PhotoDude.com

*sigh* - I have to admit, I don't understand how it became so easy to paint the whole peace movement with this broad brush. Does Noam Chomsky speak for all liberals, David Duke for all conservatives, Louis Farrakhan for all blacks? Or (to use the analogy you made earlier) did everyone who thought the Rodney King verdict ten years ago was wrong agree with the looting and riots that followed, or the beating of the innocent truckdriver? Again, I don't define war supporters by their extremists, and I don't want to be defined by mine. Of course I agree with everything you said above - what these "opportunistic nutballs" are doing is most certainly not in my name, or in the name of my partner, my family, or any of the countless friends, acquaintances and strangers I've spoken to that also believe in nonviolent opposition to war. I'm just dismayed that that couldn't be taken for granted.

“did everyone who thought the Rodney King verdict ten years ago was wrong agree with the looting and riots that followed, or the beating of the innocent truckdriver?” Of course not. But what does history record as the tone of that time? Fires, looting, beatings. That is what's remembered. Not the peaceful dissent, but the lootings, setting neighborhoods afire, and beating people in the streets. This is the nature of history, and what it records. The aberrations from the norm. And I tried my best to make that point here. What we are seeing are aberrations from the norm within the peace movement. But that tonality is now overwhelming the norm. It will continue until people, like you, like Justin, speak out clearly against it. And until the protests themselves become more plainly self-policing. If you don't want to be defined by the extremists within the cause, then the cause must act on that. Once it's been claimed it as a slogan, “Not in my name” is very much a two way street. And I am thankful that people are now beginning to speak out against it from within. But it's a bare trend now, when, for the sake of the cause, it needs to be broad and deep. Justin's words bear repeating, as they make the point well: “The crazed actions of a few opportunistic nutballs put the broader antiwar movement in danger – and discredit legitimate, meaningful forms of dissent.” He's right. Next time around, this will be remembered, just as we remember the riots, lootings, and beatings after the Rodney King verdict. And that's my point. This not only sets back the peace movement, it has the potential of discrediting future dissent ... via prejudice. If this troubles you greatly, as it appears to, it should. This is a threat to more than just today's protests. I am a great supporter of dissent and protest as a vital part of democracy, so when I see it hijacked, even by a few, I will point to it plainly. And I do try to do it with some restraint and rationality. Please realize that I am likely in the minority in that way. The potential for damage is huge, if this continues and grows, and all indications are that it will. If any group of protesters, however small, moves to Black Bloc like violence as an attempt to disrupt the war, the peace movement is doomed. As are any movements that follow in its footsteps in the future. So I'm not condemning the legitimate peace movement. I'm calling on them to loudly reclaim their voice from this attempted coup, or face the unrelenting consequences of history. Justin appears to be as well. Another thing to remember from the riots after the Rodney King verdict. History records the riots and lootings, but there's also one other counter moment that is recorded with it; Rodney King tearfully appealing to the world, “Can't we all just get along?” That is what I'm calling for from the peace movement. That counter moment.

PD: Your point is now (for me) more clear. I sympathize with it, but I must point out some flaws: You are assuming that the anti-war movement is a group of people that you can ask or suggest to act in a certain direction. Obviously, you can ask anti-war organizations to take actions and state their opposition to certain practices. However, the movement is way beyond the control of any of these organizations. The movement is mostly made up of regular unorganized citizens that are expressing their opinion and demanding from the US and UK governments to stop the war. Most of them (us) are against violence in peace demonstrations, basically for the reasons you presented. Why not go to the media, organize and voice our opposition to such violent actions? I can think of at least two reasons: 1. Stopping the war comes first. Looting and beating up innocent people is wrong, simply wrong. But, for anyone against the war, creating a situation that would most probably lead to a gigantic humanitarian crisis if far more important. Could we just do both things at the same time? No. Any organizational effort must be directed towards preventing that humanitarian crisis. 2. Mainstream corporate media doesn't care about the opinion of those who oppose the war. How many times have you seen interviews to anti-war organizers? (I can only count one, on ABC, where P. Jennings bluntly said "I don't know who you are"... they were representing Moveon.org and UPJ) Now, compare that number to the air time given to "military experts". The bias is very evident. Which leads me to the next point, which is that it is the media (specially TV) that overblows the magnitude of these incidents. I've been in three demonstrations in NY and DC, walking along black blocs, and the only violence I saw was provoked by the police, charging against the crowd with cars, motorcycles or horses. I don't see much coverage of that. (Actually, I have seen some: I saw one policeman on TV grabbing and taking a child from her father's shoulders in a demonstration while he was getting beat up for no apparent reason... quite shocking). Finally, you probably know that a lot of these groups are infiltrated by law-enforcement officers. When I had participated in any protest organization the rule was very clear: people who commit random acts of violence within the organization is most likely an infiltrator working to discredit the organization. They also plant absurd things like molotov cocktails (have you seen one being used lately?) or even guns or explosive materials. I'm not saying that organizations like these never engage in illegal behavior, but it is never random. Things like the kid trying to break into the World Bank building, I believe it was a sincere (though illegal) action. The molotov cocktail... if I had to put money on it, I'll say "planted". To summarize my point: if the anti-war movement is recorded in the annals of history as violent, it will be the fault of the media (and historians, I suppose), not of the movement. This is an attack to which the movement, as a collection of unorganized citizens, can't respond. Yes, it's its weak point. On a whole different subject, is it okay that American and/or British corporations are already lining up to profit out of the reconstruction of Iraq? I suggest that, in order to show that there is no conflict of interest on this issue, whoever ends up in charge of the interim government of Iraq should not give any reconstruction or oil exploration contracts to firms that are affiliated to or pay a large percentage of their taxes to any coallition government, or that have financed any political campaign in any coallition nation. The leaders of the US and the UK should strongly support this plan, showing that the war is aimed only toward restoring (?) democracy in Iraq and getting rid of WMD. Do you agree with me? The following article from the NY Times suggests that the exact opposite is already happening: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html Cheers!

"No. Any organizational effort must be directed towards preventing that humanitarian crisis." That's what we are doing.... by ousting Saddam. You seem very concerned about the Iraqi Humanitarian Crisis in a time of war, but ignore it otherwise. Saddam's Iraq has caused enough of a humanitarian crisis already. Why weren't there massive rallies asking for inspections in Iraq and the diplomatic restraint/removal of Saddam (things I hear many anti-war "peace" protesters mention) before Bush brought it up? I can't believe that civilian death/crisis is the only reason you are opposed to war against a dictator that tortures his people. "and the only violence I saw was provoked by the police, charging against the crowd with cars, motorcycles or horses." hmm... The police used cars to charge the crowd. That probably means people were on a street and blocking traffic. Since when is it your right to block traffic? Steets are for cars. And although I believe you have a right to protest a war in a group, now is not the time to do it. It won't do anything now but create a traffic jam.

Using Jensen's logic, the US should occupy every country where the government terrorizes its population, and produces what is known as "humanitarian crises". That would include a very good portion of what was formerly known as the Third World, and by any accounts it's called "imperialism". People have been protesting the repressive actions of several governments around the world, including the main recipients of US military aid (Israel, Egypt, Colombia) and many others, like those in the so-called "coallition of the willing" (did you know that the colombian government was bribed with US$ 100 million for its support?) and, yes, also Iraq. The intensification of the protests is due to the grave consequences of current US foreign policy: it undermines international legality, sets a horrible precedent with the justification of preemptive military actions (look out for N. Korea now...) and intensifies the crisis in Iraq (how does it help to start a war in northern Iraq between Kurds and the Turkish army, while civilians are being bombed to kingdom come in Basra and Iraq? Oh, and wait for the Iran-backed shi'ites to kick in...) I oppose any non-defensive foreign intervention to any sovereign nation, regardless of how dreadful its government is. It is, or apparently "it was", the law. But Jensen also seems to be worried about me breaking the law. All the demonstrations I've participated are completely legal and authorized by the appropiate bureaucrat. Streets are not only for cars, you know? There are street markets, street theater, street art, and also street demonstrations.

"Using Jensen's logic, the US should occupy every country where the government terrorizes its population, and produces what is known as "humanitarian crises". " Not exactly... My point was that a fear of a "Humanitarian Crisis" is not a valid reason to be anti-war (IMO). In your first comment you said "But, for anyone against the war, creating a situation that would most probably lead to a gigantic humanitarian crisis if far more important", but clarified it with your broader reason: "I oppose any non-defensive foreign intervention to any sovereign nation, regardless of how dreadful its government is."