Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ni'k
the usual defeatist morons are whining with: "OH NOE! BUT COS OF VIOLENCE THE MESSAGE OF THE PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IS RUINED! VIOLENCE IS BAD!" no you fucking retards, if the crowds that gathered at the iraq protests had done this at parliament and perhaps the mod or mi5 or a few other buildings we wouldn't have gone into that war. there is a certain point when the states operations become impossible because the peoples collective movements start to threaten the ability of the state to operate and maintain power. what the people actually do is more important than more spectacles of media managed passitivity.
|
I was on the Iraq march. People tried to break into any marker of the government. It didn't get reported because they weren't successful. It wasn't successful because the police were out in droves (including legions of plain-clothes in the march itself).
I've been on a few marches recently, related to these sorts of subjects. One of them - some 1,000-odd people - got half a write-up because some anarchists threw a can of special brew at a copper, and someone else had a sign with the word 'fuck' on it. From the write-up you'd think it was a mild social disturbance with some drunks rather than a heavily-organised umbrella of disaffected citizens.
Not to take away from your point, but I'm thinking that part of the reason there was violence was because there wasn't the police presence of the Iraq marches. Because the Met has a few football matches and whatnot on. And I like that the BBC are saying there wasn't any kettling at this one, and they were 'only hitting them below the knee', both of which are bullshit.