Tiresome Lefties/Anarchists riot In Edinburgh

bonkey

danniemcq wrote:

2. "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".

But a peaceful protestor is neither.

jc

is_that_so

danniemcq wrote:

2 reasons

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

except for Special Forces people of course.

catholicireland

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.

True...

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?.

Yes, that is right..

Alot of those protesters are there simply to destroy property and dont care about African debt or poor children.They are simply liberal thugs :mad:

Sand

and about live8. i find it a bit hard to swallow that all these major celebrities who care so much

Regardless, whilst Bono and Geldof are getting slagged off as sell outs theyve brought debt relief and actual progress further along through engagement and directed public pressure.

Whereas these black masked mummies boys out for the weekend are still doing their best to discredit the Make Poverty History campaign - honestly, who gives them the right to do that just so they can get their adrenaline fix? And their childish bull**** philosophy about sticking it to the man, in the shape of PC Plod who just wants to have a quiet day on the job and go home?

and besides who said that the whole protest HAS to be about the drop the debt???

The guys whove been attempting to create meaningful pressure to relieve debt, for whom this week is the final stage of a long long proccess of lobbying and campaigning?

If these morons want to riot they can feck off down O Connell Street at 2 am most nights to get their kick - probably where they recruited from I've little doubt.

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.

You say anarchists are peaceful, but these guys arent. Logically theyre not anarchists just scum with a cause. You say they dont want to kill potential converts - word of advice, stoning people. thrashing their city center and smashing up the businesses that employ them and provide them with goods and services isnt going to win you any converts.

If theyre so anti-state and so committed to employing violence for their cause, they should as has already been said grow some balls and go all out and start bombing people. Otherwise theyre just thugs on tour.

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?

Id like to know the answer to this as well.

danniemcq

is_that_so wrote:

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:

what so everyone who protests should just stand and wait to be arrested??? that sound a bit stupid now doesn't it.

catholicireland wrote:

Alot of those protesters are there simply to destroy property and dont care about African debt or poor children.They are simply liberal thugs :mad:

i have a feeling you are talking about the ones you always see on the news. ya know the MINORITY of protesters. if you are there in person you see a whole different side to the proceedings and events.

Sand wrote:

Regardless, whilst Bono and Geldof are getting slagged off as sell outs theyve brought debt relief and actual progress further along through engagement and directed public pressure.

yeah but we seen this happen after the live aid, everyone got together gave whatever money and then felt all good and warm inside yet the conditions there continued to get worse with famine and civil war, yet nobody fought for it nobody cared nobody continued to put pressure on the leaders except the protesters. i see live8 as being the same, everyone going around wearing the armbands (after all it is a fashion statement now) and all the world leaders promising so much and delivering nothing.

Sand wrote:

You say anarchists are peaceful, but these guys arent. Logically theyre not anarchists just scum with a cause. You say they dont want to kill potential converts - word of advice, stoning people. thrashing their city center and smashing up the businesses that employ them and provide them with goods and services isnt going to win you any converts.

ok i will admit (and have admited) there is some people in these riots that are just out for the laugh. the black bloc tactics however are now being questioned as in have we come as far as we can with it. has it achieved it's goals?

look above this post and you will see more on the black bloc. and if you want more info do a search on an anarchist site.

Sand wrote:

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?

i think what you are lookin for is the phrase direct action. and you can answer your question yourself. look at the history of ireland. and form an opinion on direct action. (easter 1916)

bonkey

danniemcq wrote:

and you can answer your question yourself. look at the history of ireland. and form an opinion on direct action. (easter 1916)

Actually, that doesn't answer the question at all. That suggests (assuming you believe in the action taken) that destruction of property etc. can, in at least some cases be not wrong or not reprehensible and are politically motivated.

It does not answer the question as to whether or not the destruction of property etc is jusifiable just because its politically motivated.

Incidentally, the logic that political motivation excusing any such acts immediately gives credence and respectability to all of the acts carried out by The Man, given that ultimately they're all politically motivated to a comparable extent. Ain't logic a bitch.

jc

frootfancy

pete wrote:

Are you a lawyer?

No. Why - do you not like them either?[/QUOTE]


Lawyers are fine, however you get the odd one who takes it all far too seriously. A lot like politicians from opposing parties. You just remind me of her is all. I'm not implying you're a woman either before you claim that's what i'm saying.

Tomohawk

i think what you are lookin for is the phrase direct action. and you can answer your question yourself. look at the history of ireland. and form an opinion on direct action. (easter 1916)

Must we forever continue the cycle of history and violence...
I think danniemcq, that you will find that western society in 1916 was very different to the political and social world of 2005 in Europe today. That includes us Irish as well. I also think you will find that the society that existed in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and the 1970s and 1980s has also changed in the same way. So please don't attempt to make direct equivolent comparisons between the last century and 2005.

Civilised western european people like ourselves are finding other ways of protest against injustice. Use of violence to affect political change in these times is now acknowledged in western culture as being WRONG! Who can justify the bombing at Omagh for example!

anticapitalist protesters = ah, the folly of youth (don't imagine many of them pushing 40 eh?)

NOW GROW UP, GET RESPONSIBILE, AND GET RESPONSIBILITIES

dSTAR

Tomohawk wrote:

...anticapitalist protesters = ah, the folly of youth (don't imagine many of them pushing 40 eh?)

NOW GROW UP, GET RESPONSIBILE, AND GET RESPONSIBILITIES

No truer words spoken. Anarchists tiresome tirades against American imperialism and the evils of capitalism are starting to ring hollow. They are like teenage kids rebelling against their parents and foolishly believe their actions are going to change things in the way a two year old believes his tantrum will get what he wants. I take my four year daughter to McDonalds and don't think there is anything wrong with that. If some little yob throws a brick through the window while I am there with my child he will have more than a baton to contend with.

Anarchism and leftist politics are so last century.

danniemcq

Tomohawk wrote:

I think danniemcq, that you will find that western society in 1916 was very different to the political and social world of 2005 in Europe today. That includes us Irish as well. I also think you will find that the society that existed in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and the 1970s and 1980s has also changed in the same way. So please don't attempt to make direct equivalent comparisons between the last century and 2005.

Civilised western European people like ourselves are finding other ways of protest against injustice. Use of violence to affect political change in these times is now acknowledged in western culture as being WRONG! Who can justify the bombing at Omagh for example!

anticapitalist protesters = ah, the folly of youth (don't imagine many of them pushing 40 eh?)

NOW GROW UP, GET RESPONSIBILE, AND GET RESPONSIBILITIES

Yeah we are different now than when we were in 1916. We are now a republic on the verge of a united Ireland so therefore yes you can't make any comparisons between the two eras

Tomohawk wrote:

Must we forever continue the cycle of history and violence...........Who can justify the bombing at Omagh for example!

Cycle of history and violence??? You are comparing the Irish political history to a fascist dictatorship, what the Irish are/were and will fight for is a united Ireland. We want what is ours and no more. And NO I will never be able to justify the omagh bombing in my head or anywhere else, that was a senseless act carried out by people who do not understand the idea of peace. They call themselves the REAL IRA yet murder indiscriminately. I find that disgusting

Tomohawk wrote:

I also think you will find that the society that existed in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and the 1970s and 1980s has also changed in the same way. So please don't attempt to make direct equivolent comparisons between the last century and 2005.

And just outta curiosity as you are living in Dun Laoghaire have you ever had first hand experience of what is actually going on in the north. And no I don't mean what’s going on in stormount or any of that I’m talkin about on the street? You’re saying that I can't make direct comparisons between the 20th and the 21st century... I say bull****. It is still the same.

And please don't start about differences in eastern and western cultures as most of the problems today stem from the "eastern" cultures wanting to be more like the west. (Or in some/most cases being puppets to the west coughIsraelcough)

Tomohawk wrote:

NOW GROW UP, GET RESPONSIBILE, AND GET RESPONSIBILITIES

And what would sir like me 2 do???

Tomohawk

I'm not going to say anymore on the subject. At this point I think all you can do Sir is analyse this final thought:


Consider the possibility that everything you know may be wrong...

dSTAR

danniemcq wrote:

Cycle of history and violence??? You are comparing the Irish political history to a fascist dictatorship, what the Irish are/were and will fight for is a united Ireland. We want what is ours and no more...

You are skating on very thin ice here. Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that it is okay to deny the rights of others (through murder and intimidation in many cases) because of some twisted nationalistic ideaology? I think this logic is not only flawed but extremely dangerous. Irish nationalism for the most part has been violent and no amount of glossing over or polly waffle is going to hide that fact. Ever hear the phrase "old wine in new bottles"?

I could never get my head around this notion of a "united Ireland". Please tell me how much better off Ireland would be with crooked TD's greasing their palms with the blood money of Sinn Fein / IRA thugs not to mention a huge amount of disenfranchised Unionists having THEIR civil rights taken away from them overnight? Exactly how would Ireland be "united" without having to resort to the old ways to suppress unionists? Maybe nationalists are going to reveal what fascist hoods they really are by driving them out of their homes in the (unlikely) event of a "united Ireland". I hope not.

Irish people seem to forget that the British civilised the Irish. A quick look over the Irish civil service, Irish laws and much of modern Irish culture is proof of this fact. All this (and much more taken for granted) was brought to Irish people courtesy of the English. Were it not for this dominant culture imposing their rule - the Irish would still be running around the fields killing each other over cows and pieces of land the size of a backyard. It seems you along with many others have conveniently forgotten this reality.

Nationalists and people of your ilk need to shut up whining about the past and move on. Much of Irish history as it is taught in schools is skewed and one sided and doesn't have any relevance to today's world. The same goes for these other morons (G8 protesters) who think that they can change things through violence. Nationalism and anarchism do not offer a viable alternative to the status quo and to think differently is naiive. Even if they did offer an alternative it would have to be imposed and maintained by violence.

danniemcq wrote:

And please don't start about differences in eastern and western cultures as most of the problems today stem from the "eastern" cultures wanting to be more like the west. (Or in some/most cases being puppets to the west coughIsraelcough)

Your credibility has just gone out the window now. This is the most uneducated nonsense I have heard for a long time. Talk about a sweeping statement. Worse still is the anti Israeli sentiment I detect with your snide comment. You asked the question earlier whether Tomohawk had been to the north then come out with this unenlightened drivel. Have you ever been to Israel? Looks as though you haven't really been out of you small town (mentality) much!!

Danniemcq - if you are going to run with the big boys at least say something credible and not expose yourself as some uneducated chump with a school kid mentality.

pickarooney

dSTAR wrote:

Irish people seem to forget that the British civilised the Irish. A quick look over the Irish civil service, Irish laws and much of modern Irish culture is proof of this fact. All this (and much more taken for granted) was brought to Irish people courtesy of the English. Were it not for this dominant culture imposing their rule - the Irish would still be running around the fields killing each other over cows and pieces of land the size of a backyard. It seems you along with many others have conveniently forgotten this reality.

That's a lot of borderline-offensive conjecture. Besides, there was a widespread and workable legal system in Ireland long before British settlement.

jman0

He's right, we irish are just a bunch of savages. We should be thanking the English for colonising us and starving off half the population and destroying our language.
Nationalism... neveryoumind that the English are every bit as nationalist as the Irish are, moreso when you factor the different approaches to EU.
But nevermind that. Croppy lie down.
There's a good lad.

dSTAR

pickarooney wrote:

That's a lot of borderline-offensive conjecture. Besides, there was a widespread and workable legal system in Ireland long before British settlement.

Is that a fact? What system was that? Druidic Law?

Conjecture...hmmmm

Why must you hark back through the mists of time to some mythical time when Irish people were supposedly free?

I think if you look through most Irish history books you will find a definite anti English undercurrent which is completely devoid of any other viewpoints, most obvious that of the unionist experience in Ireland.

I have every right to express my opinion. I am not sure why people would find it offensive because my intentions are not to offend but to express a different take on things.

This is the democratic way afterall.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

He's right, we irish are just a bunch of savages. We should be thanking the English for colonising us and starving off half the population and destroying our language.

Or the Spanish for their inquisition and keeping the rest of us on our toes for so long with our religion...
I could list many more but lets not.

People stay on topic

Any more off topic posts in this thread will be binned on sight.

dSTAR

dSTAR wrote:

Danniemcq - if you are going to run with the big boys at least say something credible and not expose yourself as some uneducated chump with a school kid mentality.

2 week ban for that blatant abuse

Von

dSTAR wrote:

Is that a fact? What system was that? Druidic Law?

Brehon Law.

Are children taught anything at school these days? It's only shocking.

DadaKopf

I know he's now banned but it has to be said:

dStar wrote:

Anarchists tiresome tirades against American imperialism and the evils of capitalism are starting to ring hollow.

Hollow? Sure isn't this what the Make Poverty History campaign is about? Challenging the unchecked power of the rich countries and the devastation caused by multilational corporations? I'm sure the 2 billion people living in poverty would have something to say to dStar.

oscarBravo wrote:

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?

Well, I haven't had an answer from Earthman to my question but in the hope of getting an answer, I'll do the same. My answer is "no".

To remind you, my question was

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

Tomohawk

Originally Posted by danniemcq
And just outta curiosity as you are living in Dun Laoghaire have you ever had first hand experience of what is actually going on in the north. And no I don't mean what’s going on in stormount or any of that I’m talkin about on the street?

What relevancy does where I live have to do with the discussion? Please explain. Why dont you bring in my nationality as well?

You’re saying that I can't make direct comparisons between the 20th and the 21st century... I say bull****. It is still the same

What a crass statement. I think you will find it's not the same.
You remind me of those posters on boards who always manage to mention Nelson Mandela's past in any debate on current affairs. nuff said. :rolleyes:

sovtek

dSTAR wrote:

Anarchism and leftist politics are so last century.

And it is because of those very people from last century that you now have things like...work place safety, a 39 hour workweek, mandatory holiday time, a living wage...etc etc

sovtek

danniemcq wrote:

And what would sir like me 2 do???

Just sit on the couch, watch Big Brother followed by Sky News and then get fat off Mickey D's.

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

work place safety, a 39 hour workweek, mandatory holiday time, a living wage...etc etc

thanks to Anarchism???? I think not

DadaKopf

Thanks to "leftist politics", daww. Anarchists, historically, were part of the social justice movement, though.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

Well, I haven't had an answer from Earthman to my question but in the hope of getting an answer, I'll do the same. My answer is "no".

To remind you, my question was

You did get an answer,perhaps you only skim rather than read the threads you participate in?

Von

Nuttzz wrote:

thanks to Anarchism???? I think not

Wikipedia entry for the 8 Hour Day.

They shouldn't have bothered.

is_that_so

Von wrote:

Wikipedia entry for the 8 Hour Day.

They shouldn't have bothered.

I would suggest that there is an extremely tenuous link between genuine social reformers and the wanton behaviour of "some" parts of the left. It is a convenient banner and a banner of convenience can allow you justify almost anything.

DadaKopf

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

That's a fairly simply formula: minority movement + (direct action or violence) = wrong.

What about cases of injustice in which a minority, say the American black population, resorts to direct action to change a situation in which, en masse, the majority tacitly and explicitly supports an unjust status quo in a "sensible democracy"?

So you support the use of violence only when violence is supported by the majority? Is this not just another way of saying you support the state's right to violence in any circumstances?

Personally I feel uncomfortable with these kinds of equations. They take place in a moral vacuum when really what we should be talking about are values and using those to judge whether grievances are legitimate, and what strategies and forms of redress are appropriate.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

That's a fairly simply formula: minority movement + (direct action or violence) = wrong.

What about cases of injustice in which a minority, say the American black population, resorts to direct action to change a situation in which, en masse, the majority tacitly and explicitly supports an unjust status quo in a "sensible democracy"?

This thread is about Edinburgh and I've commented on topic about that and answered your question

So you support the use of violence only when violence is supported by the majority? Is this not just another way of saying you support the state's right to violence in any circumstances?

I never said any such thing, but do open a new thread please if you want to go down that tangent

Personally I feel uncomfortable with these kinds of equations. They take place in a moral vacuum when really what we should be talking about are values and using those to judge whether grievances are legitimate, and what strategies and forms of redress are appropriate.

Theres really no need to feel uncomfortable due to inferences you yourself are drawing from what I say on topic in this thread as I'm trying to stick to the topic rather than flesh out what I think regarding your tangential questions.
If this were another thread on the morality of war,on what the government should be allowed to do vs what the people should be allowed to do etc etc etc I might be fleshing out my views on those topics such that you wouldn't have to make any inferences.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

thanks to Anarchism???? I think not

No it was the corporate magnates of last century that just up and decided (out of their collective goodness and decency) to "give" it to us.
Leftist are all just a bunch of rebellious, ingrate teenagers.