Previous post
How very peaceful of them.
At a “peace” demonstration in San Francisco, peace thugs and moonbats broke out into a near riot and of course, violence was not absent from the protest.
First, a fun little video where you can hear one of the scumbags yelling to “kill the police!” about 40 seconds in:
Yeah, let’s kill the people sworn to protect us. Real enlightened. Peaceful, too. Isn’t it interesting when so called “peaceful” people are often the first to call for violence?
And here’s another video showing the violence of this so-called peace rally:
I wish I had more insightful comments… but all I can really say is, how in the world do people get this f***ing stupid??
Hat Tip: Moonbattery
Larry Sheldon says: I lived in the Bay area for years–that is what they do there–The Destroyers.
They have no clue as to what to do to be constructive.
Long history.
When I read Rand, I picture San Francisco and Paolo Alto.
We lived near Lytton Plaza–I rather live in Baghdad.
Personally, I’d just as soon have the police use live ammo on them, and we’ll see how “awesome” the protesters think it is. But again, that would be considered police brutality…
Yeah, I’m mean like that…
Knott Buyinit says: More irony: I’m willing to bet that the SF ‘Peaceniks’ and the SFPD both voted for President 0bama in droves…
Stephen J. says: Very few “anti-war” protesters are consciously consistent, philosophical pacifists. They consider violence perfectly legitimate as long as it is used by a weaker group against a stronger one — which is one of the reasons why no matter how many goals they accomplish or how much progress they make towards realizing their vision, they always have to cast themselves as victims struggling against oppression. It’s the only way to legitimize their own use of the tactics they attribute to, and decry in, their opponents.
That’s why their protests are always “anti-war“. Because “war” is by definition a tool of the State, something only a recognized nation-state can declare, and is therefore always by definition an illegitimate use of force by the strong against the weak. Countering the State’s violence with the People’s violence is no contradiction or hypocrisy, by these lights.
Knott Buyinit says: “…They consider violence perfectly legitimate as long as it is used by a weaker group against a stronger one…”
– So they would all agree that Israel is right to kick the Arab’s rear ends every time they proffer it, eh?
Nevertheless, using personal violence to protest state-sponsored violence, you must admit, is at least revealing of the protester’s real attitude toward war – be it on a personal or international level. And therein lies the real hypocrisy. Either you believe that violence is a legitimate way to advance your cause or you don’t. I mean, if you really believe that ‘war is not the answer’, don’t go around whacking cops over the head with your ‘peace signs’. C’mon, peaceniks, you really want to show us how you feel? Be a man, go stand in front of a tank.
Chris says: That would require them growing spines. Doubt that’ll happen.
Stephen J. says: “So they would all agree that Israel is right to kick [attackers’] rear ends every time they proffer it, eh?”
If the conflict were openly between Israel as a nation-state and the powerful hostile neighbours like Saudi Arabia or Iran, maybe. (Not all of whom are ethnically Arab, hence my slight edit above.) But that’s why it’s always the dispossessed, refugee Palestinians who are cast as the other side in that conflict — the support that Hamas and Hezbollah get from Iran and other governments can be conveniently ignored or de-emphasized as long as the people actually on the front lines, and in the papers, are a smaller, militarily and economically weaker group.
It’s not about who actually is the underdog (and thus the knee-jerk recipient of sympathy from Western culture, which has always celebrated and admired underdogs) as who’s better at looking like the underdog.
“Either you believe that violence is a legitimate way to advance your cause or you don’t.”
It’s a tempting club to try hitting them with, but the problem is that most people do recognize a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence, depending on who’s using it against who and why — for self-defense if nothing else.
That’s why I said the protesters don’t see their hypocrisy. To them, violence against policemen and other enforcers of State coercion is not “war” — not as they define and think of that term. “War” is by definition something only the Man can declare; if you’re not the Man, if you can’t call out the tanks and the jets and the nukes and kill thousands in seconds with the push of a button, what you’re doing can’t be “War”, Q.E.D.
It’s about emotional rather than logical distinctions. What’s being protested is not a principle of politics, but the horror of technological mass destruction: “war” is not a morally illegitimate use of force by a nation-state, but a series of images: napalmed children in the Third World; ruined buildings and dust-covered bloody bandages in Iraq; explosions ripping their way across a city at night to the sound of screams and falling rubble; shadows of ash seared into a wall by nuclear fire. The difference in degree between that, and the violence they’re willing to use to resist it, they see as so great that it becomes in effect a difference in kind. What they advocate is not the same, in their eyes, as what they protest against, and a mere demonstration of logical continuity can never overcome the emotional disconnection.
They are suppose to protect us yet they don’t. At least where I am they abuse their power and harrass people like me for just walking down the street or waiting at the bus stop.
But you did make a contrary statement to what is being stated in this thread, so you’re obviously trying to start something in one way or another. Seriously, I think you’d have much more fun if you joined DailyKos or HuffPo. They’re more to your liking…
Ironwolf32 says: This is what happens when parents allow children to get away with temper tantrums and don’t discipline them. They grow into young adults that continue to have temper tantrums. Only now, the police have to do the parenting.
It is pretty sick. The next crop of liberals.
Shaniquequa,
Contrary means the opposite of what everyone else on the post is saying. Next time use a dictionary.
Secondly, if you’re going to make an opinion, then be prepared to be called on it.
Whatever Mat, you know why I don’t like them so you don’t really need to go through it with me. It seems you want to start something. So I’m done with you, let’s agree to disagree. You continue to be a cop lover and I’ll continue just not like the crooked cops. I do like this one sheriff guy though, he threw the peace sign up on me but outside of cops like that, I don’t like.
17 Comments