(no subject)

[symbioidlj]

So, THIS is what it looked like. I mean, this is the guy that got killed seconds beforehand. It's unbelievable that a photgrapher got this close. OK, so a cop has his gun trained on the guy. A guy has a fucking fire extinguisher. So what if the guy throws an extinguisher at them. I highly doubt it would be deadly. not only did the protestor get shot... he got shot twice and then ran over by the fucking cops. GRRR...

Comments

[celestyna.livejournal.com]

if you start with violence, you'll end with violence. it was not a peaceful protest. The cause was beautiful, but the violence they chose to show their cause in was just nil.

I'm not "pro-cop" if there is such a thing, but anyone who'se been involved in a few protest can tell you that there are different intents. Theirs was not a peaceful one.

You throw it out to the universe, you get it back.

Re:

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

hmm. i've got varying beliefs about violence. on one hand it's not a good thing, however, complete pacifism simply doesn't work. History shows that the big pacifist movements didn't get taken seriously until there were more militant movements(ie: MLK Jr, and the Black Panthers. Until the Panthers arrived on the scene, the government didn't wanna deal with MLK, but then they feared the Black Panthers(which, IMO was a great movement in concept and practice, until COINTELPRO), the same thing happened with Ghandi. A good source on this is "Pacifism as Pathology" by Ward Churchill. Some good concepts. Not as detailed as I'd like, but some interesting reading.

The biggest problem I have is that no-one questions the underlying violence and oppression of our current system. Yes, there's been property damage at these protests, and sometimes physical injury(however usually the protestors were the ones injured, not the cops)But for the most part, physical violence(as opposed to property destruction) doesn't occur...A building or window is not a human being(though I'm sure you've heard all the arguments before) But legally, of course, a corporation is.

My point being that systemic violence of the sort that underpins sweat-shops, corporate sponsored murder of indigineous activists(a la Ken Sarowiwa), and even local corruption which is supposedly not the norm(but still WAY to widespread even if it isn't the "norm")ie: Amadou Diallo, Malice Green, etc...The inhumane policies against innocent Iraqi civilians,our bombing of afghanistan and sudan, the kurd struggle in Turkey, Pinochet... blablah, the list goes on.How come justice doesn't come for those responsible in such cases? Sometimes it does, but more often than not, it doesn't.And like I said... A bullet in the head is not equivalent to a fire extinguisher thrown at a truck. The kharmic payback of which you speak seems disproportionate, even the wiccan concept of three-fold seems less severe than a bullet in the head. At worst it would demand three fire-extinguishers thrown at the guy. Anyways.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think that pure pacifism is a useful tactic. Seriously, check out that book by Churchill if you have time or care to. otherwise, disregard all the crap I'm saying right now.

peace out. ;)

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem I have is that no-one questions the underlying violence and oppression of our current system.
----
Well I don't literally mean "no-one", but you know... the masses don't question it, the media, etc... Of course we do(well, I'm assuming you do)

later