Tiresome Lefties/Anarchists riot In Edinburgh

toiletduck

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0706/g8.html

Following violent anti-capitalist protests in Stirling in Scotland this morning, police have ordered the cancellation of today's march to the edge of Gleneagles where the G8 summit is being held.

The authorities said the decision to cancel the protest was made amid fears of a 'significant' threat to public safety.

March organisers, who have called for a peaceful demonstration, earlier said cancelling the march would present a bigger threat to order

DadaKopf

Earthman wrote:

Except they are not political actions

This group of anarchists seem to have a very clear set of political objectives, going on the DISSENT quotes posted by Pete. How, then, are their actions not political?

Earthman wrote:

they are unlawfull riotous actions

So are you saying every such action is, in principle, wrong and "reprehensible"?

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

This group of anarchists seem to have a very clear set of political objectives, going on the DISSENT quotes posted by Pete. How, then, are their actions not political?

In the same way that armed robbery is not a financial transaction?

DadaKopf wrote:

So are you saying every such action is, in principle, wrong and "reprehensible"?

Are you saying that violence and the destruction of property are not wrong or reprehensible, as long as the perpetrator is politically motivated?

danniemcq

wrote:

Following violent anti-capitalist protests in Stirling in Scotland this morning, police have ordered the cancellation of today's march to the edge of Gleneagles where the G8 summit is being held.

The authorities said the decision to cancel the protest was made amid fears of a 'significant' threat to public safety.

March organisers, who have called for a peaceful demonstration, earlier said cancelling the march would present a bigger threat to order

hmm sounds like what happened at the mayday protests in dublin! na dwe all know what happened there. nobody listened (and why should we have? we were on a public road) and a whole load of people got arrested including ones i seen with my own eyes that were dragged to the ground when obeying orders to leave the area.

Nuttzz wrote:

of course if he wasnt wearing a face mask and carrying a weapon in the first place he wont need a defensive stance....

and i've had first hand experience of a baton swing when i was completly unarmed standing about three foot away with my arms stretched out to my sides. so why not bring protection

DadaKopf

OscarBravo wrote:

Are you saying that violence and the destruction of property are not wrong or reprehensible, as long as the perpetrator is politically motivated?

I was actually asking Earthman a question, not making a statement.

toiletduck

danniemcq wrote:

hmm sounds like what happened at the mayday protests in dublin! na dwe all know what happened there. nobody listened (and why should we have? we were on a public road) and a whole load of people got arrested including ones i seen with my own eyes that were dragged to the ground when obeying orders to leave the area.

the reclaim the streets protest? how i laughed at the time, who exactly were the roads being recalimed from? the public who paid taxes for them?

Zombrex

toiletduck wrote:

the reclaim the streets protest? how i laughed at the time, who exactly were the roads being recalimed from? the public who paid taxes for them?

of the topic, but Reclaim the Streets is supposed to be about reclaiming the right to use public space with in urban cities, a right that has been eroded significantly in the last 150 years as the automobile and road network has been pushed to the forefront of urban development, which is why we are now facing a melt-down of polution and conjestion in western inner cities. A classic example would be the discontinuation of the Harcort public transport rail track in the 60s by a very very short sighted transport minister of the time. How dumb was that? It cost us millions to rebuild a rail system that was already there for the LUAS.

RTS is supposed to high-light the rather ridiculous situation we have got ourself into where you can't actually walk on the vast majority of public space in modern western cities without a)breaking the law b)putting yourself at serious risk. It seeks to as the very vaild (in my opinion) question "Why have we pushed to car to the for front of our urban interaction?"

Unfortunatly RTS has been some what "hijacked" by the completely seperate anti-capitialist movement and all the negative "mcdonalds-window-smashing" PR that comes with that.

seamus

danniemcq wrote:

and i've had first hand experience of a baton swing when i was completly unarmed standing about three foot away with my arms stretched out to my sides. so why not bring protection

Ah, the whole chicken and the egg argument. Here's a new one for you; If you suspect that you may need "protection", then why bother attending at all? If you know that there's going to be trouble, and you attend, then clearly you're only attending for a fight, and therefore are deserving of any baton strikes you receive.

DadaKopf

toiletduck wrote:

the reclaim the streets protest? how i laughed at the time, who exactly were the roads being recalimed from?

From cars and patterns of unsustainable consumption in cities, which are focuses and generators of these patterns. Search the politics board for lengthy discussions.

Let's not deflect the discussion here.

Seamus wrote:

Ah, the whole chicken and the egg argument. Here's a new one for you; If you suspect that you may need "protection", then why bother attending at all? If you know that there's going to be trouble, and you attend, then clearly you're only attending for a fight, and therefore are deserving of any baton strikes you receive.

Hardly. Would you say that people who were involved in peaceful civil rights movements like those in America and Northern Ireland in the 1960s were 'looking for trouble'? Protest is about making a stand against injustice, and protest is all about going against the grain in the name of justice. Naturally, the state will use its monopoly of force to preserve the status quo, so protecting yourself is natural.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

So are you saying every such action is, in principle, wrong and "reprehensible"?

Not necessarally.Minority violence to put a minority view across forcibly in a sensible democracy is indeed reprehensible.

pete

seamus wrote:

Ah, the whole chicken and the egg argument. Here's a new one for you; If you suspect that you may need "protection", then why bother attending at all? If you know that there's going to be trouble, and you attend, then clearly you're only attending for a fight, and therefore are deserving of any baton strikes you receive.

So are you saying that it's just tough if someone attending a protest becomes a victim of random police violence through no fault of their own?

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

Hardly. Would you say that people who were involved in peaceful civil rights movements like those in America and Northern Ireland in the 1960s were 'looking for trouble'?

comparing the rogues in Scotland with that is a bit much no?

Protest is about making a stand against injustice, and protest is all about going against the grain in the name of justice. Naturally, the state will use its monopoly of force to preserve the status quo, so protecting yourself is natural.

The state in this case being the democratic state of the U.K
Advocating anarchy and practising anarchy will get justice all right and by the looks of whats went on in Scotland, it will be justice in front of a democratically maintained court of law.

danniemcq

toiletduck wrote:

the reclaim the streets protest? how i laughed at the time, who exactly were the roads being recalimed from? the public who paid taxes for them?

Umm no I meant the one last year. The one that the Irish media hyped up before saying that anarchists would watch Dublin burn and release enough gas to kill 10,000 Dubliners. Well now it's clear the only gas came from the politicians.

And in response to your reclaim the streets it is about reclaiming the street for the pedestrian and cyclist, ya know the ones that motorists seem to forget about while driving. They are calling for improvements in footpaths and cycle lanes. For pedestrian areas in city centres etc.

danniemcq

seamus wrote:

Ah, the whole chicken and the egg argument. Here's a new one for you; If you suspect that you may need "protection", then why bother attending at all? If you know that there's going to be trouble, and you attend, then clearly you're only attending for a fight, and therefore are deserving of any baton strikes you receive.

i'd like to put the record straight i was attending to "fight" i was attending to make my voice heard. to show my support. i admit violence was expected but as it turned out the most violent force on the day was the gardai. :eek:

and your protection point doesen't make that much sense to me. are you sayin that just cause there may be the possibility of violence nobody should turn up. hmmm so if that was the way Ghandi's marches woulda been kinda lonely, million man march??? make that the 2 man march. the threat of violence should not make someone give up what they believe.

dSTAR

Arriving slightly late to this thread just as it fizzles out like a G8 rioter being sprayed with capsicum spray.

Ironically at one stage in my life I was sympathetic to leftist ideology until I grew up and saw what a bunch of pi$$ weak losers most of the so called anarchists were.

What alternative do these scrawny college educated under achievers have to offer to capitalism apart from scrawling pseudo political slogans on walls and throwing bricks through McDonalds windows?

Capitalism may not be a perfect system but it is better than any ideology or system that has come thus far.

My message to anarchists everywhere...

Get over it and get a job!!

:mad:

Tomohawk

Originally Posted by DadaKopf
because those critics by default defend a powerful, unelected minority which affects all our lives, causes poverty and destroys the environment

We vote. We CHOOSE. WE elect them. It's called Democracy. If the alternative is the anticapitalist agenda, then i think I'll take democracy (flaws and all)

Originally Posted by wicknight
Reclaim the Streets is supposed to be about reclaiming the right to use public space with in urban cities, a right that has been eroded significantly in the last 150 years as the automobile and road network has been pushed to the forefront of urban development, which is why we are now facing a melt-down of polution and conjestion in western inner cities.

And what used the roads(?) before 150 years ago, yes that's right horses and carts and mu lord's carriage! Lets go back to the middle ages and try forget the Industrial revolution ever happened eh? It's just not gonna happen. There has always been congestion in cities and town on roads (or boulevards or laneways or dirt tracks etc.)

Originally Posted by wicknight
A classic example would be the discontinuation of the Harcort public transport rail track in the 60s by a very very short sighted transport minister of the time. How dumb was that?

Ah so easy to judge with hindsight. Go study the economic history of the period, then the cabinet papers of the time and then come back and let us know if you are still of this opinion regarding the Harcourt Street Line!

As usual takes some plain talking from the man to tell it as it is:

BOB Geldof yesterday dismissed protesters who fought running battles with the police in Edinburgh as "a bunch of losers".

The Live8 organiser said they had nothing to do with the Make Poverty History campaign and he ridiculed the so-called anarchist clowns with "white-painted faces" who thought they could "cause world revolution by standing on top of park benches and hitting the police". He also praised the police's handling of the protests.

danniemcq

Tomohawk wrote:

And what used the roads(?) before 150 years ago, yes that's right horses and carts and mu lord's carriage! Lets go back to the middle ages and try forget the Industrial revolution ever happened eh? It's just not gonna happen. There has always been congestion in cities and town on roads (or boulevards or laneways or dirt tracks etc.)

well maybe in this "modern" world a solution could be found??? ah sure nah the hell with it, keep it as it is. we'll do something when the sh1t really hits the fan and then we'll all get together and blame other people for not doing something at the time.

and about live8. i find it a bit hard to swallow that all these major celebrities who care so much :rolleyes: (insert your own mariah carey comment on africans here) have seen their album sales rocket since the gig. hmmmm publicity publicity publicity.

danniemcq

danniemcq wrote:

well maybe in this "modern" world a solution could be found???

Depends on what you want that solution to be and what it is you want solved.I've often said it on this board and elsewhere, but this is planet Earth inhabited by selfish human beings.There are more people who act out of self interest than there aren't and as long as thats the case and the law entitles people to be selfish-then you must put up with it.
Of course you can be as altruistic as you want to be yourself, but you are not entitled to force others to be the same.
They have to want to be.

ah sure nah the hell with it, keep it as it is. we'll do something when the sh1t really hits the fan and then we'll all get together and blame other people for not doing something at the time.

I'm not sure what you are talking about there...

and about live8. i find it a bit hard to swallow that all these major celebrities who care so much :rolleyes: (insert your own mariah carey comment on africans here) have seen their album sales rocket since the gig. hmmmm publicity publicity publicity.

Well I'm sure the likes of Bono and Geldoff and a few others have their heart in the right place and have put much more than they ever needed to into helping the down trodden.
Just as I'm also sure that not everyone that performed last saturday would have the same bonafidé's,just as the sound engineer or the guy doing the lighting mightnt either.
But in no way does that damage the concept or the ideal.

I'll tell you what does though... A heap of eejits in balaclava's acting the maggot on the streets of scotland who have nothing on their mind only misguided mischief and who unfortunately, though they have nothing whatsoever to do with it, blacken the name and the ideal of the drop the debt campaign simply by blending their mahem into what should otherwise be a legitimate campaign

Tomohawk

The **** has been hitting the fan for along time now, er since the Ascent of Man. Always has done, always will. Why dont you join a legitimate political party, u know one that 'actually' stands in elections and then put your Reclaim the Streets nonscence in front of the voting population of Ireland and see how far u get?

Consider this: If the anticapitalist protesters in Scotland, specifically the ones who believe in "direct action" using violence, well IF they hold their beliefs so strongly then WHY don't they plant bombs in cities? Why don't they grow up and start acting like other terrorist organisations (I'm sure ETA could teach them a thing or two about bombing campaigns) instead of throwing rocks at cops...bah pussies

Is it becuase what they do is just a weekend recreational pastime, now that all the football hooligans have left the pitch, and the Punks just got too old...remember brixton 81

what else is there for angry jung men to do these days? don't see too many wee lasies hurling hatred and missiles at police lines do we? grow up lads

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

I was actually asking Earthman a question, not making a statement.

Allow me to rephrase my question: Do you believe that violence and the destruction of property are not wrong or reprehensible, as long as the perpetrator is politically motivated?

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote:

Protest is about making a stand against injustice, and protest is all about going against the grain in the name of justice. Naturally, the state will use its monopoly of force to preserve the status quo, so protecting yourself is natural.

That's a deeply disingenuous argument. First, the very phrase "monopoly of force" is designed to convey the impression of a proletariat cowering under the jackboot of an oppressive dictatorship, when in fact those who subscribe to the structures of modern civilisation - that's most people - have willingly ceded that monopoly to the state.

Second, it paints the picture of "the state" using force as a first line of defence against any sign of dissent among the serfs. This is clearly not the case, as protest is an almost everyday occurrence in most democracies. The state uses its monopoly of force, as mandated to do so by those who democratically elect its government, to prevent a disruptive minority from attempting to change the status quo by force.

In short: the police respond with force when faced with force, and rightly so.

danniemcq

danniemcq wrote:

we'll do something when the sh1t really hits the fan and then we'll all get together and blame other people for not doing something at the time.

sorry i was takin the piss outta Tomohawk's "There has always been congestion in cities and town on roads (or boulevards or laneways or dirt tracks etc.)"

Earthman wrote:

I'll tell you what does though... A heap of eejits in balaclava's acting the maggot on the streets of scotland who have nothing on their mind only misguided mischief and who unfortunately, though they have nothing whatsoever to do with it, blacken the name and the ideal of the drop the debt campaign simply by blending their mahem into what should otherwise be a legitimate campaign.

In other words the black bloc.

Right the black bloc's job in an anarchist protest is to cause as much disturbance as possible by any means necessary. They will pad themselves up in any material they can find as when they meet any opposition they will attempt to get around it. Black blocs became infamous in Genoa a few years back when one black bloc protester (Carlo Giuliani) was fatally wounded when an Italian policeman shot him in the head t point blank range from the back of a land rover and then proceeded to roll over the body twice after Carlo and some others attacked the land rover in question when it comes to police lines they will force their way through using any means possible. I would like to point out that the black block is a minority of protesters and the "group" itself seems to have run its course.
(taken from my post in after hours)

and besides who said that the whole protest HAS to be about the drop the debt??? surly yes everyone there probably has a opinion on it and would like to see it dropped but surly there are other causes people wish to voice their opinions on.

Tomohawk wrote:

well IF they hold their beliefs so strongly then WHY don't they plant bombs in cities?

hmm gee i dunno maybe because they don't want to go around murdering people. besides what would the point be in killing a possible future supporter of your beliefs now would ya. and besides most anarchists are peaceful people. you only see one side when you listen what most of the media say. we'll leave the terrorism up to the goverments.

seamus

danniemcq wrote:

and your protection point doesen't make that much sense to me. are you sayin that just cause there may be the possibility of violence nobody should turn up. hmmm so if that was the way Ghandi's marches woulda been kinda lonely, million man march??? make that the 2 man march. the threat of violence should not make someone give up what they believe.

You're comparing anti-capitalist marches against a democratic, relatively benign power with Ghandi *and* the million-man march?

The crux of the matter here is - There will not be violence at an anti-capitalist march, unless there are those in the march who would wish it. However hard you would like to believe, the Gardai and even moreso the British Police, will not start smashing heads without provocation. So my point still stands, if you think you need protection, then you know that there will be those in the march intent on causing hassle. So, by attending you are in fact encouraging these rioters to degrade what you're standing for. So why go?

Tomohawk

Originally Posted by danniemcq
you only see one side when you listen what most of the media say

and for the other side go to www.indymedia.ie har har har. If they are not discussing ancient history, i.e. the minutae of the Spainish civil war in the last century, then they are just spouting BILE about world politics.

danniemcq

seamus wrote:

You're comparing anti-capitalist marches against a democratic, relatively benign power with Ghandi *and* the million-man march?

The crux of the matter here is - There will not be violence at an anti-capitalist march, unless there are those in the march who would wish it. However hard you would like to believe, the Gardai and even moreso the British Police, will not start smashing heads without provocation. So my point still stands, if you think you need protection, then you know that there will be those in the march intent on causing hassle. So, by attending you are in fact encouraging these rioters to degrade what you're standing for. So why go?

i'm comparing them yes but not i'm only doing so to show that while there is a number of people looking for a fight the majority of people are not. going back to the mayday protests in dublin i had a long talk with an elderly woman on 65 on the main flashpoint march. i didn't really get the destroy kill maim burn vibe off her for some strange reason. and i also seen one black bloc member carrying a firework and askin fellow protesters if the had a lighter. not one gave it to him. or the other one or two who were preparing to hurl stones at the riot squad. a group of protesters confronted them before confiscating the stones.

now remember back to the news that night... the only garda to be injured was when she was hit on the head with a bottle. the bottle in question was a bottle of buckfast. i have been chattin to a large number of people who were at that march and not one of seen anyone drinkin buckie. therefore we have come to the conclusion it was one of the dublin chavs from the area who joined in lookin for hassle (like the one in the celtic shown being arrested that the papers jumped on)

i will admit i seen a projectile been thrown at the line of riot cops but it was a spongeball(!) hit soft and low (ie at the shield) by an old man with a hurley. hardly a deadly weapon now is it?

seamus

danniemcq wrote:

i'm comparing them yes but not i'm only doing so to show that while there is a number of people looking for a fight the majority of people are not. going back to the mayday protests in dublin i had a long talk with an elderly woman on 65 on the main flashpoint march. i didn't really get the destroy kill maim burn vibe off her for some strange reason. and i also seen one black bloc member carrying a firework and askin fellow protesters if the had a lighter. not one gave it to him. or the other one or two who were preparing to hurl stones at the riot squad. a group of protesters confronted them before confiscating the stones.
...............

i will admit i seen a projectile been thrown at the line of riot cops but it was a spongeball(!) hit soft and low (ie at the shield) by an old man with a hurley. hardly a deadly weapon now is it?

We're not talking about the MayDay one. It's been done to death. And I'm not disputing the fact that those looking for a fight are in the minority. Surely by going to any protest, completely undefended and completely uncovered, it shows that you are willing to take whatever comes your way to stand up for your cause? Even if you know there going to be trouble, do you not still think that you undermine your own cause by coming dressed for battle? Did Ghandi not show that taking the beatings without reacting was the most powerful weapon?

danniemcq

seamus wrote:

We're not talking about the MayDay one. It's been done to death. And I'm not disputing the fact that those looking for a fight are in the minority. Surely by going to any protest, completely undefended and completely uncovered, it shows that you are willing to take whatever comes your way to stand up for your cause? Even if you know there going to be trouble, do you not still think that you undermine your own cause by coming dressed for battle? Did Ghandi not show that taking the beatings without reacting was the most powerful weapon?

maybe not everyone wants to come home completly split open or have broken arms legs or worse. i can only assume there is one or two people in every march or protest that may feel like that. i personally though am not one of these. i give no resistance and did not dress for battle. yes i wore a bavaclava but i covered myself in white to show i was aligned with the white bloc. and on the subject of protection i'm not on about carrying basebats and wearing a some mad protective outfit

Sherlock

What protection does a balaclava offer other than protection from prosecution by hiding your face?. Why hide your face if you're not doing anything wrong?.

danniemcq

Sherlock wrote:

What protection does a balaclava offer other than protection from prosecution by hiding your face?. Why hide your face if you're not doing anything wrong?.

2 reasons

1. symbolism, the bavaclava is seen throughout the world as a symbol for resistance as covered earlier in this thread.

2. "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". just because we believe what we are fighting for is right other people may disagree. therefore it is the job of a police force to track down and arrest you. so ya can kinda see why we don't want videos or photo's of our faces.

is_that_so

danniemcq wrote:

2 reasons



2. "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". just because we believe what we are fighting for is right other people may disagree. therefore it is the job of a police force to track down and arrest you. so ya can kinda see why we don't want videos or photo's of our faces.

No much of a freedom fighter so. always running away. Strikes me your philosophy has its roots more in "The life of Brian" than any notion of reality. :rolleyes: