| Mar 24, 2007 @ 6:52 PM |
What's the goal?
|
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
I can't help but wonder what the ever more aggressive antiwar protesters hope to achieve. Granted it's fun to watch democrats get harassed by them. After all the democrats deserve it for promising things they knew they could never deliver.
The thing is, it's wrong to harass these people at their homes. Nancy Pelosi may deserve it but her neighbors didn't do anything to deserve it that I'm aware of. In Portland, burning a soldier in effigy doesn't gain converts, it angers people. Did the genius who pulled down his pants to take a dump on the American flag think he was bringing enlightenment to the masses? Apparently he thought any children within sight also needed to see his goodies or he didn't care.
Here in Michigan, Vernon Ehlers (sp?) home was vandalized as was the office of Mike Rogers. Did the vandals think they would get the votes they wanted by trashing private and taxpayer funded property? In reality they only help to bring about even stricter laws that we wouldn't need if people chose to behave like adults.
Look at the result of the WTO protest in Seattle during the Clinton administration. The only thing they gained from that was no protest zones. Claiming some shadowy group is paying people to make peaceful protesters look bad doesn't mean much if the peaceful protesters refuse to take action against the "anarchists". Hell, you outnumber them by hundreds or thousands, hand them over to police or accept the blame.
|
|
  |
|
| Mar 24, 2007 @ 8:16 PM |
What's the goal? |
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
I think the libs watched too many TV shows of various communists' revolutions so they figured twould be nice to go out and play. You know, the whole monkey see, monkey do thing.
It's either that or they saw how Cindy Sheepan achieved national fame just by camping outside so somebody got a bright idea to throw in some doo doo in the mix and become even more famous.
I'm sure that if you asked them they wouldn't really know. They'd just repeat the communist pamphlets they memorized...
|
| |
|
| Mar 24, 2007 @ 9:34 PM |
What's the goal?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Sponge
I can't help but wonder what the ever more aggressive antiwar protesters hope to achieve.
If you delved a bit deeper and could list some possibilities, your post would actually be a fairly good essay.
What comes to mind as to a possibility is the understanding that war protests do not focus soley on war and nor do WTO prostests focus on money. Rather the common reoccuring theme is the West, and particularily the US is bad, capitalism is bad, providing low paying jobs to peole without jobs is bad, buying resources from starving people is bad and so on and forth. Basiclly, these issues are hand in hand with whatever is being protested and, the need to make the West, as it is, appear bad and less than free is central to the argument So, to cause a rukus, serves a few purposes - it gets a police reaction, making the protestors appear like victims to sympathetic world left wing press pundits, and, it also draws attention to the demonstration. The fact they are not permitted to demonstrate close to the meetings is secondary as much of the news media is focused on them no matter where they are and, to be able to moan and bitch about how they are not permitted to attend is a propaganda victory of sorts.
As for why the more moderate leftists who attend these functions don't clamp down on the more radical of their ilk, there is no reason to as they actually help thier cause by pulling attention to it. While the guy or gal next door might be pro America and die hard capitalists, they are, at the anti war demonstration simply against the war. And, any anti war activity that draws attention to their view is fine or, at the very least tolerated by them, no matter what they do. The leadership however, are not one trick ponies, just go to any anti war web site and look up the steering comittee, take a name and place it into google with the key words of 'socialist' 'radical' or even 'Jihadist' along with it and, the true agenda of the group becomes visible. It's not about one issue like war, or money, or freedom, rather a concentrated attempt to promote socialism and in order to do that, the West has to appear bad, wicked and totalitarian, hence, the need to stir the pot. They will, of course, on camera or in interviews state they are totally against violence but, don't do anything about it or ostricize those who commit it as it is simply another arm of their methods to achieve their goals.
[Edited on 3/24/2007 9:43 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 24, 2007 @ 10:03 PM |
What's the goal? |
|
acslim
Posts: 373
|
no protest zones?
to yur question -- i guess the objective is to piss people off.
|
| |
|
| Mar 25, 2007 @ 4:59 PM |
What's the goal?
|
|
eastham
Posts: 8,145
|
As for why the more moderate leftists who attend these functions don't clamp down on the more radical of their ilk, there is no reason to as they actually help thier cause by pulling attention to it.
Alot also comes from what news network you watch. In 2004, CSPAN covered, without commentary, the entire protest march at the Republican National Convention. Fox picks one wierd looking guy and weaves an entire cloth from a single thread.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 25, 2007 @ 6:12 PM |
What's the goal? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Eastham
Alot also comes from what news network you watch.
Might. I rarely watch TV and when I do it's not either of those.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 9:57 AM |
What's the goal?
|
|
Bj864
Posts: 4,238
|
I guess they are trying in a radical way to stop something. Sorta reminds me when the republicans went on a rampage to stop the counting of votes.
There are always going to be radical people in both parties.
I joined protests myself against the war, but I only carried signs or a peace candle. Now I am too ill to join them to stop the war, but I would if I could.
The goal of course is to stop the war. The radical ones figure they can get more attention by doing outlandish things and they usually do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|