Protesting The Protesters

Link To Q & A and Film

Protesting The Protesters II

In most recent events, protesters in California have attempted to interfere with supplies being sent to Iraq. What anal orifices.

To say that protesters against the coalition's actions in Iraq "need a life" is my nomination for "Understatement of The Week"

[Skunk]

There is always an 'passionate' element in demonstrations, without whom the demonstration would not get organised in the first place.

There is always a 'cringe' element in the demonstrations (like those who do the 'die-in') who make the protests seem like they are being carried out by idiots.

Finally, there is always a 'militant' element in demonstrations, without whom the police would have nothing to do but watch.

All three elements are fringe and minorities within the demonstrations - and all three get the biggest coverage (as a rule). Picking on the three groups (especially the latter two) is the usual way that 'anti-demo' folk try to win their cause - usually because they do not have an argument which stands up against those of their opponents. I have a three letter word for this activity: SAD.

[Grojlach]

Well said, Skunk! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Skunk: ... the usual way that 'anti-demo' folk try to win their cause - usually because they do not have an argument which stands up against those of their opponents. I have a three letter word for this activity: SAD.

Being somewhat neutral in the whole war with Iraq thingie (for the regime change, against underlying implications of ulterior motives), I don't spend too much time looking into either side's extremes but I thought the first link above was particularly interesting because it did provide an FAQ as to the why's and how's behind the film....that's not saying that I agree with them, only that I thought it interesting that they would be provided.
Are your comments stemming from what you read there or are they based on what you believe in general about anti-protesting protesters?

For or against the war, do you think its right to interfere in the transport of supplies needed to enable a swifter end to that war (either military or civilian)?

Same questions to you, Grojlach, if you don't mind.

[ 04-15-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

[Skunk]

Are your comments stemming from what you read there or are they based on what you believe in general about anti-protesting protesters?

Both. Note that the author of the film, from his own Q&A had his own preconception that he wished to prove, consequently: "There are undoubtedly principled people who can eloquently present an intelligent case against the war. I know a few such people myself. I just didn't happen to run into them at the protest."

For or against the war, do you think its right to interfere in the transport of supplies needed to enable a swifter end to that war (either military or civilian)?

Tough call. If a crime is in progess, it is your duty to do your best to stop it. A lot depends on the cargo - if the boat was loaded with cluster bombs, I'd approve of blockading - if it was loaded with medical supplies, I'd try to assist.
Put it into perspective. The Spanish recently intercepted a ship from Korea which was heading for Yemen. The ship contained missiles - but this was a perfectly lawful transaction and the ship was not doing anything wrong. Technically, the Spanish (acting under instructions from the US) had committed an act of piracy - it had no legal authority to stop the vessel from going about its lawful business.
The example has already been set - are we now to condemn the protesters for doing exactly the same as their own government?