Bollitics - Ireland, the Euro and the future of the EU

[snowychap]

There are a number of reports of groups of people who are there as anarchists rather than genuine protestors.

Can anarchists not be genuine protestors? What are you or other people defining as anarchist? Sounds like a lazy label that seems to be trotted out about protests and protestors.

I could never pick up a brick and hurl it at someone I don't know and have never met so I am unwilling to excuse other people who do it, let alone the idea of stabbing someone I disagree with.

Who is excusing anything?

[LondonLax]

To be protesting you have to be actually protesting against something. Not using the conditions as an excuse for a scrap. It is no different to football hooligans who tag along under the guise of a football game.

To call those people protestors legitimises them, implicitly excusing the violence as a protest that just got out of hand.

[Gringo]

I don't consider people who use legitimate protests as cover to commit acts of violence and destruction as actual protesters.

Indeed, most would call them agent provacteurs and are paid by the govt.

[peterms]

Of course they're protesting against something. The problem is that the people who are the object of the protest are nowhere to be seen, tucked away as they are in well-guarded hidey-holes, summits, conferences, boardrooms, tax havens. The police are left to take the brunt of it, but everyone knows it's not the police who are causing this economic devastation.

[LondonLax]

I don't consider people who use legitimate protests as cover to commit acts of violence and destruction as actual protesters.

Indeed, most would call them agent provacteurs and are paid by the govt.

The Greek government probably couldn't afford to hire provacteurs and they wouldn't need to. There are enough violent people in the world who will do it for free.

[snowychap]

To be protesting you have to be actually protesting against something. Not using the conditions as an excuse for a scrap. It is no different to football hooligans who tag along under the guise of a football game.

To call those people protestors legitimises them, implicitly excusing the violence as a protest that just got out of hand.

So you don't believe that anarchists can be genuine protestors?

Would you like to explain what you actually mean when you use the term anarchist because you appear to be presenting it as though anarchist = violent thug (i.e. a pretty lazy label).

What you mean, surely, is that those people who have gone on to the streets in Athens with the one intention of being violent are violent?

They may or may not be anarchists, nihilists, socialists, fascists, capitalists, communists or 7th day adventists.

Also, those who have been involved in violence may or may not have gone down there with the intention of being violent.

[LondonLax]

Er, yes. It seems like you are agreeing with me but don't like me using the label anarchist?

[snowychap]

Er, yes. It seems like you are agreeing with me but don't like me using the label anarchist?

Am I agreeing with you? It wouldn't appear to me that I am.

You seem to have been suggesting that any violence which occurred only happened because of people intent on causing violence and not protesting.

I hope I am suggesting that making the assumption you appear to have might very well be a mistake (and chucking in the label anarchist makes it seem like some poor red top editorial) as it appears to deny the possibility that the anger felt by the Greek people may have boiled over in to violence for some of those protesting.

Discussing the violence, why it may have happened and being open to the possibility that some of it may have come from 'genuine' protestors rather than just the thuggishness scenario you put forward is not excusing it.

[LondonLax]

I disagree. I think anger 'boiling over' does come across as excusing violent actions.

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

I disagree with the first two groups and support the third.

As for sounding like a red top editorial, I wouldn't know. I don't read any red tops so any similarities would be entirely coincidental :winkold:

[Gringo]

I disagree. I think anger 'boiling over' does come across as excusing violent actions.

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

I disagree with the first two groups and support the third.

You keep going on about protestor violence, even referring to year old incidents, but not a mention of the police shooting dead protestors.

[LondonLax]

I disagree. I think anger 'boiling over' does come across as excusing violent actions.

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

I disagree with the first two groups and support the third.

You keep going on about protestor violence, even referring to year old incidents, but not a mention of the police shooting dead protestors.

Hey, if you want to change the subject that's fine. We can discuss that as well.

[Gringo]

Well upon til a page ago the subject was the euro and the greek debt crisis, but you started having a go at protestors.

[LondonLax]

If you go back another page Conner and Snowychap started discussing the protestors which is where it started.

Post some stuff about the Greek Police actions and we can discuss that as well.

[snowychap]

I disagree. I think anger 'boiling over' does come across as excusing violent actions.

It's a pretty standard description of what happens when anger fails to be controlled which would be likely to be the case if some angry people turned violent.

The inference you draw says more about your prejudice regarding the situation than what I meant.

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

That's distinctly different to what you have been saying. The second group haven't figured in your posts until now.

[LondonLax]

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

That's distinctly different to what you have been saying. The second group haven't figured in your posts until now.

No, I don't see how it is.

People who turn up at a protest looking for a fight are not protestors. They are thugs. The same as people who turn up at a football game looking for a fight are not football fans.

That was the point I was making. It came from Peterms questioning me putting the word protestors in inverted commas.

[snowychap]

Was it the point you were making?

Your first point was to talk about some horrid incident that happened a year ago when we were discussing the events of yesterday.

That would appear to me a clear attempt to paint anyone who may have been violent in a single (very awful) light.

You subsequently went on about 'cover' when replying to Gringo and comparisons to hooligans and only latterly accepted that some of the people being violent may not have gone with that intention

[LondonLax]

Was it the point you were making?

Yes

Your first point was to talk about some horrid incident that happened a year ago when we were discussing the events of yesterday.

That would appear to me a clear attempt to paint anyone who may have been violent in a single (very awful) light.

It is the same protest, it has been going for over a year. That was the most apt example so far of what can happen when protests are out of control and there are people there who are feeling a justification for being violent. They brought along home made molotov cocktails and threw them into a bank with 20 people in it. It was premeditated.

You subsequently went on about 'cover' when replying to Gringo and comparisons to hooligans and only latterly accepted that some of the people being violent may not have gone with that intention

Only latterly posted is not the same as only latterly accepted.

[snowychap]

Was it the point you were making?

Yes

Claiming to make the point is not the same as making it.

[snowychap]

It is the same protest, it has been going for over a year.

If we're going down those lines then are we not talking about the same protest that has been going on since the killing Gringo posted about?

It was premeditated.

Does that necessarily mean that all that happened yesterday is premeditated?

No but it was convenient for the point you seemed to be making to not say this.

Only latterly posted is not the same as only latterly accepted.

The former lends more weight to the argument that your intention was to misrepresent the situation to fit in with the 'tar them all as violent 'anarchists' until I have to admit otherwise' stance.

[LondonLax]

It is the same protest, it has been going for over a year.

If we're going down those lines then are we not talking about the same protest that has been going on since the killing Gringo posted about?

It was premeditated.

Does that necessarily mean that all that happened yesterday is premeditated?

No but it was convenient for the point you seemed to be making to not say this.

Only latterly posted is not the same as only latterly accepted.

The former lends more weight to the argument that your intention was to misrepresent the situation to fit in with the 'tar them all as violent 'anarchists' until I have to admit otherwise' stance.

You can think that if you wish. It would be an incorrect assumption of my opinion though.

The point I was making is this:

There are people who turn up under the cover of a genuine protest looking to fight. They bring weapons along and attack designated targets. They are not protestors they are thugs (or anarchists or whatever term suits best).

The criminals who brought along molotov cocktails to burn down a bank whilst barricading the doors trapping people inside are the worst example of this. There are other examples from the protests over the last few days, people who bring weapons to attack police and who have stabbed other protestors.

Genuine protestors are angry but peaceful. Some people do get caught up and start partaking in violence, I don't support them in that but when you have an angry group of people mixed with a criminal element looking for a fight things can get out of control resulting in serious injuries or even deaths.