Brigade. ;)

    --- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
    [ Parent ]
    Some more quick math (3.50 / 2) (#135)
    by yannick on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 05:02:38 AM EST

    You're (conveniently) ignoring a major part of the equation here. There would not be so many police present to maintain law and order, and there would not be open fights in the streets, if there were no protesters. Various organisations have clearly and publicly stated that they intend to cause tremendous damage to the host city, to the heads of state attending the conference, and to just about everything else remotely associated with modern civilisation. The police are merely preserving the right of the majority to safety. You certainly can't blame them for that.

    Besides, if you take a lion and you prod him with a stick over and over and over again, don't be surprised if he bites your head off. The protestors wanted violence, and they got it. I say it serves 'em right.

    Cheers,
    Yannick
    ---
    "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...
    [ Parent ]

    Stupid, you say? (3.50 / 2) (#136)
    by Pseudonym on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:11:28 AM EST

    Judging the protestors as a homogenus group, which they aren't, based on the acts of the more militant minority is just plain stupid.
    I predict that the organisers of the peaceful part of the protest will not say a single word condemning the actions of the violent few. I would like to be proven wrong on this, but have not been so far.

    My point? Yes, judging the protestors as homogenous would, under most circumstances be stupid. However, when the peaceful protestors do absolutely nothing to distance themselves from the violent minority, it's kind of hard to feel sympathy for them.

    I previously posted an anecdote which may help illustrate my point.


    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    [ Parent ]
    He was an idiot (3.66 / 3) (#148)
    by wiredog on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 11:01:01 AM EST

    This picture shows pretty clearly that the cop was exposed and in an unarmored vehicle. And he had a masked man running at him with a large haevy object. What was the cop supposed to do? Die? What would you do?

    Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things
    [ Parent ]
    CNN report (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by MrEd on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:14:41 AM EST

    Keep in mind that CNN is a corporation, produces news solely to make a profit, and has a bit of a stake in preventing the protesters from being taken seriously.

    I know, the news clips provided by IndyMedia and other groups are just as biased in the opposite direction, but as someone who was in Quebec City at the time of the protests, I can attest that what I saw on NBC that evening had only the faintest of ressemblances to what actually went on that day. In my day there I saw 90 year old ladies facing off against riot cops, a 12,000 strong crowd of adults (with jobs, even!) being completely non-violent and delivering their objections to the FTAA quite articulately. Did this make the news? No. The news showed some guy breaking the window of a Volvo and trying to set it on fire. The rioters are not representative of the protesters.

    You probably don't believe me.

    Watch out for the k5 superiority complex!


    [ Parent ]
    Title (3.81 / 11) (#47)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:14:38 PM EST

    Anticapitalist killed protesting $1 billion world health fund, international efforts to fight global warming, and discussion of a possible world recession.

    AFAIK, these protests are nothing more than temper tantrums: the anti-globalization protesters want attention, so they turn violent. And like a temper tantrum, it only gets them negative attention. Their political views get a back seat to stories of them clashing with police and throwing molotov cocktails. Political leaders don't pay them any attention after they've held the obligatory press conference condemning the violence. These people just need to grow up and stop rioting. It doesn't do any good.

    deliberate (3.33 / 6) (#49)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:20:13 PM EST

    OK, now you're just trying to piss people off by deliberately writing as though you had no clue. ;-)

    -robin

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    OK, so it's merly a little tanturm. (3.50 / 4) (#76)
    by elenchos on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:05:37 PM EST

    At the moment, I'm not certain if the number of people acting out this childish little tantrum is only 100,000 or actually 150,000 as some reports have it. So, um... isn't that rather striking to you? Does it seem, you know, normal, or unremarkable that as many as 150,000 people are rioting in Europe right now? Peaceful, wealthy, stable Europe. Doesn't that raise questions in your mind, doubts even?

    I mean, sure I can see saying to some teenager, "grow up and stop drinking and carousing all the time." But "grow up and stop attacking carloads of Carabinieri?" WTF? I mean, it's the fucking Carabinieri! They blow people's heads off. Routinely. It seems like a little more than a game, and a little more than a case of immaturity, of spoiled kids on a lark.

    So I really think it is past time to realize that we have something serious going on right now in the world we live in, and it demands a serious attempt to understand it.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    not unusual (4.25 / 4) (#78)
    by rebelcool on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:22:02 PM EST

    think how many (mostly young) people out there with dead end jobs who are for the most part, nobodies, and will continue to be nobodies for their entire lives. Theres alot of anger built up in there against people who are far more successful and wealthy than they ever will be.

    These protests give them the excuse to go out and release pent up anger under the guise of 'protesting'.

    Yes, some are actual protestors who believe in their cause. I dont think these are the ones who are out there hurling bricks at police officers and smashing windows.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    That's original at least. (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by elenchos on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:34:37 PM EST

    Fresher than the "snot-nosed upper class white suburban college kid" stereotype. You have any information to back that characterization up? I've been looking myself and so far don't have much on the demographics of these protesters. Link? Quote? Source?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    im guessing... (3.00 / 4) (#104)
    by rebelcool on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:59:00 PM EST

    from the scruffy lookingness. The general hippieness if you will. I've yet to meet someone who was wealthy and successful who dressed/looked such a way.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    If you've ever... (4.00 / 2) (#112)
    by poltroon on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 11:53:15 PM EST

    heard of this thing called grunge, which went mainstream during the 90s, you'd know there are some downright rich, famouse, super-scruffy looking people in this world.

    I sure don't see scruffiness as being obviously related to success or wealth (which aren't synonomous, to me). There are plenty of losers in the world who desperately try to look wealthy. Some of the wealthiest people I know look the plainest. Blatant scruffiness seems more like a statement about the importance a person places on luxury in their life, or an effort to stand out against people who tend to wear suits.

    [ Parent ]

    heh well then.. (4.00 / 2) (#129)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:39:03 AM EST

    i suggest you go find the rock throwing thugs and ask them what they do for a living. I will bet you $100 that its probably not a white collar job :)

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Your whole line of reasoning is laughable. (3.66 / 6) (#142)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 07:30:23 AM EST

    You are here to announce to us that you have discovered that these activists are not middle managers at an insurance company? I think we already guessed that ourselves.

    But more to the point, you are trying to cobble together an ad homenim attack, that these protestors are wrong, and conversely that pro-corporate globalization is right, based on your assertion that these protestors are losers.

    Your definition of a loser is someone who does not make a lot of money, to begin with. I could stop there; that tells us just about everything we need to know about you and your ability to reason correctly about the world you inhabit. You add other revealing details, like lack of a white collar job, which I suppose is how you have determined that they will never be wealthy and successful. We all know that the road to wealth and success is to climb the ladder of in corporate world, neatly dressed and toeing the line.

    But these guys reject the whole corporate world. That is the point, isn't it? What you have decided to tell yourself is that they are screw-ups, that they can't cut it in as white collar heroes, and it is all about how they are jealous of their betters in their office parks, with their big jeeps and their phones.

    I don't see it. You have evidence of their jealousy? We know they are angry about something, but when did that anger become about you, their successful "rival?" Seems to me that mostly the yuppies of the world are being ignored, sidelined in this conflict that is playing out, and if anyone has a reason to be jealous, it is them.

    I mean, while you keep your head down, follow the rules, go to a good school, get a quite job at a fine, solid company and spend your days posting dittohead remarks, these "losers" are standing up for something larger than themselves, and making sacrifices and taking risks that men sitting in cubicles never dream of. If there is any irrationality that can be explained by jealousy, I would say it is the venomous hatred that the junior-grade suits of the world have for these scruffy kids getting beaten and shot in the streets.

    I think you wish you could be as important as they are.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    hmmm. (4.33 / 3) (#144)
    by decoy on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:37:18 AM EST

    these "losers" are standing up for something larger than themselves, and making sacrifices and taking risks that men sitting in cubicles never dream of.

    Don't you mean Heroes of the Glorious Anticapitalist Revolution? Aren't they doing more than just standing up, aren't they actually fighting heroically against the opression of the cublicle dwelling dittoheads, that just happen to be the mojority? Aren't those sacrifices and risks primarily associated with doing nasty things to people's private property and policemen (state oppressors or not, they're still human beings), and hoping the cops will just take it all in good fun and not do their jobs?

    [ Parent ]

    Um, no. (3.33 / 3) (#146)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:49:28 AM EST

    Get over your private property fetish. It only makes you look petty. And the Red baiting is just sad. Do you happen to know the year?

    The ones making the greatest sacrifice are those who are taking a stand to help others for no personal gain at all, and risking being tarred with the same brush as the thugs. And shot along with them.

    It isn't easy dealing with people who can only see the world in black and white, you know.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    The revolutionspeak is fun... (3.50 / 2) (#147)
    by decoy on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 10:03:56 AM EST

    ...you should try using it some time.

    Get over your private property fetish. It only makes you look petty.

    Yeah, right. That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard all day. I should support these people, torching other people's shops, because they don't stand to gain anything from it, and they're standing up for some cause (whatever cause that is).

    risking being tarred with the same brush as the thugs

    They should be. The peaceful protesters are somewhat responisble too. The protests enable the violence, and the peaceful protesters tolerate it.

    It isn't easy dealing with people who can only see the world in black and white, you know.

    I know. Elenchos, you should try talking to yourself sometime.

    [ Parent ]

    They do? (4.00 / 1) (#149)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 11:09:15 AM EST

    I'll just ignore all the other nonsense you posted. You seem to be in a kind of playpen mood.

    But the part about the peaceful protesters is interesting. What makes them responsible? They are doing something to cause violence? Or they are not doing something they should? What would that be?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (4.00 / 2) (#243)
    by decoy on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 07:09:29 PM EST

    The peaceful protesters (I'm assuming) organize these events, when they know people will become violent, but they do little (if anything) to stop the violence. They don't make any effort to keep it peaceful.

    That, and I've heard stories of the peaceful protesters forming human shields to keep the more violent thugs from being arrested, which seems to be an endorsement of the violence.

    [ Parent ]

    rock throwing thugs. (4.50 / 4) (#158)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:25:21 PM EST

    Your definition of a loser is someone who does not make a lot of money, to begin with. I could stop there; that tells us just about everything we need to know about you and your ability to reason correctly about the world you inhabit. You add other revealing details, like lack of a white collar job, which I suppose is how you have determined that they will never be wealthy and successful. We all know that the road to wealth and success is to climb the ladder of in corporate world, neatly dressed and toeing the line.

    Incorrect. I define a loser as someone who picks up that rock or firebombs police, innocent businesses' windows and people's cars. I offer lack of a white collar job and unhappiness with their current status as a human being as a reason they commit violent acts, to release their frustrations upon what they view as what is wrong with society. Police - the enforcing authority. Businesses - the people that employ them. I have obviously no proof of studies to point to, however it is something to think about. Naturally, not every blue-collar worker is unhappy with their status, and so they are not there firebombing. It is conceivable that a white-collar worker is there, but I find it unlikely as white collar workers are better educated and less likely to riot violently.

    Seems to me that mostly the yuppies of the world are being ignored, sidelined in this conflict that is playing out, and if anyone has a reason to be jealous, it is them.

    Or maybe the yuppies of the world know that globalization and capitalism arent the cause of the world's problems.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    I think that's too easy. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:02:30 PM EST

    We've always had these kind of people in our society. What has suddennly set them off in the last two years? Why weren't they out breaking windows at Starbuck's and McDonald's ten years ago? And why do they pick on those places? They're angry because they didn't get their dream career at micky D's or Starbuck's? In Seattle they passed over locally owned shops to attack corporate franchises. That speaks of discrmination... an intelligence at work. It seems kind of difficult to say their motive is revenge because they didn't get a job there.

    It seems more likely that the 23-year-old whose head got blown off in Genoa was just a directionless kid looking for some cause to join. Not very much unlike the 20-year-old Carabinieri conscript who killed him. Had he not been drafted, he'd probably have been on the outside of that jeep, rather than inside. Rather than write it off to their simple motives, I would look at the bigger picture and try to understand the forces that put the two of them on the street in the way they did.

    This "jealous of yuppies in cubicles" theory definitely is looking weak and in need of some powerful support before it collapses upon itself, I'll say that.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    jealousy (3.00 / 3) (#161)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:23:54 PM EST

    Ill tell you why: The yuppies make more money.

    And dont give me that bullshit about 'the money doesnt matter'... get a clue and drop the revolution cliches. The world runs and revolves on money. Everything in human life is associated to it in some way.

    Poor people obsess about money even more than the rich do. The rich dont really obsess because they've got more than enough - enough they dont need to think about it much when they buy things.

    The poor however, need to watch their money. Live month to month, pay the rent, buy the food, clothe the kids and so on.

    The poor vs. rich is a classic human conflict from the dawn of humanity. Despite the fact there is little evidence (if any) that mega-corporations are actually hurting third world countries more than if the corporations did NOT have a presence in them, there is still the battle against globalization which goes against all economic knowledge, and even rational thought.

    Anyways, i was reading on excite today this bit about the protestor killed: "The dead man was identified as Carlo Giuliani, 23, an Italian living in unoccupied buildings in the center of Genoa. A police official speaking on condition of anonymity said Giuliani had a long criminal record that included weapons and drug charges."

    It's not hard to see why he was attacking police. He's been arrested many a time. And with a dozen other thugs - probably with records similar to his own - they banded together to attack the police.

    These 'protests' are not about globalization or capitalism - hell, even the real protestors over that have conceded that whats happening in Genoa is the place is overran by criminals and the real protestors are pulling out.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Yes, money is very important to you. (3.66 / 3) (#162)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:39:48 PM EST

    We agree on that. But you are telling me it is important to them. They wish they could be yuppies, and have a lot of money, but they just can't, so they are jealous. That is their motivation. Your evidence: because you think money is what life is all about. See, that tells me all about you, nothing about them. What to they think? How is it that you know that what they really think is so different from what they say? Just presuming that they place personal wealth above everything else same as you isn't convincing.

    I'm not sure what this stuff about his record has to do with it. It doesn't surprise me that he's been a victim of drug laws. Maybe he really is a criminal. The thing is, you could turn the same ad homenim against the Carabinieri. They are not police officers. They are a paramilitary force made up of conscripts; young toughs not much different than the young toughs they are sent out against. They are notoriously stupid: in Italy they are the butt of every stupid joke -- instead of blondes they make fun of Carabinieri. How does any of that change anything?

    What matters is that there is serious unrest in the world today, and the trend is for it to get worse. Slinging mud on the pawns dying in the streets only distracts from that.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    its like talking to a brick. (3.66 / 3) (#167)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:46:12 PM EST

    You just dont get it.

    From your repeated assertions that i'm talking about me (when its obvious that im talking about protestors, and in fact humanity as a whole) leads me to think you're in some kind of strange denial. Are you trying to justify the senseless violence of these thugs? You've yet to offer a reasonable explanation for them. Maybe thats because you know there isnt a reasonable explanation and that this whole 'down with globalization and capitalism' facade is a cover for the actions of street terrorists. At least in genoa, it is.

    As for the thug who was killed, he has far more than drug arrests. Weapons. Assaults. He was a homeless man with a long criminal record, and whole lot of anger against the society he was not a good member of. He banded together with others similar to him. He tried to violently assaulted (maybe even wanted to kill) a group of people who were trying to keep the peace. He was killed for his violent actions. As someone said earlier - live by the sword, die by the sword.

    The 'serious unrest' is in your mind and on the websites you visit. My guess: you read the tech logs like slashdot and kuro5hin. You probably also read the indy-media which loves these protest things. By limiting yourself to these sites it seems like the whole world is ready to explode.

    Let me be the first to dispel that myth.

    Today, the majority is not poor. Nor is the majority low-income. In western society, the majority is the middle class. The majority likes capitalism and is educated. The majority do not think that this 'globalization' is bad. The majority see no evidence that corporations are hurting third world countries any worse than they already are.

    The majority does not care about the protestors in genoa or their messages. Most know that there are real protestors amid the black-hooded thugs. They consider the thugs criminals, the real protestors interesting. ABCNEWS.com even has a piece about the messages of the real protestors. But the majority doesnt see a reason for things to be changed. The world is not in a sad state of affairs. In fact, things are better now in general than they ever have been. From an economic and social status even. There is more harmony now than ever before.

    And unless you plan on overruling the desires of the majority, the democratic desires of them, you are no better than the facists.

    I highly recommend your broaden your horizons. Maybe you'll discover the world is much better than the limited websites you read plays them out to be.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    I'm not shocked... (4.50 / 2) (#172)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 05:30:04 PM EST

    ...to learn what version of the world you get from ABC, MSNBC, Time-Warner, News Corp and the rest of them. I read them every day, and they do indeed match precisely with what you describe. I know that IndyMedia doesn't tell "the truth" either. But a site like that can lead you to a more accurate image of what the activists believe than what ABC says they believe. Whitehouse.gov doesn't have "the truth" either, but its a good place to look if you are wondering if the New York Times is accurately telling you what the president says.

    As far as what the population thinks, things do get muddy: ask people if they like capitalism, they say yes. Ask them if the WTO should have the power to fine member countries if their local laws cut into corporate profits, they say no. This is where things get mixed up. Had anyone opposed to this corporate version of globalization been allowed to speak at the presidential debates, your story about politics would be plausible. As it is, we know that most people do not favor the specific provisions of these new trade agreements put forth by the G8 governments. But that is being taken out of the arena of public debate, because the pols don't want this plan derailed by public opposition. That is what Fast Track is all about.

    The fascist thing doesn't stick. The whole point of a popular protest is to draw the attention of the public, to get them involved and to change their minds. You can't force anything on people with a protest. The majority of the world is poor, and they are the ones primarily being hurt by these policies. The fact thay things are nice in your suburb in the US is good for you, but that is not the whole world. The idea is to get the people of the West to pay attention to that. I think this is the thing you have the hardest time with. It is simply outside your experience to be altruistic. You have a need to ascribe sinister or selfish motives to everything, and so you are willing to believe anything before you accept that maybe these activists are trying to help other people. They could just fall into line and get a quiet job at some company, living only for themselves. But that is a hollow existence, and so they've decided to make the world better instead. Yes, people like that really exist.

    You've posted before that "most people are happy and middle class thing." I suspect it is a tautalolgy. What is your definition of middle class? How many people fit that definiton? Is the middle class growing or shrinking?

    And as far as this 20-year-old who killed the 23-year-old, I only just now for the first time said who I thought was to blame. You know, the cop who was trying to sully his name with with stories about his criminal record spoke anonymously. Could that have been because what he was saying was something to be ashamed of, and he didn't want his name known? Kind of like saying Rodney Kind deserved it because of his record as a petty crook. A lot of posters here are sounding quite smug about this death, enjoying how stupid the victim was and reveling in saying how much he deserved it. But these bumbling fools created a martyr, and that is only going to make this thing worse.

    But you say this anti-globalization thing is just foolishness, not improtant. I think it is. These demonstrations are gettng bigger and bigger. Wages in places like Mexico continue to fall, USian jobs keep getting exported to sweatshops overseas. The economy's happy numbers look worse every day. So you predict sunshine and happiness? Good luck. I predict that this will keep getting wrose until our "democratic" governments start listening.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    explain. (4.00 / 3) (#176)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 07:39:20 PM EST

    "The majority of the world is poor, and they are the ones primarily being hurt by these policies."

    Explain this. This is what confounds me the most. Exactly HOW, is the third world being NEGATIVELY affected. How in the world do western corporations - who build hospitals, schools and modern infrastructure - make these people worse off than they were before. They were living on dirt and weeds. Western money has fed these people. Has clothed them. Has medicated their sick children.

    How, does free trade, which allows this, NEGATIVELY IMPACT the third world. No, their standard of living is not as good as the west. That is something which simply takes TIME to achieve.

    What does free trade do? It takes jobs away from the inefficient part of the world and puts them in the more efficient part. An argument against free trade is an argument for selfish protectionism. An argument for inefficiency. An argument for keeping the rich nations rich and poor nations poor. It is an argument against the very people - the debt relief protestors - that they want to help.

    A comparison of that thug to rodney king is an insult to rodney king. Rodney king was not attemping to kill police officers with a fire extinguisher (aka, LARGE GRENADE). No martyr has been created - just look around you. On k5, in real life and ask people what they think. They think that man is a fool and got what he deserved.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Rehash, rehash, reahash... (4.66 / 3) (#207)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 10:11:31 AM EST

    First, while I did say that I think this shooting in Genoa can be minimally justified as a case of self-defense, if I were you I would look up a couple things before I keep posting that "large grenade" fantasy. I mean, have you ever once in your life heard of a fire extinguisher exploding as you are imagining? I would go with calling it a large, heavy object, which could really hurt if someone threw it at you. And the reports seem to indicate that the shots were fired after he threw it anyway, so the logic of it all is a little shaky. The fact is that the 20-year-old Carabinieri panicked, which is understandable, but still, not good police work by any standard. And in any event, the shooting victim's record can't possibly have any bearing on whether or not the shooting was justified could it? Any more than the past behavior of the Carabinieri has any bearing on the righteousness of the shooting.

    It looks as if a whole herd of kurobots have jumped on this bandwagon. Why they think making this dead rioter into a villian will change anything, I do not know. Another prediction: the rest of the world will move on to important things while the kurobots go on with their pointless ad homenim attack on this dead guy.

    As far as the rest, this is the same argument that has come up again and again. Go to indymedia.org, look at the left sidebar, about a page and a half down, and click on the link that says "background," if you haven't already. Most of the arguments against globalization, the WTO, FTAA and all the rest are available there. The BBC has their "Globalization: What is it all about?" thing that has been linked to just about every Yahoo story. Brittanica.com has several good background articles too.

    The short answer to your objection is that if this really were about free trade, it would not be a big deal. The big lie of "free trade" is that it is in fact a whole bunch of new regulations and laws that restrict trade and create an even more unjust situation. This is why real free traders can't stand the WTO -- see any of trhurler's comments on it for example (when he isn't ranting about law and order). The next major objection is that these deals are made in the least democratic way possible. Too many people are affected for this lack of accountablility to be accepted. Along with that, these negotiations give a place at the bargaining table for corporations and bankers, but not for workers, nor for anyone who cares about the environement. Those issues need to be part of the equation too.

    If all you can say is "but free trade is good" I have to assume you aren't listening at all. You've been told a hundred times it isn't just about free trade, or just about globalization. It is about how free trade and globalization are implemented, and who decides what course to take. Constantly repeating that "free trade benefits everyone" is not a response to that. It is just pig-headedness.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    broaden your own horizon (3.33 / 3) (#185)
    by anonymous cowerd on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 11:20:17 PM EST

    Today, the majority is not poor. Nor is the majority low-income. In western society,

    Economically the whole world is "western society" and today the proprietors of that society are gathered behind lines of soldiers in Genoa, scheming to tighten their grip...

    For Christ's sake. I suppose China doesn't count. Nor India. Let's see, there are about 750 million people in Western Europe and North America, including a not-inconsiderable percentage of whom that are poor. There are more than a billion people in mainland China and nearly another billion in India, of whom what percentage are what you consider as middle-class or richer? Middle-class in Japan and Korea, sure, but where's your African or Central American middle class?

    Of course, when I was a kid the official policy of the U.S. Government with regard to China, then comprising six hundred million humans, was that it did not exist. Also somewhat further back in U.S. history, for purposes of allocating Congressional representatives, a male negro was counted three-fifths of a citizen, which was logically odd, as his personal proportion of representation was precisely zero. Using similar exclusions, fractions and ratios is the only way I can make sense, arithmetically speaking at least, of your

    ...the majority is the middle class. The majority likes capitalism and is educated.

    but certainly not at all counting the human race one-as-one.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

    America is false to the past,
    false to the present,
    and solemnly binds herself
    to be false to the future.
    - Frederick Douglas

    [ Parent ]

    why i mentioned western society (3.60 / 5) (#192)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 01:19:12 AM EST

    the third world doesnt have a voice in this. Say what you want about how terrible it is and so on, but its the truth. The G8, wto and the likes are dominated by western society. If you want to change any of these organizations, you have to change the public opinion of the western nations which comprise them.

    The majority of westerners couldnt care less and think these protestors are silly.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (3.50 / 2) (#208)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 10:24:38 AM EST

    You are correct: the intent of these demonstrations is to help other people: non-westerners. The activists aren't in it for themselves. Altruism. See? Please tell me you can at least imagine wanting to help other people. You can do it. Just try.

    And bingo again! You win bonus points for realizing that changing western public opinion is the name of the game. Nobody thinks they can change Dubya's mind. The goal is to influence the public's attitudes. Obviously, not enough people are informed enough about globalization, and so they have been going along with it, apparently. Although it's hard to know for sure when the debate over it is so marginalized.

    And where do you get your data about what the majority of westerners think? You have some poll you want to point out?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    common sense (4.25 / 4) (#211)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 01:56:54 PM EST

    time magazine just had an article about it, but i havent had a chance to read it. Perhaps there will be a poll in there.

    From my own observations here on k5 and in real life, talking with various people (not just friends of mine), most dont care about the demonstrators.

    And when these events turn into mainly rock-throwing firebomb festivals, i guarantee you that public opinion is NOT going to sway to the side of the protestors, when the protestors fail to firmly condemn and separate themselves from the violence. People dont like violence. It may make a good news story, and keeps you watching, but it doesnt make people side with them.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    I wish I could find it... (3.50 / 6) (#214)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:47:26 PM EST

    The Onion had this wonderful article about a cuckolded, recently-divorced, middle-aged sociologist whose researches have determined that the Typical American Male was 45 years old, unsure which direction his life was heading in, and certain that all women were lying, manipulative bitches. And really liked hot wings.

    Anyway, you seem frustrated that I am contiunually unconvinced by your arguments. You say "You just don't get it" and "it's like talking to a brick wall." You are aware that those statements are not arguments, right? You wouln't really expect me to change my mind because you said to me "You just don't get it." Instead, I keep asking you what evidence makes you so sure, and you refer me to sources like abcnews.com. Today they reported exactly what I've been telling you: that the over 700 groups protesting in Genoa have among their objectives to convince the public that the direction of "free trade" is not so free, and that it harms the poor, the environment and democracy. The only one saying that they simply are "against trade" is George Bush, who is without a doubt not listening.

    Your other evidence is your acquaintences. Can you tell my why your casual observations of this group are not very good evidence? Is the sample size large enough to be meaningful? Is it a randomly selected sample? Is it selected from the full range of USian society? Can even a selection across all US demographic groups be taken to represent all Westerners? All the world? Can your observations be accpeted as neither consciously or unconsciously biased?

    What if I told you that the majority of my acquaintences support the demonstrations, don't blame the peaceful protestors for the actions of a few violent ones, and opposed the plans of the G8? Would that be an acceptable measure of US public opinion?

    Here. Think about what this says. It is the kind of thing you get when you search Google for things like "polls" or "public opinion" or "trade." It's really a mixed bag. Many people favor "foriegn trade" though not always even a majority. Seventy-eight percent say that protecting US jobs should be a top priority. How does that square with the WTO? It is diametrically opposed to it. The WTO is foursquare against any member nation trying to protect domestic jobs from free market forces. One poll has close to two out of three saying that trade hurts USian workers, but helps USian companies. Another has 51% in favor of trade, yet 41% opposed to all trade! What the hell? Even I'm not opposed to all trade; I only say that it should be negotiated under different terms than we currently have. Less than half of say that NAFTA has been good for the US, nearly one in three believes it is bad.

    Keep looking. There's something in there for everybody. If you are an anti-globalization activist, there is plenty of reason to think that you are within striking distance of achieving a majority opinion. Not to convince everyone that capitalism is evil, but to at least show everyone that things like NAFTA and the WTO need to be turned in a different direction.

    As far as the violent protesors, if you would read the press releases or the web sites of the major groups protesting, they consistnetly deplore violence, and tell the anarchists and thugs to stay away. What more do you think they can to do keep the violent ones out? Why should they have any better luck controlling these people than the police do? If you really think you have the answer to what should be done to keep the violent element away, there are plenty of people who would love to hear from you.

    You might also want to think about what the pundits said about the "violent" protestors in Mississippi and Alabama in the Civil Rights Era. Like you, they insisted that the violence should be blamed on the activists, not the police, and that it would only turn public opinion against them. History has shown them wrong on both counts.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    Correct, those statements aren't arguments (3.00 / 8) (#219)
    by hotcurry on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:19:09 PM EST

    They're not meant to be. Especially when they're the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    You point being what? (2.42 / 7) (#223)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:40:44 PM EST

    You just like to say "me too?" I think you're supposed to put <AOL></AOL> tags around your comments or something aren't you? Unless you have something of substance to add...

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    not enough (4.00 / 4) (#227)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 06:18:32 PM EST

    I dont see anyone holding peaceful marches. Think martin luther king. He went to various cities around the south just walking with people. These groups merely protest at the big events they KNOW are going to draw these thugs. They're doing a shitty job of protesting anything.

    Their failure to separate themselves from violence, their failure to form a coherant message, the failure to produce realistic demands (what *DO* they demand? anything?). And thats just the peaceful folks. Unless they get their shit together, nobody is going to pay attention to them, and rightly so.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, that's just too ignorant. (4.25 / 4) (#229)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 07:00:27 PM EST

    You just don't know enough about the civil rights movement to be saying all that. King said he opposed violence, and peaceful demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience were attempted, but they turned violent. Remember the dogs, the fire hoses, the beatings? The fires, the bombings? Reactionaries said it was because King and the other leaders didn't do enough to purge their ranks of violent thugs, that they really wanted people to get hurt so they would have martyrs, and that just having demonstrations at all was the real cause of the violence. Sound familiar? We know now it was the police and their cracker helpers who lit the fuse, but at the time who would have believed it? You've seen posts on K5 telling you that the police had agents behind the lines instigating violence, and that they let the thugs go free while gassing peaceful marchers. Yet you just won't believe it. How come? Do you believe King wasn't really trying to create martyrs? Why?

    I have no idea what makes you ask me now what these activists want. Why don't you just look at their web sites? There's about 800 groups in Genoa and I for one certainly don't know what each of them wants. I doubt I would agree with more than half of them. But you can do your own Google searches if you don't want to follow any of the links that have passed in front of your eyes here at K5.

    How is it that you think you know that these groups have not done enough to prevent violence, yet you can't even seem to find Genoa Social Forum? You don't even know who these people are, but you do know what mistakes they've made? You don't even know what instructions they've given their people, so how is it you know they are at fault? Doesn't make sense. Hopefully, you are at least realizing that if you want to know what is going on, you have to look beyond Time magazine and abcnews.com.

    This is why I "just don't get it." You claim to have knowledge, yet it is obvious that you are talking out your ass. You haven't even tried to find out; instead you just make shit up, or believe third hand rumors and innuendo.

    Why should I take you seriously?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    heh.. (4.00 / 3) (#232)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 08:24:52 PM EST

    its your attitude the reason noone takes you - or these protestors - seriously. Maybe you're just pissed because theres maybe 2 posters here on k5 who are anywhere near in agreement with you.

    800 groups. 800. thats ridiculous. who is going to listen to any one of 800? Nobody.

    Sorry, for news I tend to pay attention less biased news sites. (but of COURSE abcnews and all other mainstream media is biased against the protestors..they dont agree with your shortsighted views). I for one, dont look for windows news on slashdot. And most linux news on there only deals with the accomplishments of it, rather than the common hacks and failings.

    I dont care if you take me seriously. I think you're as foolish and narrowminded as you probably think I am. But it doesnt bother me that much. At least I try to point out many reasons why the protestors are failing to achieve anything rather than lay blame on the 'obviously' ignorant masses and 'brutal' police, and attempt to justify the actions of violent thugs.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Still you have nothing. (4.00 / 4) (#234)
    by elenchos on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 09:02:48 PM EST

    You don't point out reasons. You point out nothing. I ask you questions, and you can't answer them. You go from thinking that you can use your circle of personal acquaintances as a gauge of public opinion to some kind of generalization about what K5 thinks? This is not a convincing argument, you realize that? You say no one agrees with any of these groups? After I just showed you polls from several different polling organizations that show that in fact a substantial number of people do agree with them.

    And all you can do is go back in a circle and repeat your original assertion, which is basically that "most people" think the way you do. You have no evidence for this, yet you go on saying it, and think you have some reason to feel self-satisfied? You do nothing but make yourself look like a fool. You can't even read the posts I put in front of you: where have I attempted to justify the actions of any thugs?

    We shall see. There are more of these events coming. You say the public is against the activists, but what have the done to show it? When will they start showing it? What are you going to say when the next demonstration is even larger? What will you say when they start to succeed in changing the direction of policy?

    I doubt you'll even be conscious of how wrong you were. But rave on, rave on; I enjoy it. As trhurler once said, it's like clubbing a baby seal, and what's more fun than that?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    remarkably well said (none / 0) (#240)
    by Arkady on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 08:23:23 PM EST

    OK, so I don't exactly agree with you either (but I'm certainly closer to your position than to rebelcool's ;-), but you put that really well.

    I had to drop out of this flamefest to get some work and partying done this weekend, and I'm glad to see a voice of reason here when I came back this afternoon.

    Good on ya'.

    -robin

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    respect (4.60 / 5) (#216)
    by anonymous cowerd on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:53:40 PM EST

    The majority of westerners couldnt care less and think these protestors are silly.

    That's rubbish. You don't speak even for "the majority of westerners" any more than you speak for the whole readership of K5 with your

    ...just look around you. On k5, in real life and ask people what they think. They think that man is a fool and got what he deserved...

    Three years ago the average TV-watching middle-class Western world citizen wouldn't even know what you were talking about if you presented him with the terms "globalization," "GATT," "IMF" or "WTO." That was perfectly fine with the gentlemen who run those bodies; what the voting public is unaware of, they certainly will not oppose. But during the last three years thousands of brave citizens all over the globe have walked eyes-front into police clubs, riot dogs, tear gas, and now gun fire, just to get sports fans such as you and me to wake up and be aware of who and how our economic future is being planned - behind closed doors, with secret treaties and protocols, written by non-accountable commitees.

    These anti-globalization protestors, at personal sacrifice that has sometimes proven total, have succeeded in dragging this issue out in front of the public. Whether you agree with them - that is, whether they are serving your personal interest as a comfortable and self-satisfied bourgeois - or not, the fact remains that physical bravery like that in a political cause is heroism, and I can scarcely comprehend how you can, with anything like a clear conscience, be so dismissively contemptuous.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

    America is false to the past,
    false to the present,
    and solemnly binds herself
    to be false to the future.
    - Frederick Douglas

    [ Parent ]

    ok, (4.33 / 3) (#165)
    by poltroon on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:07:41 PM EST

    since I don't have any stone throwing protesters at arm's reach, let's suppose that I did locate some and it turned out that some were blue-collar workers and some were college kids (with white-collar futures easily in their sights), and some were squatters. And suppose I quized them further and came to find out that they are angry, like you've so astutely recognized. I have a hard time believing their anger stems from lack of funds to afford an SUV. My guess would be that they're angry about the undemocratic trend of taking power away from democracies and putting it in the hands of wealthy (corporations). These people are demonstrating that they're not going to let lack of wealth/power determine whether they will be noticed.

    Plenty of the activists I've encountered have completed college, and may hold or have held white collar jobs, but they're certainly interested in labor issues nonetheless. Stone throwers are a particular subset of activists, and while I personally wouldn't take up their tactics, I don't want to entirely marginalize and villanize them, since some of their core beliefs appear to be in common with non-violent activists.

    [ Parent ]

    thats the wrong attitude to have. (4.00 / 2) (#179)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:03:22 PM EST

    peaceful protestors should separate themselves from the violent ones as much as possible. They should not only stay away, but CONDEMN them. Otherwise the public (myself included) will never take the peaceful ones seriously.

    By the way, when you pick up a rock and throw it, you cross the line from 'protestor' to 'rioting thug'.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    And what exactly would that accomplish? (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by poltroon on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 10:47:42 PM EST

    I condemn their tactics, as most people do, if you hadn't noticed, but to villanize them altogether (which has obviously been going on all over the place in the media) sure isn't going to open up any dialog. In marginalizing them their cause gets lumped in with their tactics.

    If a person throwing a rock is categorically a thug, what's a policeman who shoots an unarmed person point-blank in the face, when he could obviously have been subdued in non-lethal ways? A valliant protecter of society? These displays of police brutality and arrogance (eg. driving over dead man with jeep) around the world are certainly deplorable in my book. Why should I condemn a stone throwing kid and not condemn the police who kill him?

    [ Parent ]

    say what? (4.00 / 2) (#186)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:09:39 AM EST

    where has the media been piling them all together? Today on abcnews.com they had an entirely separate article, linked from the front page about what the real protestors were about.

    Further, excite and cnn have all mentioned in their posts about how peaceful protestors have left genoa because they were afraid of the violent thugs. Despite what you may think, people are not stupid. People know there are peaceful protestors and violent ones. Until the peaceful ones band together to strongly, decisively and coherently separate themselves from the violent elements, they will get no reasonable attention.

    what's a policeman who shoots an unarmed person point-blank in the face, when he could obviously have been subdued in non-lethal ways?

    He was not unarmed. He had a very large, heavy blunt object full of highly pressurized gas. He was about to throw it at them. Just because you dont have a gun, does not mean you are unarmed. Further, the policeman was already injured by the man's comrades.

    On running him over, the only way OUT of the situation for the jeep was over the body. Im sure the police would have avoided running over the body if they werent trying to escape death.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    I didn't say that. (4.00 / 1) (#191)
    by poltroon on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 01:12:52 AM EST

    I didn't say protesters are all being villanized together, although there has been a tendancy to characterize the anti-capitalist globalization movement that way. You misread my statement. I meant the protesters who use violent tactics are being utterly villanized. And for the most part their tactics have involved property damange, not real (bodily) violence. The word altogether doesn't mean all together. I agree the violence is real a problem, but marginalizing these people further doesn't seem like the answer to me. How's that going to make them change their plan? They're already marginal. They feel that there is an urgency and powerlessness to their cause that makes violence necessary. They say they don't have the time to spare for dragging puppets and banners around in the streets. Somehow they need to be convinced that's not the case.

    [ Parent ]
    heh... (3.50 / 2) (#194)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:22:26 AM EST

    throwing a brick through the window of the local starbucks isnt going to help. Considering that all these shops are franchises and owned by local business people, the brick through the window and the destruction of property is very costly (to the individual..not the corporation), not to mention simply dangerous to anyone nearby. Saying 'i dont have time to protest peacefully' is bullshit. These thugs are simply there to break shit, under the facade of protesting for the 'good' cause.

    There is no good excuse for violence. None at all. It is not up to us to convince these criminals not to break things. That is simply ridiculous. Maybe the police will beat the crap out of them even more, perhaps that will convince them that violence will do nothing but bring violence upon them. Or until a consortium of local shop owners decides to simply shoot a bunch of them for torching the places.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    yeah, (4.50 / 2) (#197)
    by poltroon on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:09:07 AM EST

    beat the crap out of them. That'll show them. Have you heard the reports that photographers have been nabbed and beaten and their cameras destroyed, and that indymedia has been raided and peaceful people injured in the process? You're right, there is no good exuse for this kind of thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: not unusual (3.00 / 2) (#140)
    by juri on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:52:16 AM EST

    The Swedish protester who got shot in the stomach by the police in Goethenburg was flamed using the words "rich kid". So it's not quite as simple as that.

    [ Parent ]
    protestor? (3.77 / 9) (#77)
    by boxed on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:16:08 PM EST

    How come a person that assaults a police officer outside a big meeting is called a "protestor", but the same person doing the same thing anywhere else is called a "criminal"?

    Calling these terrorists "protestors" is to justify extreme violence that hurts the cause they claim to fight for.

    re: how come (2.50 / 2) (#93)
    by cicero on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:39:26 PM EST

    from m-w.com

    Main Entry: 2pro·test
    Pronunciation: pr&-'test, 'prO-", prO-'
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French
    protester, from Latin protestari, from pro- forth + testari to call to witness -- more at
    PRO-, TESTAMENT Date: 15th century
    transitive senses
    1 : to make solemn declaration or affirmation of
    <protest my innocence>
    2 : to execute or have executed a formal
    protest against
    (as a bill or note)
    3 : to make a statement or gesture in objection to
    <protested the abuses of human rights>
    intransitive senses


    do I need to be more specific?
    he's called a protestor because he was protesting something


    --
    I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
    [ Parent ]
    "statement or gesture" != "assault& (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by boxed on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:04 AM EST

    Assaulting someone is not a statement or gesture. The police were, just like in Gothenburg, attacked viciously by these terrorists that destroyed huge parts of the central city area. Video footage from Gothenburg showed only one thing: police men retreating under showers of stones. They even attacked the horses! So much for those ideals.

    [ Parent ]
    Opinion & additional linkage (2.62 / 8) (#80)
    by ksandstr on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:34:52 PM EST

    Regarding the shooting of the native Italian Carlo Giuliani (RIP) by a member of the paramilitary ``carabinieri'' forces:
    Before, during and immediately after.

    Based on these images and this Reuters article, I find it hard to imagine that the close-range shooting (two bullets -- first to the forehead and second to the left cheek) and the subsequent driving over of a demonstrator charging against a jeep with a fire extinguisher was anything but a murder in cold blood. The first image shows that the killer had plenty of time to take careful aim with his semiautomatic pistol (can someone identify it?) as evidenced by the two gunshot wounds in the head quarter in the third picture.

    Now, what are the odds of the shooter ever getting nailed in court for any significant time? Astronomical, I reckon.

    (note that I had some trouble with the "during" link -- kuro5hin seems to convert ampersand signs into HTML entities where it shouldn't. the hyperlink should be pointing to an image of the same carabinieri jeep driving over the corpse of the freshly slain activist, with the murderer pointing his gun out of the rear "window" of the same jeep.)


    --
    Somebody has to set Imperial America up the bomb.

    It's easy.... (4.50 / 2) (#188)
    by Elkor on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:22:53 AM EST

    To sit back after the fact and look at all sides of the situation objectively and say "Ok, this is all the guy was supposed to do."

    But, if you put yourself in his situation, I think you will find that it is a little harder to judge what is going on.

    If you don't believe me, I will gladly get 20 of my friends to surround your car while you are inside it, yelling deprecations, and then hurl a fire extinguisher at you.

    As for the running over of the body, odds are that the cops didn't even realize they were doing it. They just wanted the hell out of there.

    Regards,
    Elkor



    [ Parent ]
    jeep couldn't move without driving over him... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by wrffr on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:10:04 AM EST

    if you look at the sequence of photos on yahoo, it's clear that the front of the jeep is up against a wall and they couldn't move the jeep without backing up. and it's also possible that in the commotion, the driver didn't even realize that he was lying there after being shot.

    [ Parent ]
    some additional links (4.30 / 13) (#81)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:37:43 PM EST

    Mostly for those of you who think the cops should be given the benefit of the doubt:

    • Indy Media Italy, a photo set of the Caribinieri jeep driving over the just-shot protester
    • statement by a photographer on the scene at the shooting (RealAudio .ram file)
    • a photo of the corpse in the street purporting to show the bullet hole in his forehead (could just be more blood to me)
    • two more photos, from right before and after the shooting

    Now you can look at the evidence yourself, and listen to an eyewitness' account, and decide for yourself whether the Caribinieri warrant being extended the benefit of the doubt.

    -robin


    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    This link might load faster for you: (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by elenchos on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 07:57:38 PM EST

    Yahoo has a series of photos that give a pretty clear idea of what happend (and I think the resolution is higher). The Carabinieri home page is intersting too, from a web design point of view, if nothing else. Somewhere in there it should say what kind of guns they carry.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    You know... (2.75 / 8) (#94)
    by Rocky on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:52:46 PM EST

    I'd have a little more respect for your opinion and your links if you weren't so fucking biased.

    Why aren't you there getting shot at if you're so indignant?



    If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
    - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
    [ Parent ]
    So then... (3.00 / 4) (#100)
    by elenchos on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:38:02 PM EST

    ...post links to unbiased sources. Who did you have in mind?

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    The problem.. (2.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Rocky on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 11:08:49 PM EST

    ..is not with the links. It's with the linkee.

    Post the links. Let me browse them. Don't try to pre-sway me with your little comments. That gets my dander up.

    Oh, and by the way, if I could find a source that was truly unbiased, I wouldn't have this problem. Everybody in the media seems to be a shill for someone these days.

    Now where' my laudanum...

    If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
    - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
    [ Parent ]
    Your dander, sir? (3.00 / 3) (#139)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:48:25 AM EST

    You're angry about something? You feel that you have somehow been abused, or treated unfairly? Has someone taken advantage of you? Has someone promised you something and failed to deliver it? What were you promised? That the comments you find on K5 are all unbiased, objective reporting of fact, nothing more or less? You were told that K5 is miraculously the world's first-ever unbiased news source? Who told you this?

    You must be quite disappoined. Sorry.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    That's not the point (none / 0) (#239)
    by Rocky on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 10:40:33 AM EST

    The point is that the constant advocacy gets on my nerves.

    You asked for an unbiased news source, I told you that one didn't exist.

    You asked my why I thought K5 would be unbiased. I don't. I'd just like to get the information without the mandatory coloring.

    There's getting to be too much noise on this site anyway.




    If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
    - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
    [ Parent ]
    everybody's biased (none / 0) (#106)
    by Arkady on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 10:37:02 PM EST

    _Everybody_

    It can't be avoided; you look at the evidence, make up your mind and *bam* you're biased. In this case, I've looked at the evidence of State, Capital and police misconduct (historically and in modern instances) and I've concluded that it is unreasonable, given such a record, to accord the benefit of the doubt on any ethical issue to them.

    So what? Hasn't everyone got a history that creates biases in them? The important thing is to recognize them and not let them prevent you from seeing new information.

    -robin

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


    [ Parent ]
    The interview isn't that bad. (4.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:58:35 AM EST

    As I said, the inverview isn't that bad, this indymedia photographer doesn't seem to be distorting the events in the protesters favor. I transcribed most of it for those of you who can't, or don't want, to get realplayer:

    Mr. Ash (The photographer): The protest had started to become more broken up and less organized...there was a large group of people advancing and retreating with the police. And, one point the police turned and ran, and the crowd became very excited and chased the police down a sidestreet. And some of them caught up with the police, and one protester got close enough to a police vehicle

    Interviewer: How close?

    Mr. Ash: He was probably a few feet from it, sort of attacking the vehicle, and the officer in the vehicle opened fire with his handgun...

    ...I could clearly see from where I was. I was probably fifteen feet away from them, maybe a little bit more...

    Interviewer: Is there way the policeman could have feel really threatened for is life, and that it might maybe be called self defense?

    Mr. Ash: Yeah, like, if he couldn't find the keys to the car, or if, you know, he couldn't get out of the vehicle. I mean, I'm sure that, you know, the environment on the street, at that time, was very chaotic and very violent, so I'm sure that he, I'm sure that he was scared. I'm sure that they'll try to say it was in self defense, I mean the protester was approching the vehicle in a violent manner, for sure [emphasis his]

    ...

    Interviewer: With arms, weapons?

    Mr. Ash: I can't remember clearly, Most likely.

    Interviewer: Ok, thanks.

    It does not seem to be a cold blooded murder, as alleged (or possibly trolled) by some.

    [ Parent ]
    The glorious revolution is upon us! (2.64 / 14) (#91)
    by decoy on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:25:32 PM EST

    The glorious revolution is upon us. This man, this hero of the revolution, will only be the first. Many more like him will stand up and die fighting the tyrannical oppression of the capitalist ruling class. We shall prevail in the end! We will crush all opposition that stands in our way, and once the revolution is complete, we will arrive in a glorious future where all our enemies will be dead, the wales will be free, and the rain forests saved. The third world will be part of the first world, and debt free. There will be no frankenfood, and what remains of the capitalists will toil in the mines as they once forced others to do! It will be paradise!

    Revolution 101 (4.00 / 2) (#118)
    by physicsgod on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:31:44 AM EST

    When attacking an established regime with tanks, air support, artillary, and automatic weapons an arsenal that consists of more than molotov cocktails and hand thrown heavy things is STRONGLY advised. Those who fail to learn this lesson will not be doomed to repeat it, or anything else.

    --- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
    [ Parent ]
    Clarify (3.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:06:00 AM EST

    Do you mean: When attacking an established regime with tanks, etc, it is strongly advised to use molotov cocktails? You need to rewrite your comment, I can't tell exactally what you're saying.

    [ Parent ]
    I sir, am on CRACK! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:07:56 AM EST

    I misread that "an" after weapons and an "and."

    [ Parent ]
    physicsgod 101 (2.00 / 2) (#231)
    by eLuddite on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 07:53:23 PM EST

    A B C D E F G, H I J K LMNOP, Q & R, S & T, U V W, X Y Z, now I know my abc's, wont you tell me what you think of me.

    We'll call upon your lifetime membership to Soldier of Fortune Magazine when a shooting war breaks out. I hope the pages of the issue featuring "How to Pilot an F17 Mislaid by the Established Regime" arent too stuck together.

    ---
    God hates human rights.
    [ Parent ]

    D.C. Braces For IMF Protests This Fall (4.12 / 8) (#99)
    by wiredog on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:24:56 PM EST

    From the Washington Post comes the news that the DC police are asking for 4000 re-enforcements to handle the expected 40,000 protestors this fall. They are not expecting any violence.

    I hope not. Even if it is just a few idiots, as in Genoa and Seattle, there'll be some serious shooting. Not from the cops, the DC police are fairly restrained (compared to PG County, anyway) and the military police battalion (I was in it some years ago) is well trained. The shooting will be from the locals. DC is a small city, less than 10 miles (16 km) on a side, and the residential areas are all around the areas where the protestors will be. If some of the protestors get stupid and start burning,looting, and throwing firebombs, they'll be getting up close and personal with the business ends of shotguns and rifles.

    This sounds like bluster, but it isn't. I live near the city, and know people who live there. They're not the type to run, they'll fight. And the "protestors" will lose.

    Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things

    cool (3.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Delirium on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:00:16 AM EST

    That would make my day. I'd love to see the protestors, instead of being driven back by the "evil police," being driven back by the very "common people" they claim to be fighting for.

    [ Parent ]
    the common people.. (3.25 / 4) (#169)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:51:29 PM EST

    think they are all idiots.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    That would be very interesting indeed. (4.50 / 2) (#221)
    by hotcurry on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:24:21 PM EST

    In fact, it would prove something. Meanwhile, the common people's failure to do so, if continued for long, will prove the opposite.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw a video clip (3.14 / 7) (#105)
    by Pink Daisy on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:59:22 PM EST

    The CBC gave a 30 second interview with a Canadian protester in Genoa. I am ashamed that the trash from here is going to Europe to burn down cities there.

    Sad, but nothing new here. (3.83 / 6) (#107)
    by sombragris on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 10:40:28 PM EST

    The mission of the police is to protect the public order and to serve the inhabitants of a given area, and by definition it must use the force as needed. This is sad, but the demonstration was extremely violent and this poor fellow was attacking the police car when he was shot.

    The answer is simple: We should learn again the concept of distributive justice, the suum cuique: to every one what is his own. If you want to get some respect, you must give it first. But if you want to be a bully, be careful: you might end in the wrong predicament.

    Is that so hard to understand?

    Fault lays with the Italian Government (4.00 / 12) (#113)
    by Anatta on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:00:04 AM EST

    Let me first say that I'm about as pro globalization as you can get, and I was the evil capitalist who wrote the Anti-Anti-Globalization article a couple of weeks ago...

    However, I tend to side with the protesters for this... or at least against the Italian government. 150,000 protesters isn't *that* many, especially given that what 10% of those were violent, if that... it shocks and saddens me that police in jeeps would be shooting people in the face at close range for throwing rocks and a fire extinguisher. It sounds to me like the Italian government was not prepared for the protesters and put some police out that shouldn't have been out, and things escalated and someone got killed. I'm certainly not saying it's easy to handle such crowds, but rather with effective planning, they can be handled, and are handled well frequently.

    Reading the comments on indymedia below a picture someone posted, the reaction from most seemed to be horror and "damn those capitalist pigs for killing our comrade"... but I don't think it was the capitalists' fault at all, nor was it necessarily the protesters' fault (though I would say the guy was dumb to throw a fire extinguisher at a police officer, but he most certianly did not deserve to die). I've lived in New Orleans for a few Mardi Gras seasons, it's pretty easy to recognize what "good" crowd control is -- and it seems that these police were baaaaad. The police during Mardi Gras handle 1 million drunken revelers, many of whom are college-age frat boys wanting nothing more than to get drunk, fuck, and start fights. Yet their record of success has been stellar (especially recently) because they are so prepared and understand how crowds work.

    I wish the Italians had recruited a few New Orleans police, or maybe some police from Rio to show them how it's done. Maybe that guy would be alive today had they done so.

    This tragic death looks to me to have been 100% preventable, and the death should be lamented by both sides. I personally would like to see the violent protests denounced out of existence by the larger protest movement (and everyone!), however I will strongly denounce the Italian government for being so foolish as to let this happen. They damn well knew the protesters were going to come, they knew some would be violent, and they were unprepared. I read someone had a link to Washington DC's summit, and how they don't anticipate violence... here's hoping their eyes are opened wide, and they get some real crowd control in there to handle it.

    It seems to me this death should not be a rallying cry, but rather a call for pause, introspection, and to let cooler heads prevail. Once that pause occurs, we can begin to discuss issues on their merits rather than the killing power of a rock vs. a fire extinguisher vs. a handgun.
    My Music

    Overall planning aside... (2.50 / 2) (#209)
    by mindstrm on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 11:23:36 AM EST

    I mean, even if the police could have handled it better; rioting crowds throwing blunt objects have been known to simply beat people to death. A mob of people violently attacking a few police officers, what do you expect to happen? "Oh, it's not their fault, it's a riot." Sorry. What were the cops supposed to do; risk their lives even further so some idiots could beat them? how does beating up cops equate to protesting?


    Lets' change the scenario even. Let's say it's not a protest; 15 people jump on a cop car and try to break the windows in order to drag the cops out of the car and beat them, perhaps to death. Would anyone blame the cops for fragging someone? I doubt it.



    [ Parent ]
    What are these protests about? (3.50 / 8) (#128)
    by adamba on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:05:28 AM EST

    The anti-globalization movement has (in its brief history) always had so many goals, stated so generally, that it is hard to see what the point was. Compare it to an anti-war march: what specific goals do AG protesters want? What events would cause them to decide that they had succeeded and could stop protesting?

    Now it appears that they have reduced the protesting to its purest essence, that is simply protesting because they can. The protests serve to test the boundaries of how much they can get away with and how much they can disrupt large political meetings. What is being protested against is the limits that police and other security officers can place on the ability or everyday citizens to protest and disrupt.

    Thus, their goal has become one of preventing these meetings, and they will judge the movement a success when those meetings cease to occur -- no matter what working conditions are in the Third World, or how much American culture has been exported, or how much genetically modified food is being eaten.

    People are of course free to protest whatever they want, and it appears that the protests will continue until G8, WTO, IMF, and their ilk stop having meetings -- or stop having meetings that can be disrupted.

    - adam

    There's something for everybody to hate. (4.33 / 3) (#145)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:43:04 AM EST

    Libertarians dislike the statism. Democrats want democracy. Christian liberals want debt relief and substantive charity. Anti-capitalists oppose the capitalism of it. Environmentalists want to save the Earth. Labor wants a seat at the table.

    That's just the top of the list. If you look at a specific organization, like the AFL-CIO, or the Roman Catholic Church, you will find that their demands are as specific as you want. But if you attempt to take all of them and blur them into a single entity, you will get a very incoherent message. I think you have taken the goals of some of the violent anarchists -- protesting becaues they can -- and used them to represent all of those diverse groups. You're the one at fault for that, not the various groups that have gathered to protest. Asking them to come up with a single sound bite that they all agree on and that is easy for you to understand is unrealistic.

    The reality of human political activity is that the larger the coalition, the more simplistic the message. None of these facts make the G8 or the WTO or the IMF any more right. It only shows how many different kinds of enemies they have, and how few (albeit quite rich and powerful) their supporters are.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    title goes here (3.00 / 3) (#153)
    by adamba on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:32:38 PM EST

    I'm not talking about the violent protestors. The bulk of the protestors seem to be people who think, "Big meeting of Western government heads = time to protest". Let's say someone disagrees with the IMF. So why don't they protest at an IMF meeting? Because there isn't one going on now. So it's off to the G8 meeting to protest.

    Sure the AFL-CIO and the Roman Catholic Church aren't fighting for the same things. But they also don't protest together. Yes, larger coalitions work best with a simple message. That is my point, that anti-globalization has too many messages and no clear goal it is fighting for, that would determine success and the end of the protests. The protests will end when the meetings end, thus the implicit goal of the protests is to end the meetings, no more and no less.

    - adam

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know where you're getting your information (4.33 / 3) (#157)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 01:21:10 PM EST

    The Catholic protesters have indeed protested together with unions like the AFL-CIO, in Quebec, for example. To say that all of these groups -- Greenpeace, or Public Citizen, for example -- exist only to stop meetings is a little strange. Almost every major group existed long before these globalization protests started about two years ago. Why would they suddenly disappear without the meetings? I think maybe you are confused becase the stated goal of some groups has been simply to stop meetings, and in many cases that goal is the only thing that multiple factions could agree on. Now, there is one faction, the camp followers, who do seem to exist soley for these meetings. I think they are left over deadheads who have switched to following these summits around. They would probably go away without the meetings. And those damaging property and engaging in violence would no doubt slink away without these things to attract them.

    But again, yes, there is no one single, clear demand that "the protesors" are making, which, if answered, would satisfy all of them. Each individual group will go on working towards whatever goals it exists for. If one of them has its goals met, it will either find a new purpose or fade away. So, are you saying that is somehow bad? That they are at fault? If there is any fault, it lies in the way that this supra-national authority that is being built has a hand in so many different things. It is to be expected that it encouners resistance from all of the many directions it is advancing in. The only other place to look to blame someone, in the US at least, is the Democratic Party. Due to the weak and embarrasing leadership of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, the USian Left has fallen apart. The Party went for the Center, and eveyone else went their own way. Had the Democrats not abandoned the Left, then there would have at least been a debate over globalization in the last election, for example, and in Congress today. That would have meant that not so many would feel shut out and ignored, as they are today.

    As far as protesting IMF meetings, they do protest those. The thing is, it really is all about the G8 (really the G7). Whether they are operating with the WTO or the IMF or whatever, it is the same players again and again who are calling the shots. That small group of countries is the group with the power and the money. That's why this small group of eight countries decided that the UN would only spend one tenth as much on AIDS as is needed.

    So out of all the places you could go to protest, the G8 is by far the best choice. That's the source right there. The others are sideshows in comparison.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    camp followers (3.00 / 3) (#164)
    by adamba on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 03:37:22 PM EST

    I never said the groups existed to stop the meetings. I said that most of the people who were protesting there, if they had any reason at all, were doing it to stop the meetings. Of course there is a core who actually understand the issues and genuinely feel that participating in these protests will help their cause, but I do not think that is the majority. And certainly the only thing that unites these protesters is anti-meeting sentiment. Maybe we are just disagreeing on how many people there are "camp followers" as you put it.

    Faulting the Democratic Party for this is just absurd. Pick any issue that the groups involved care about, and the Democratic Party is closer to their position. The only exception is the generic anti-world-government-black-helicopters-back-of-stop-signs feeling that hangs over all of this. Do you also blame the Italian protestor for being shot, since he neglected to jump out of the way of the bullets?

    Yes, they do protests IMF. And WTO. And G8. And Davos. They all do, all of a sudden. Why? That's my point.

    - adam

    [ Parent ]

    They don't deliver. (4.00 / 1) (#166)
    by elenchos on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:28:19 PM EST

    This reminds me of someone telling me what a wonderful set of positions Al Gore takes on the environment -- in his book. The problem is not his stated beliefs, it is his actions: his voting record, and governance, and his flaccid silence on the campaign trail. The same with the Democrat platform. Nice, but where's the action? In practice moderate Repbublicans and Democrats are so close that they can slip across the aisle with hardly a flutter. If the Democrats acted like a real opposition party, instead of lapdogs, they might have some of this pent-up energy behind them, instead of spilling out into the streets. But they know where the money to elect them comes from, and that is what determines policy. Hence the grassroots outrage.

    I've been looking for accurate demographics on these protestors for quite some time. I keep finding people with strong opinions as to what percentage are violent, or what percentage are commited, or how many of them are really well-informed. But so far no one can tell me where this information comes from. Can you? How do you know so much about their makeup?

    You're the first person to ask me who I blame for this shooting. I think anybody who trifles with the Carabinieri is mad: they are heavily-armed, ill-trained, violent, dangerous, conscript thugs. They should not be confused with real police officers. It is very likely that a real, professional cop in the same circumstances would have not had to shoot, let alone kill, anyone. But based soley on the photographs and one eyewitness account, I think the Carabinieri should not be considered guilty of manslaugher, and he will most likely not be. I wouldn't be surprised if they kick him out of the Carabinieri, though I don't see how his conduct could be construed as being below the standards of that organization.

    I think it was a terrible mistake to use the Carabinieri in this situation, and it will lead to more violence, and will serve only to raise the stakes and galvanize opposition to these governments and their policies.

    "Who's making personal remarks now?" the Hatter asked triumphantly.
    --Alice in Wonderland
    [ Parent ]

    demographics (3.66 / 3) (#190)
    by adamba on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:55:17 AM EST

    I agree the Democrats botched the election horribly, Al Gore is a lousy campaigner, etc. I thought his voting record was pretty consistent?!? Or did he "get" environmentalism after he was a Senator?

    I have no hard facts on demographics. My only real sense for it comes from having been at some of the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999.

    I watched the main protest march (which was completely peaceful). It went something like this: You had ten people in a sea turtle costume, or carrying a banner for some organization, etc. Then you had maybe 20 or 30 people walking behind the banner, strolling their kids, etc. Then the next organization, and so on. That's not precise, of course. And I'm not knocking that, I assume most rallies are like that. But the sense I got was that there was a committed minority who had possibly travelled from a distance, or prepared in some way, and then you had some local people who had come down for the event and were tagging along to show support.

    I also watched some of the confrontations between protesters and police. Again, you had a small number who were actually wearing gas masks, or forming human chains, or hanging a banner on a building (or spray-painting a windows, but forget those people). The rest were just milling around, checking things out (like I was).

    The main thing that struck me was that the people protesting (with the exception of labor unions) were most definitely *not* the ones who were being affected by the issues. It was a bunch of white, twentysomething people. So they probably directly or indirectly had the time to do this protesting because of the good economy, and they probably travelled to Seattle on cheap airfare, and their signs and tape and markers and gas masks were cheaper because of the world economy...so it struck me as a bit incongruous that they were protesting the effects of capitalism.

    I also more recently saw a picture of someone who was trying to get to Quebec for the protests there, who had been refused entry to Canada. He was holding up a sign that said "Borders Suck." Think about that.

    So I don't have any hard facts, but that is some of the basis for my opinion of the protests. Not the only basis, this has been borne out by what I have read about other protests.

    - adam

    [ Parent ]

    Here's one megacorp that loves to make enemies (3.00 / 5) (#217)
    by hotcurry on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:08:06 PM EST

    It's like they go out of their way to tick everyone off, and act surprised when people get mad:

    "Microsoft's institutional arrogance tends to irritate everyone the company deals with, but judges are inappropriate targets for this kind of behavior, because they don't have to put up with it." - Dan Gilmor

    The DOJ and states vs. Microsoft <hr> Caldera vs. Microsoft
    93-Sep DDJ: Schulman: Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code

    If you were one of the thousands of Windows 3.1 beta testers, and if you happened to be using DR DOS rather than MS-DOS, you probably butted heads with a seemingly innocuous, yet odd, error message like that in Figure 1. As you'll see, this message is a visible manifestation of a chunk of code whose implementation is technically slippery and evasive.

    While it's impossible to gauge intent, the apparent purpose of this code is to lay down arbitrary technical obstacles for DOS-workalike programs. The message appears with the release labeled "final beta release (build 61)" (dated December 20, 1991), and with "pre-release build 3.10.068" (January 21, 1992). Similar messages (with different error numbers) are produced in builds 61 and 68 by MN.COM, SETUP.EXE, and by the versions of HIMEM.SYS, SMARTDRV.EXE, and MSD.EXE (Microsoft diagnostics) packaged with Windows.

    ...
    The first step in discovering why the error message appeared under DR DOS but not MS-DOS was to examine the relevant WIN.COM code. However, the WIN.COM code that produced this message turned out to be XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated--all in an apparent attempt to thwart disassembly.

    96-Jul Caldera Sues Microsoft
    Dr. Dobbs' on Caldera sabotage
    98-Aug CNet: Microsoft discussed Windows bug
    99-Aug 9th Circuit: appeal of injunction
    99-Nov Techweb: Caldera vs. Microsoft Will Go To Jury Trial
    00-Jan CNet: Lawsuit settled
    00-Jan ZDNet: Urban Legends In Antitrust Land
    00-Jan Salt Lake Tribune: Microsoft Antitrust Files Unsealed: Employee ordered to delete 'questionable' e-mails, according to documents released from Caldera trial
    00-Feb O'Reilly: The Caldera v. Microsoft Dossier <hr> Sun Microsystems vs. Microsoft (Java Wars)
    98-Nov Preliminary injunction
    00-Jan CNet: Judge restricts Microsoft's use of Java
    00-Feb CNet: Judge rejects key Microsoft motion in Java dispute
    00-Feb Computerworld: Microsoft and Java: It's over
    00-May CNet: Microsoft wins another round in Java battle <hr> Bristol
    98-Aug ZDNet: Bristol, Microsoft Don The Gloves
    99-Jul Tech Law Journal: Bristol Technology v. Microsoft
    99-Jul Tech Law Jpournal: Jury Returns Verdict for Microsoft in Bristol Antitrust Case (the infamous dollar)
    00-Sep ZDNet: 'Wanton' Microsoft ordered to pay Bristol $1m
    00-Sep The Register: MS could still be found guilty in Bristol antitrust case
    00-Nov NandO: The Nando Times: Microsoft ordered to pay legal fees from antitrust suit <hr> Employee and contractor suits
    Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong contractor suit
    99-Dec: Vizcaino v. Microsoft (contractor benefits)
    ... 00-Jan: ABCNews: Temp Worker Blow for MS
    00-Sep CNet: Former Microsoft worker wins suit over options
    00-Dec Computerworld: Microsoft to pay $97 million to settle permatemp case
    00-Jan CNet: More plaintiffs line up in Microsoft discrimination case
    01-Mar CNet: Jackson exits Microsoft discrimination case Theft of intellectual property <hr> Miscellaneous suits and investigations
    98-Jul: International: Microsoft pays $5m for Internet Explorer name (1998/07/06)
    99-Jun: Blue Mountain Arts (greeting cards)
    In November of 1998 Blue Mountain Arts discovered evidence that a number of personalized Blue Mountain electronic greeting cards had been diverted to junk mail trash by Microsoft Corporation. Blue Mountain voiced strong objections to Microsoft over this conduct to no avail. In addition, some Blue Mountain cards were blocked by Microsoft's WebTV Networks, so, on December 8,1998, Blue Mountain filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and its subsidiary WebTV.

    99-Dec Yahoo Corel lawsuit challenges government contract
    99-Dec Washington Post In Race to Sue Microsoft, Some Trip
    99-Dec CNet: Microsoft foes plot class-action strategy
    00-Apr CNet: Microsoft now faces slew of civil lawsuits
    00-Jul Business Week: Why Microsoft May Not Be Swamped by Private Lawsuits
    00-Oct CNet: Digital Divas wins battle with Microsoft
    00-Nov Wired: Microsoft Loses Disability Case
    01-Feb CNet: Microsoft too itchy with Palm; FTC charges deceptive ads
    01-Jun CNet: InterTrust to use patent against Microsoft - Tech News - CNET.com
    News: Kodak tangles with Microsoft over Win XP

    [ Parent ]
    My little screed on security force armament (3.16 / 6) (#138)
    by flameboy on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:29:07 AM EST

    Ok I don't want to get into whether the police are right or wrong in these situations. But my problem is that police/military forces know beforehand that there is most probably going to be some violence. They know this and they arm themselves with real ammunition. We have so many non-lethal weapons that are available including rubber bullets, mace/pepper sprays, water sprays, even battons. Why are these troops been given live bullets? Even worse they are been mainly given 5.56mm rifles which fire ammunition which tumbles upon impact, cause vicious wounds which will scar people for life, or as we have seen worse. I can understand that the police wish to defend themselves but why give them real bullets in the clip in the weapon? A rubber bullet at close range will stop you pretty damn well, a spray will put you into a world of hurt.

    violence feeds itself (4.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Pink Daisy on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 11:23:33 AM EST

    I remember a few years ago police being overwhelmed and conferences shut down. The police responded with rubber bullets and tear gas. Now they expect to get firebombs thrown at them. Under the circumstances, I think they are showing great skill and restraint, and I can't blame them for having weapons that can kill.

    Police are there as a job, and they take what they need to do the job. They won't give up. If someone is going to tone down the violence, it has to be the protesters. I realize most of them are peaceful, but as long as there are large groups of them who are quite happy to attack police with various weapons, the violence will continue.

    [ Parent ]

    rubber bullets (4.00 / 3) (#187)
    by physicsgod on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:20:56 AM EST

    At close range rubber bullets are just as lethal as the regular kind, especially when fired at the center of mass.

    I also find your comment about tumbling bullets rather...interesting, since the flight time of a tumbling object is rather short.

    As for why give the police real bullets, Italy had a problem with terrorists back in the '70's, and is probably a little slow to back down.

    --- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
    [ Parent ]
    Tumbling bullets (3.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 06:41:49 AM EST

    I once saw a documentary about the development of the M-16 that mentioned this. Apparenly smaller caliber bullets tend to tumble around once they hit something soft, while larger caliber bullets don't. This tumbling allows a smaller bullet to do just as much damage as a larger one.

    [ Parent ]
    Not surprising... (4.00 / 3) (#226)
    by physicsgod on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 05:39:09 PM EST

    Considering how many different forces come into play when a bullet goes from air to flesh, it's just that larger bullets have more momentum that overwhelms those effects.

    As an aside, does anybody know if anyone tried dimpeled balls back in the day of muzzel loaders?

    --- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
    [ Parent ]
    I just think it's funny (3.87 / 8) (#152)
    by billman on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:10:26 PM EST

    I just think it's funny that these protesters are in part protesting the Westernization of other countries but in most cases it's the Western legal system that prevents the police from just mowing the entire crowd down with bullets.

    Say what? (3.25 / 4) (#173)
    by jwilliam on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 05:44:21 PM EST

    Oh mighty white man! Please give us morality so that we may no longer kill one another!

    Sarcasm aside, the "Western legal system" didn't do much to prevent Kent State. I believe there are similiar well known incidences of British soldiers mowing down crowds of Indians during their little anti-imperialistic movement.

    You also have to take into account whether it is the legal system, or the existence of a form of democracy which makes the people committing the actions more accountable to the public.

    Which brings up an interesting point, both the legal system and democracy are effective in preventing tragedies like this because both enforce a form of public accountability. And fancy that, accountability is precisely one of the reasons why people are protesting against the WTO and IMF. Hmmmmmmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    meanwhile in MODERN times... (3.40 / 5) (#181)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:06:43 PM EST

    Things have changed considerably since kent state, and since ghandi's time. Though many principles apply, the analogies do not.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    A bit short on specifics here. (4.00 / 1) (#220)
    by hotcurry on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 03:22:07 PM EST

    What exactly has changed, and how does it pertain?

    [ Parent ]
    protestor rights (3.33 / 3) (#233)
    by rebelcool on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 08:30:15 PM EST

    protestors are given far more leeway today than in the past. Kent State was during a time when student protests were just becoming in vogue. A tragedy it was - but unlikely it will happen again.

    Ghandi was during the time of imperial conquest of india by britain. That kind of thing has disappeared from the world. There is no longer any imperialism (despite what the 'down with imperial usa!' folks say...the usa does not own and subjugate other countries), and it is unlikely that in any democratic country that peaceful, non-violent protestors who are merely marching without causing a ruckus would be beaten and killed.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Please step down off your high horse (4.25 / 4) (#196)
    by billman on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:37:25 AM EST

    No, it's not the mighty white man syndrome. It's the reality that many (but not all) of the countries that they are protesting the westernization of don't offer their own citizens the freedoms that would allow for these kinds of public protests.

    And if you want to step a little farther into the pool of irony, what makes the protesters any better than the WTO/IMF/G8? Are they not also speaking for people who:

    a) have not requested their voice
    b) they have little in common with and know little about

    I would hazard to guess that 98% of those protesting have never set foot in the countries for which they claim to speak for. I would also hazard to guess that they do not even know anybody from any of those countries. So, who asked them to protest? Are they not also just as guilty of imposing their world view though they don't necessarily profit from it? I see a hell of a lot of white people at these protests but as far as I know, very few third world countries are comprised primarily of white people.

    And you can draw Kent State analogies all day long but I think they point more to the fact that very few Kent State protesters gave one rat's ass about the Vietnamese. They had friends and relatives who were dying. They might be asked to go and die. The protests were not about what was in the best interests of the Vietnamese people, rather what was in the best interests of the individual students.

    Bottom line is that I can agree with some of the ideals that the protesters claim to stand for. Not all but some. And even then I sometimes have trouble with the ideal vs. the reality of people starving in the streets. But the one thing I can tell you is that these protesters have no desire to accomplish their stated goals. They are simply media whores. I remember when Greenpeace was invited to attend international talks on whaling. Instead of using that opportunity to accomplish the goal of putting limits on whaling, one of the Greenpeace members used the camera time to walk up to the Japaneese delegate and throw a cup of blood on him. Great for the cameras but as many members of Greenpeace later stated, it probably set back the goal of whaling limits several years.

    Just because you have a noble cause does not make you a noble person.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh? (4.66 / 3) (#205)
    by jwilliam on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:44 AM EST

    (1) I didn't dispute the fact that many countries, including those undergoing trade liberalization, could be quite messed politically. I would question whether or not the concepts of public accountability and democracy, which I see as being the main influences on reducing public massacre, are purely western concepts. I would have to talk to someone with a significant background in sociology or non-western history before ruling out the possibility that these concepts have existed elsewhere (or talk to *anyone* who has positive verifiable evidence otherwise).

    (2) You make it sound like the international financial organizations are going around trying to "westernize" countries by telling them that they have to alter their laws to allow for protest and freedom of speech. Hate to break it to you, but the international financial organizations could probley care less. I imagine they would have to reject the idea of having a meeting in Qatar if they truly valued these.

    (3) Did you have any particular point with your ad hominem against the Kent state students? I didn't mention their motivation at all, I was merely pointing out that having a "western legal system" doesn't prevent Bad Things from happening.

    (4) Looking at the list of endorsers on www.50years.org seems to indicate that there is definite dialogue with people in under developed countries (Philippines, India, Senegal, Mauritius, Brazil, Macedonia, and Pakistan are explicitly referred to. They mention organizations like the Nicaragua Network which, while being based in the US, do have contacts within Nicaragua proper). Here's a post talking about NGO resistant to the WTO in underdeveloped nations

    This article mentions that during the Seattle summit the *delegates* from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America lodged formal complains about the proceedings.

    Jubilee 2000 who was prominent at the IMF gatherings in DC last year (and who were apperently in Genoa) have an extensive list of links of participating groups in other countries (17 in africa, 7 in Asia, 9 in Europe, 12 in Latin America, 1 in America, 1 in Oceania).

    Third World Network contains alot of critiques of the globalization policies and seems to have extensive offices and affiliates around the globe.

    And, uhhh, I'm sure I could get more references, but not sure it's worth the effort.

    No clue what your referring to with Greenpeace, but they appear to have been active participants on the National Whaling Commission for several years. Looking at their list of things they've taken action against which came true, it's hard to believe that there is no desire to achieve their goals. As for as there being activists who don't quite grasp tactical or strategic subtetlies which can go into successfull campaigns, I fully agree. I imagine your generalization that all of the protestors don't care about their goal is pretty vacuous though.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh? Sigh? (3.66 / 3) (#215)
    by billman on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:47:44 PM EST

    >I imagine your generalization that all >of the protestors don't care about their >goal is pretty vacuous though.

    I thought I was pretty clear that I did believe that there was a small minority who actually believe and know what they believe in. The rest I believe are simply along for the ride.

    1) Much like you, I can't really debate this subject with any degree of authority but my assumptions in my original statement were that:

    • Democracy is usually attributed to the Greeks which would make it a "Western" concept.
    • Most of what we refer to today as "laws" are based on common laws originated/formalized by the English.

    Is it possible the the Incas had some sense of democratic institutions or some form of legal system? Sure, but since the ideals were mostly developed and propogated by the West (think: Roman Empire, British Empire, Spanish Empire, etc. as well as those who came and studied these concepts before returning to thier homelands) I would call them Western in nature. Like I said, I can't really debate you on whether some civilization 5000 years ago had laws or whatever but I think my generalization on this is widely enough understood that I didn't think I would have to.

    2) No actually that was not my point at all but rather your reading of it because you do not agree with my original premise. I doubt the G8 or the WTO or whoever cares about freedom of speech or is trying to bring it to any of these countries. I'm simply stating that if these meetings were happening in some of these countries, many of these protesters would have "disappeared". Police would have come in the night, taken them out to some remote area and put a bullet in the back of their heads. For good measure they might have even cut off their heads and stuck them on poles outside the hotels where other protesters are staying. And that was what I found to ironic in my original post. They have to protest in countries that actually respect and practice Western forms of democracy and law otherwise this movement would be very short lived (or the protesters themselves would be very short lived, one of the two).

    3) The point I was trying to make regarding Kent State is that just because the cause seems noble does not mean that everyone believes in it for the same reasons. To address your point though, yes bad things happen. Bad things will always happen. That's called life. Some kid in the National Gaurd who drinks beer all weekend while dressed in a military uniform and calls that training can and sometimes will freak out. Have you ever been in a riot or a violent protest? It's friggin scary. For both sides. It's loud, noisy, it's very confusing, and if you're some undertrained National Guardsman, you are probably in fear of your life. So, given those circumstances, yes, under any rule of law, if can get real ugly, real fast.

    I find it funny to call my comments an ad hominem but tell me how something that happened 30 years ago is somehow relevent with what just happened in Genoa other than when you scare the sh*t out of someone with a gun, the chances for bad stuff happening go up astronomically.

    4) Not exactly sure I'm willing to take biased news reports and statements as proof of anything. I'm not shutting my mind to the fact that some of what they say is true but I would rather it come from an slightly less biased source. Despite that, the point is that all in all, the actual ELECTED/APPOINTED representatives from those countries probably are not advocates of the violence. It is probably doing their cause more harm than good because they are seen as allied with radical groups prone to violence. Given a choice, I'm sure they would much rather have peaceful protests while that raised public awareness while they sought legal avenues to remedy the situation.

    I think you may have missed my point on Greenpeace (which was probably my fault for not being more clear). Greenpeace is above all else, a money raising organization. They raise money. Then they use that money to fight for what they believe in. But raising money is first because without the money they can't fight. So, while they may believe in whaling limits, throwing blood on the Japaneese delegate in front of the world press brings in millions of dollars from supporters. Even if being barred from the proceedings and pissing off one of the world's biggest offenders right as many on the commission felt he was ready to make some concessions may set the cause back, it brings in millions in funding and huge public support. Now this is not unique to Greenpeace, I think every major political party practices it. It's just that you have to look at what kinds of things would actually bring change. Do you really believe radicals throwing fire extinguishers and destroying shops is going to get these protesters any sort of real attention from the G8? Or do you think if they would have put that energy into raising public awareness via peaceful protests and passionate debate they would be on a better path? Right now, the only money these groups are going to be able to attract is from people with radical viewpoints who will further the radical actions at future events until their is actually a call to crack down on the protesters. Until there is widespread hatred and condemnation of them. So are they furthering their goals or are they simply seeking their 15 minutes of fame but ultimately dooming their cause? I think the later which is sad because I do feel they have some valid points to make.

    [ Parent ]

    Kent State (4.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Jonathan on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 09:05:47 AM EST

    Actually, Kent State was quite similar to the current situation -- a bunch of spoiled upper-middle class college students were taunting a bunch of working class National Guardsmen who were trying to keep the peace at at protest, and one of these Guardsmen finally snapped and opened fire. There was no deep conspiracy -- what the Guardsman did was illegal and he went to jail for it.

    Now, British colonialism was entirely different -- they really didn't see the natives as full human beings, and so brutality was an accepted tool for keeping the natives in line. However such actions were never considered against Europeans.

    I'm still puzzled about how anti-globalization has become a leftist cause, though. Nationalism is the major sentiment against globalization, and that has traditionally been a rightist cause.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (4.00 / 3) (#189)
    by delmoi on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:49:33 AM EST

    Obviously, These people want less westernization in Europe
    --
    "'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
    [ Parent ]
    Irony? Maybe. (4.66 / 3) (#238)
    by MrEd on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:18:29 AM EST

    Obligatory lyrix from one of my favorite bands.

    And yes I recognize the irony
    that the system I oppose affords me the luxury
    of biting the hand that feeds -

    But that's exactly why privileged fucks like me
    should feel obliged to whine and kick and scream
    Till everyone has everything they need.

    Watch out for the k5 superiority complex!


    [ Parent ]
    a criticism of the police (3.40 / 5) (#154)
    by Pink Daisy on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:37:55 PM EST

    I believe that these activists should more deservingly be called terrorists. Still, a tragedy has occured, and the best thing to do now is ask, what led to it, and how do we stop it from happening again. I don't have any answers, but this springs to my mind:

    Some reports identify the police as paramilitary. What are their regular duties? Are they trained in dealing with [large, hostile, armed] crowds? A fire extinguisher is a weapon, but its destructive power doesn't really match a gun; it seems like at the least they used too much force in this situation.

    How were they equipped? In other places, tear gas and water cannons were used. What about rubber bullets; why not in this case? What weapons (besides large fire extinguishers) did the protesters there have? What would have been the most suitable level of force to use in response?

    There was a large hostile crowd. I doubt Italy alone provided all the violent malcontents. Why were they let in? They wouldn't let in English soccer hooligans; why would they allow violent G8 protesters in? Does no one keep track of these people? Perhaps someone should.

    Why was the police vehicle in a position to be attacked? Was it driving through a crowd? An area where there was likely to be problems? Could alternative transportation arrangements have avoided (or at least reduced) the possibility of confrontation?

    I'm of the opinion that these violent protests should stop. But as long as they happen, the police response should be responsible. I'm not saying it was irresponsible in Genoa; I don't know. But even if what happened was completely justified on the scene, better preparations could likely have prevented this. If the protesters aren't willing to become less violent, the police must give them fewer opportunities to become violent.

    fire extinguisher = big grenade (3.83 / 6) (#168)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:48:18 PM EST

    if its punctured it'll blow into shrapnel and kill everyone in that vehicle.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
    [ Parent ]

    Obligatory Fight Club reference (4.25 / 8) (#163)
    by flieghund on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:53:45 PM EST

    After Bob gets shot by the security guard, Jack points out: "You morons! You're running around in ski masks, blowing stuff up! What did you expect?!"

    A bad turn of events, to be sure, but you (read: violent "protesters") have to have some kind of gall to act surprised. You are throwing heavy objects at a man with a gun. At some point, the police officer stops being a "protector of the peace" and reverts to his basic human nature with its strong will to survive. Shooting you is the better option than being hit with a heavy blunt object.

    Having been accidentally hit with a much smaller fire extinguisher once, I can attest that having one of the size in question hurled at you is indeed a life-threatening situation. Not to mention the potential for a deadly explosion (shrapnel) if said extinguisher were to be punctured, say, from the big chunk of wood being rammed into the police vehicle from the other side.

    This was not a tragedy, folks, this was Darwin Award material. A tragedy is the Middle East killing of a six-month-old baby that gets five seconds on the evening news for a single night, while a story on the Russian cat circus gets a minute and a half.



    Using a Macintosh is like picking your nose: everyone likes to do it, but no one will admit to it.
    Tragedy (4.50 / 2) (#235)
    by Pseudonym on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 11:02:27 PM EST

    This was not a tragedy, folks, this was Darwin Award material.
    Actually, it was a "tragedy" in the true sense. A true tragedy is not a random unfortunate occurrence. It's the culmination of sowing the seeds of one's own destruction. (See also: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet etc.)



    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    [ Parent ]
    A lesson to be learned: (3.75 / 8) (#170)
    by rebelcool on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:58:34 PM EST

    Do not attack people with guns, when all you have is blunt instruments.

    Reminds me of that scene in indiana jones and the temple of doom, where the swordsman does his fancy thing and indy just shoots him.

    COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

    That was Raider of the Lost Ark <nt> (none / 0) (#212)
    by Kasreyn on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:12:25 PM EST

    nt means no text!
    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    And in Temple of Doom... (none / 0) (#236)
    by magney on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 01:37:42 AM EST

    ...they have a reference to the scene in Lost Ark, where Indy grins and reaches for his belt, and the grin slowly melts away as he realizes he doesn't have his gun with him.

    Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    [ Parent ]

    Scumbags. (3.28 / 7) (#174)
    by darthaya on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 05:44:41 PM EST

    It is not even funny to see how many ignorant and self-absorbed people on this planet would consider the foolish actions by the so-called protesters "tragic".

    Reason 1: It is a Summit of 8 countries's leaders talking about the globalization issues. If you don't agree with their views, geez, stop being a coward and try to violate them (or any related staff) physically, work on it at home: join a political party and work toward your goal fiercely. Think about it, if you become that country's leader or a influential political figure, you can do much much much more to your goal than throwing bricks or cans at polices who guard them. I mean, it wouldn't even cause a scrach on them, would it?

    Reason 2: Even if you are a wimp and want to do things in the more stupid way, try a peaceful protest, a hunger strike, peaceful march, rather than the violent and harmful and suicidal charge toward armed police. Rational and educated people tend to take the former way more seriously, and think of the latter as mere andreline rush.

    Conclusion: the protesters are self-absorbed, ignorant, unemployeed social scumbags who only want to have a andreline pump, simply put this way. I respect the 1989 Tiananmen square student protesters a lot more. To the protesters in Genoa, I have only disgust.



    please explain, (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by poltroon on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 07:21:33 PM EST

    why someone who views the death of this man as tragic is therefore self-absorbed. Are people who delight in his death and call him stupid somehow more virtuous and humanitarian?

    Do you seriously think these protesters spend the rest of their time sitting around eating doritos or something? Why would you think they aren't actively involved in political organizations? The vast majority of protesters are nonviolent. Just because they're all treated by the police and media like violent thugs doesn't mean they all are, although I wouldn't be surprised if some people who never planned to resort to stone throwing might turn to it when agitated by police. We saw this in Seattle, where hoards of peaceful protesters sitting/standing around in the streets descended into mayhem when the police started shooting and lobbing teargas all over the place.

    [ Parent ]

    Not all of them. (2.66 / 3) (#182)
    by darthaya on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:30:11 PM EST

    I should have said this explicitly in my previous post. :-)

    I dont mean all of them are scumbags. I only despise those who devoted themselves into violent physical contact with the armed police. Because their IQs are as high as my toenails, they can only think of the most inefficient and fruitless way to achieve their goals.

    When it comes to "agitated by the police", haha, that is one wonderful excuse for the Chinese communist government who commanded tanks to run over the students in 1989. heh, the goddamn students agitated us so to hell with the rules and the civilized way to handle things, we are going to teach them a lesson!

    And btw, Doritos is a wonderful snack for a late night debugging. :-) It is so addictive that you are urged to finish the whole bag non-stop.



    [ Parent ]

    What if you've tried all this and it didn't work? (4.00 / 2) (#228)
    by jeremiah2 on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 06:32:52 PM EST

    Persuasion isn't much use without the threat of violence behind it. And if they call your bluff, you'd better not be bluffing.
    Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit
    [ Parent ]
    Fucking protesters... (2.80 / 5) (#183)
    by joto on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 09:30:38 PM EST

    The global anti-globalization movement is really starting to get on my nerves. The reason: they seem totally unwilling and/or unable to clean up in their own ranks.

    Personally, I sympathise a lot with their cause and political views, but allowing those 1% or so to make all of them look like hooligans and idiots is just plain stupid.

    It doesn't even look like they are aware of the issue. Do they think the public will become more understanding to the unfairness in global politics by raiding peaceful towns, throwing rocks and fire-extinguishers at friendly police-officers and random shoplifting? If they really want to raise public awareness to the issue, they should clean up among their own ranks first, and gain sympathy in peaceful demonstrations instead of acting like complete morons. I'll take it as granted that very few people who actually have anything to contribute would even consider joining their movement now, personally I wouldn't even touch them with a ten-foot pole.

    Impossible. (4.66 / 3) (#225)
    by crealf on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 05:23:53 PM EST

    The global anti-globalization movement is really starting to get on my nerves. The reason: they seem totally unwilling and/or unable to clean up in their own ranks.

    How do you expect them to "clean up their own ranks" ? Hints: when were the US cleaned up from all crimes ? what police power is granted to the "good" protesters ? Are they supposed to say "go away, or..." to identified trouble seekers ?

    FYI, such events happens in all big protestations (and there are a lot in Europe)... farmers, students, generalized strike, ... Even if unions have people specially trained to cope with trouble seekers, they can't do a perfect job.

    [ Parent ]

    Not at all impossible (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by joto on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:56:02 PM EST

    How do you expect them to "clean up their own ranks" ?

    By being responsible, organizing themselves and cooperating with the police to get a peaceful well-organized demonstration.

    Hints: when were the US cleaned up from all crimes ?

    Hint to hinter: Who the fuck introduced "all"?

    what police power is granted to the "good" protesters ?

    None. You don't need police power to ask troubleseekers to go away.

    Are they supposed to say "go away, or..." to identified trouble seekers ?

    Yes. That would be a good idea.

    FYI, such events happens in all big protestations (and there are a lot in Europe)... farmers, students, generalized strike, ...

    No, it doesn't. Most demonstrations in Europe are quite peaceful, thank you. Usually people don't get shot, and they don't tend to loot or throw bricks/stones/etc at the police.

    Even if unions have people specially trained to cope with trouble seekers, they can't do a perfect job.

    They do, and nobody is asking them to do a perfect job. Why are you so fucking obsessed by everything having to be perfect? But there is always room for improvement, and in this case there is not only room, but a loud crying yell. Do you want people to stop using seat belts, because they can't save every life in traffic-accidents?

    [ Parent ]

    So what about this? (3.66 / 3) (#195)
    by tagplazen on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 02:24:40 AM EST

    Cut and paste from Indymedia

    "update 1:20 GMT July 22: Cell phone call ins,and indy reports are keeping us updated with events from Genova. An hour ago, police stormed the building that hosted the IMC with tear gas and batons, and the building opposite that hosted other GSF groups. About ten people escaped from windows. The police held people and took IDs. According to the medics on the scene, there have been approximately 20 seriously injured people from police violence. Corporate media have been reporting 3 dead, but those reports have NOT been confirmed, and medics said this was not true. Blood which stained the streets outside the imc quickly disappeared. Numbers of people arrested have not been relased yet.

    The school opposite the IMC building was where the worst police violence occured. Floors are covered in blood. Police assault lasted over 45 minutes. Several people have been carried out in black bags. The people in the street were chanting en masse "fascist" and "bastardo". The wounded were carried out on strechers continuously and taken to ambulances that arrived with the police. Police sealed off street by surprise and a helicopter remained low overhead like a military operation. A temporary hospital was set up on the 1st floor of the IMC building to treat wounded."

    Indymedia is not involved in the protests per se, just centers set up to give an alternate news source around the country/world, so why does the Italian government need to shut them down so desperately that blood needs to be on the floors and walls? Kind of makes you wonder. ;-)

    If you visit Indymedia they have the photos on their main page, no link directly to the story I could find for a perm link.


    ph34r me! i own a pink gameboy!!

    That gives me an idea for a protester tactic: (2.33 / 6) (#203)
    by decoy on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 06:28:09 AM EST

    Step One: Aquire large amounts of animal blood from a butcher shop.
    Step Two: Attend a antiglobalization protest.
    Step Three: Smear the blood on the walls & floors whenever you encounter police.
    Step Four: Blame the blood on police violence.

    Step Five: Repeat.

    [ Parent ]

    Reaction from the locals... (4.25 / 4) (#199)
    by Mzilikazi on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 04:23:20 AM EST

    From the BBC:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1447000/1447878.stm

    I was particularly intrigued by the comment at the top of the story (Godwin's Law alert!):

    My taxi driver complains Genoa has never looked like it does today - "a war zone," he calls it.
    "Not even during the Nazis did people have to put up with this."

    One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet in this discussion is that these types of protests aren't going to stop the (IMF/G8/World Bank/etc.) meetings from taking place, but rather they're just going to move to remote locations or to countries that don't have the same legal protection of protesters that exist in Western countries. For example, there's one of these "global evil" meetings that's going to be held in Qatar in the near future (sorry, I'm too tired to look up which one it is).

    I've often wondered why they don't hold the meetings in Singapore. Off the beaten path for most of your European/American protesters, and a city with a strong tradition of law and order. Of course, the meetings could always be held in the countries that are supposedly the victims in this whole mess. Say for instance that the next G8 meeting was held in Nairobi. Would the protesters make the long trip and would the rogue 1% of violent protesters go ahead and bust up the locals' shops and businesses?

    Of course, some leaders are already thinking in this direction... Canada's Jean Chretien is proposing the following:

    From this other BBC link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1450000/1450858.stm

    He is also reportedly considering holding the 2002 summit in a remote Rocky Mountain town that will be more difficult for protesters to reach.

    A great place (3.00 / 1) (#210)
    by darthaya on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 12:22:39 PM EST

    Why don't we host it in Beijing! I am sure most of the protesters could not even get a visitor visa and the ones who do will be crushed mercilessly by the Chinese tanks!

    You need this kind of determination to deter the anti-globalization madness. :-)



    [ Parent ]

    Violence is your last right (none / 0) (#245)
    by kimbly on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 04:16:33 PM EST

    1. Grumble and hope they won't do it again.
    2. Write a letter to your representative.
    3. Go to a peaceful protest.
    4. Engage in civil disobedience.
    5. Engage in non-civil disobedience, like this protester did.
    6. Wage guerrilla war.
    When presented with policies that you see as intolerable, violence is always your right of last resort. Modern society tells us over and over that if it goes beyond civil disobedience, it has crossed the line. But there are some who disagree with where the line is drawn. Freedom of speech is great, but freedom of action is more primary. In modern western politics, the winner-take-all system makes it too easy for the views of non-mainstream citizens to be ignored. In such a system, freedom of speech will only get you so far, if you don't have the money or fame or power to make that speech be heard. And violence is a risky but effective way to turn up the volume. There will always be consequences, but it is up to the individual to decide which consequences are worth being risked. Notice that the protests continued, even after the death, when people could no longer help but realize that physical injury or even death was what was at stake.

    G8 protester killed | 247 comments (223 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!