anti-war and other demonstration groups

[jerseydevil]

I had been looking around for a while at anti-war groups and other so called "peace activist" groups. It seems as if they're all one sided. They don't go out and demonstrate against the Iraqi Emabassy, or the North Korean Embassy. They seem to only demonstrate against the Western countries (primarily against the US).

They condemn Israel - but are silent on the Palestinian Suicide Bombers. They talk about civil rights for arabs in the US - but allow 10's of thousands to be executed, tortured and imprisoned for life without trials in the Middle East. They allow North Koreans to starve without organising a mass demonstration against the North Korean government.

I wonder how "peace activists" (primarily made up of people against the US and the west) expect to be taken seriously.

This is a prime example of a so called peace organisation - International A.N.S.W.E.R.. I got this link off of BBC in the article - US intensifies Iraq build-up. I question why BBC included the link for this website when the organisation wasn't even mentioned in the article. They also contained this link - MoveOn.org. Amazingly they didn't include any pro-war sites, which obviously there are.

I'm now getting a better understanding of why the Europeans have such a different view of the world than the US does. I also see where the BBC stands on the issues. They also heavily gear their reporting to win their readers support for the causes and ideas they believe in.

I e-mailed this to International A.N.S.W.E.R. Organisation

Why don't you go to Iraq or China or North Korea and demonstrate against their human rights abusives. Maybe it's because even you are smart enought to realise that you'd be shot, tortured or imprisoned for life without trial. Or maybe it's because you're not really for peace. Why don't you condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers that PURPOSELY target and kill woman, children and men as they eat or go to the mall or wait for a bus.

Your demostrations are all one sided. If you truly cared about human rights and peace in the world - you would be marching in front of the Iraqi Emabassies, the North Korean emabassies, the Chinese embassies. You'd be outraged by the warlords in Somalia or the fighting going on in any number of African countries. I would have heard you guys demonstrating against the Taliban and the executions that took place in the soccer fields. Or demononstrating against the outrage that women were forbidden to get an education. But alas - for some strange reason you are silent where the true evil is.

Until I see "anti-war" groups holding mass demonstrations against those countries, I will continue to believe you are a bunch of misguided fanatics with your own agenda (which does not include world peace). I would really like to see for once a huge demonmstration against countries that TRULY do limit freedom and violate human rights. Maybe when I see on your website condemnation of the Palestinian suicide bombers next to the comdemnation of the Israeli responses - I'll take you seriously. Until that time all your "news articles" are just one sided propaganda.

I don't want to see my liberties eroded and I will fight for mine or
anyone else's. But you have your own agenda which is no better than the people you condemn.

I hope for everyone's sake that terrorism does not win out. If it does - your voice, along with everyone else's, will be silent under a religious fanatical dictatorship.

Robert Rosetta
http://www.aboutnewjersey.com/twintowers/twintowers.htm
Plainsboro NJ

Why don't so called peace organisations demonstate against the countries that treat their people no better than animals? Why do they ransack western cities (like they did in Seattle)? It just seems that a lot of these organisations are very hypocritical.

[Draken]

It has always been the way with "peace" organisations. Whatever their original intentions, they will always be come to be seen as an inherent weakness in tolerant Western societies that can be exploited by nations who wouldn't let them survive for 5 minutes at home. CND used to madden me in the 80s by their openly one-sided stance.

And I'm afraid it seem that you do NOT see where the BBC "stands" on the war. The organisation strives for a balanced view where possible - during the Falklands War they refused to refer to British forces as "our" forces despite complaints from the then Conservative government, and in the famous "Death On the Rock" documentary the official version of the killing of IRA terrorists was challenged. The recent Panorama feature on Saddam Hussein could not have been more critical of either him or his regime.

It is the BBC's job to cover views from across the spectrum and point out both pros and cons - they might not get it right all the time, but I do think they try to. As Britons often find the BBC, if anything, too neutral, I suppose it isn't surprising that those from overseas do when it covers events in which they have an interest.

As to web links, I think they're dodgey. With so many sites in the world it's almost impossible to link to a reprsentative selection - I think it would be wiser for such organisations to give NO links at all. Incidentally, when I entered a search on the Panorama feature on Saddam Hussein, the top sponsored link that appeared on the right was to a site offering the Iraqi view - and I hardly think Google are anti-American.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
It has always been the way with "peace" organisations. Whatever their original intentions, they will always be come to be seen as an inherent weakness in tolerant Western societies that can be exploited by nations who wouldn't let them survive for 5 minutes at home. CND used to madden me in the 80s by their openly one-sided stance.

I think they have a right to say how they feel about things - but if they want to be taken seriously in my eyes they need to include the attrocities of the Palestinians next the their condemnation of the Israelis. And that International A.N.S.W.E.R. organisation is located in NY. They could demonstrate very easily against Iraq or any number of coutries by setting up huge demonstrations down the street at UN Headquarters - not to mention the many consulat buildings in NY. But that is only if they are truly for peace or just anti-west/anti-US/anti-Israel and hiding behind the "anti-war" banner (which I think many of these organisations do).

They of course may be puppet demonstrators/organisations though that have been put in place by various countries that are against the US and the west. They could be using our freedoms against us. I'm not sure if this is what you might be saying.

And I'm afraid it seem that you do NOT see where the BBC "stands" on the war. The organisation strives for a balanced view where possible - during the Falklands War they refused to refer to British forces as "our" forces despite complaints from the then Conservative government, and in the famous "Death On the Rock" documentary the official version of the killing of IRA terrorists was challenged. The recent Panorama feature on Saddam Hussein could not have been more critical of either him or his regime.

It is the BBC's job to cover views from across the spectrum and point out both pros and cons - they might not get it right all the time, but I do think they try to. As Britons often find the BBC, if anything, too neutral, I suppose it isn't surprising that those from overseas do when it covers events in which they have an interest.

Actually you make my point because I was thinking they were a liberal sided news organisation. They would obviously not side with the Falkland conflict - because that was a military operation under Thatcher, who as you said was the Conservative government.

I've been looking at the BBC site for a while. They do repeatedly throw in their own comments - such as "By European standards, both the Democrats and Republicans are remarkably similar in their ideology - or lack of it." - City versus country The lack of our political parties having or not having an ideology is an opinion - it's not factual news. When I read statements such as these - I question the value of the reporting agency to be unbiased. Obviously this was a dig at the American political system - which I had seen over and over again in their coverage of the American elections in the BBC website.

So - it was not over just that one statement that I am questioning BBC's reporting style - just like I think CNN over-sensationalizes and sugarcoats things.

As to web links, I think they're dodgey. With so many sites in the world it's almost impossible to link to a reprsentative selection - I think it would be wiser for such organisations to give NO links at all. Incidentally, when I entered a search on the Panorama feature on Saddam Hussein, the top sponsored link that appeared on the right was to a site offering the Iraqi view - and I hardly think Google are anti-American.

Well Google is computer generated. It's based on how many times that word or phrase is associated with a particular site. You do a search on "go to hell" and the number one site is Microsoft - at least it was last month, as you can read in Computer World's "Google search leads to Gates of 'hell'" article.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well Google is computer generated. It's based on how many times that word or phrase is associated with a particular site. You do a search on "go to hell" and the number one site is Microsoft - at least it was last month, as you can read in Computer World's "Google search leads to Gates of 'hell'" article.

Oh dear, I laughed my head of with that one. There is still justice in the world.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Actually you make my point because I was thinking they were a liberal sided news organisation. They would obviously not side with the Falkland conflict - because that was a military operation under Thatcher, who as you said was the Conservative government.

I've been looking at the BBC site for a while. They do repeatedly throw in their own comments - such as "By European standards, both the Democrats and Republicans are remarkably similar in their ideology - or lack of it." - City versus country The lack of our political parties having or not having an ideology is an opinion - it's not factual news. When I read statements such as these - I question the value of the reporting agency to be unbiased. Obviously this was a dig at the American political system - which I had seen over and over again in their coverage of the American elections in the BBC website.

So - it was not over just that one statement that I am questioning BBC's reporting style - just like I think CNN over-sensationalizes and sugarcoats things.

Hum, you know, if I’m not mistaken that article you choose is an opinion article, as opposed to “regular” news. Others cases you have found may be similar.

Personally I don’t see BBC as not being neutral, I fail to see that leftist stance you seem to find in it. Even in that statement you refer. After all, it is usually accepted that European parties traditionally have a clearer separation between Right and Left that the one that can be found in the US parties (but in recent times this division is being eroded, with the “Third Way”, and the “socially concerned right”). I believe that was the argument of the journalist, and also the discarding of ideology issues for electoral proposes, (something that is not just an American “problem”).


It is true you will not see any pro-war organization in European news. War is still taboo in Europe (any war, that is). This is not simply a media stance but a “common man” attitude. You won’t find many individuals or organizations publicly claiming to be pro-war around here (whatever the war may be). Even among those that would support an action against Iraq, war is seen at best as a regrettable necessity, not something to be vocal about. Politicians and organizations are very careful with this. That is one of the reasons why the endorsement of the UN is seen as so important; a war becomes the enforcement of a legitimate supranational entity will. Under this light, it is no longer a war between nations, but a military action of enforcement of the legitimate international community. The rule of Law instead of the rule of Might.


As for the general quality of European journalism, I must say that I found somewhat ironic that the critics you make are mostly the ones I’ve heard about the media in the US. Around here it is generally seen in a rather poor light; as being somewhat biased and usually of limited scope. I don’t know about that, since I do have a limited range of first hand experience about it, but some of the critics I know are journalists, and have lived in the US. I don’t intend to “throw it back at you,” I’m merely pointing out that what you have found may be simply different cultural perspectives.

[jerseydevil]

I have a lot of problems with US media - I think that the media should just present the facts and let the viewers/readers make up their own mind. Most media outlets slant the news to support their views. I just had noticed a lot of erroneous reporting on the BBC site concerning the American elections and how our political system works.

The article I mentioned was about the American political system. I stand by the fact that adding "or lack of one" after talking about the ideology of the American political system was a European dig.

I was more interested in finding out about what people think of "peace activists". They only seem to complain about western countries and don't demonstrate against Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, etc.

[Elvellon]

have a lot of problems with US media - I think that the media should just present the facts and let the viewers/readers make up their own mind. Most media outlets slant the news to support their views. I just had noticed a lot of erroneous reporting on the BBC site concerning the American elections and how our political system works.

True, errors and superficiality may be a problem of journalism everywhere. Information is usually processed fast, and little analysis is given to it. Also one can argue that the general qualifications of journalists may be declining. This is probably a universal problem.

The article I mentioned was about the American political system. I stand by the fact that adding "or lack of one" after talking about the ideology of the American political system was a European dig.

That may be just one of the examples of different perspectives. Consider that, in Western Europe it is generally accepted that the European Left have (or perhaps had) a more socialistic view that the one that could be found in the Democratic Party. Also do not forget the historical presence of strong Communist parties in Western Europe until recent times (and still exist a few significant cases today). On the other side, the European Right also has different characteristics, like the not so bright past association with fascism, and other even darker tendencies. Therefore, the Right in Europe is not seen exclusively as the well-behaved Liberal Right. So we are speaking of more militant ideologies.

But you are, in a sense, right; the author was saying is a traditional cliché. It may be already outdated, even if it was only given as a mean to compare different realities.

I was more interested in finding out about what people think of "peace activists". They only seem to complain about western countries and don't demonstrate against Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, etc.

I think that perhaps, there is a problem of perspective here. As I see it, most protesters are not protesting “just” against injustice, but against state sponsored injustice, their state or some other one close, particularly.

It is true that many are too PC to may taste, and therefore have a tendency to have a distorted view of what and why happens in the third world. Others have a more pragmatic view and actually have very low expectations in relation to the Third World, but are still much more critical and active when it is their country or the West that does the action that displeases them, since they have come to expect more from it, and perhaps more importantly, believe they can do something about it.

Only a very small minority of those that protest against the “state of things” are actually violent. However it is a known tactic of those who have a harder political agenda to send “agent provocateurs” among peaceful protesters to create disturbances and draw the police into indiscriminate action. A way to force many moderates into a harder line, and captivate public opinion.
Unfortunately the police seem to be to keen to fall into the game, and sometimes actually dispense the provocation to overreact. Fortunately, this may be changing, and the most progressive police forces seem to have become more aware of the problem and how to react to it (with selective, proportional action).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

That may be just one of the examples of different perspectives. Consider that, in Western Europe it is generally accepted that the European Left have (or perhaps had) a more socialistic view that the one that could be found in the Democratic Party. Also do not forget the historical presence of strong Communist parties in Western Europe until recent times (and still exist a few significant cases today). On the other side, the European Right also has different characteristics, like the not so bright past association with fascism, and other even darker tendencies. Therefore, the Right in Europe is not seen exclusively as the well-behaved Liberal Right. So we are speaking of more militant ideologies.

Yes - your political parties are more extreme. Americans generally like things in the middle - no one having complete control or being too extreme. Even with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch - the way our government is set up it's still going to be a fight for Bush to get whatever he wants (also because the republicans only have a couple of more seats than the democrats)

Americans were shocked by Le Pen's election in France. Even though it was only a "primary" - it was still shocking that a European country in todays world could even vote for someone like that. Also what is scary is he's not the only one out there in European politics.

In order to get elected in the US - you really do have to move toward the middle. That is one of the reason that outsiders don't see much difference between the two major US parties. There are major differences still though. A lot of the differences deal with domestic issues that don't really concern the rest of the world though.

I think that perhaps, there is a problem of perspective here. As I see it, most protesters are not protesting “just” against injustice, but against state sponsored injustice, their state or some other one close, particularly.

It is true that many are too PC to may taste, and therefore have a tendency to have a distorted view of what and why happens in the third world. Others have a more pragmatic view and actually have very low expectations in relation to the Third World, but are still much more critical and active when it is their country or the West that does the action that displeases them, since they have come to expect more from it, and perhaps more importantly, believe they can do something about it.

Only a very small minority of those that protest against the “state of things” are actually violent. However it is a known tactic of those who have a harder political agenda to send “agent provocateurs” among peaceful protesters to create disturbances and draw the police into indiscriminate action. A way to force many moderates into a harder line, and captivate public opinion.

Unfortunately the police seem to be to keen to fall into the game, and sometimes actually dispense the provocation to overreact. Fortunately, this may be changing, and the most progressive police forces seem to have become more aware of the problem and how to react to it (with selective, proportional action).

Several years ago when I was in Portland there was a demonstration (caused a big fight between me and a friend). She wanted to check it out because it was agains the US patrolling the no-fly zone over Iraq ( noit surprisingly we got into a fight before we even got there - she was against the patrols and the UN inspections and I supported them). tThe demonstrators were in the middle of busy intersection in downtown - blocking rush hour traffic. The cops were arresting people that refused to move - there was no violence. My friend was saying that the cops were infringing on the free speech of the demonstrators and I was arguing that the demonstrators were infringing on the rights of people to get home or go about their lives. I felt they had no business blocking traffic like that.

With all the heated comments from the demonstrators and from my friend about the police - I can see very easily how a situation like that can quickly get out of control.

In America - not sure about in Europe or eleswhere - when demonstrators get out of hand like they did in Seattle and the various times during the WTO meetings - their message gets completely lost. Most people just think of them as fanatics. Some people may actually have some good things to say - but they end up being so fanatical no one in the US really listens. It just seems like a bunch of elementary school students starting a food fight because their mad that they can't go out on the playground. They just seem very imature.

Also - when demonstrartors don't have respect for someone else's propert - such as McDonalds - then why would people listen? Why do they think they deserve respect when they're not showing any respect to others?

[Cirdan]

What would be the point of protesting against a non-democracy? I'm surprised to see criticism of a great American democratic tradition. The only reason to protest is if the is some recourse. The first thing you see in a failing ditatorship is the protests of people sensing the imminent fall. Remember the protests in Belgrade that lead to Milosovics removal after he denied the election. Peace protesters are just voicing their opinion. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Elvellon]

You speak about captivating the common man, but I presume that what most hardliners want is not that, at least directly. They wish to bring more moderates into their lines, by forcing them into confronts they didn’t start. Other times they simply want to create mistrust in the population against the authorities, the rest, they believe, it will follow. Also do not forget that these infiltrates do not necessarily have an extreme version of the ideals and goals of the other protesters. Their vision may be very different indeed, so they feel that by disrupting such manifestations they are not hurting their “cause.”

Also - when demonstrartors don't have respect for someone else's propert - such as McDonalds - then why would people listen? Why do they think they deserve respect when they're not showing any respect to others?

This particular case can be more easily explained. I presume that since it is the fight of David against Goliath, it may be not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of sympathy resulting of it. Besides, it gives visibility to the plight, forcing (or so they hope) the politicians to face their demands and take a stance.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
What would be the point of protesting against a non-democracy? I'm surprised to see criticism of a great American democratic tradition. The only reason to protest is if the is some recourse. The first thing you see in a failing ditatorship is the protests of people sensing the imminent fall. Remember the protests in Belgrade that lead to Milosovics removal after he denied the election. Peace protesters are just voicing their opinion. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I'm saying that they seem very one sided - there is a difference. Why not demonstrate against a dictatorship? If they are truly for the fight for human rights and everything - shouldn't they be outside the UN demonstrating against the countries that TRULY do infringe on people's human rights - such as Iraq, the Taliban, North Korea, China, etc?

A lot of people demontrate against Israel - but very view of these same organisations condemn the Suicide Bombers. How is bombing innocent people justified?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
This particular case can be more easily explained. I presume that since it is the fight of David against Goliath, it may be not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of sympathy resulting of it. Besides, it gives visibility to the plight, forcing (or so they hope) the politicians to face their demands and take a stance.

David and Goliath against a fast food restaurant? It's the anti-globilization people that basically have a problem with this. They also seem to be the most violent of the demonstrators. I know there are some environmentalists that are against McDonalds because of the rainforest. But does this require them to competely destroy a McDonalds? I think the case in France though it might have been because they felt McDonalds was infringing on their culture. If the French didn't eat there - then McDonalds would close it's doors.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I'm saying that they seem very one sided - there is a difference. Why not demonstrate against a dictatorship? If they are truly for the fight for human rights and everything - shouldn't they be outside the UN demonstrating against the countries that TRULY do infringe on people's human rights - such as Iraq, the Taliban, North Korea, China, etc?

A lot of people demontrate against Israel - but very view of these same organisations condemn the Suicide Bombers. How is bombing innocent people justified?

I think the difference is really that no one beleives that protesting against a dictatorship would do any good. Palestine pretends to be a democracy but it is functionally a dictatorship. The protests against the war in Vietnam had a large effect (for better or worse) on the government.

Did you see this?

Europe Protest

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I think the difference is really that no one beleives that protesting against a dictatorship would do any good. Palestine pretends to be a democracy but it is functionally a dictatorship. The protests against the war in Vietnam had a large effect (for better or worse) on the government.

Did you see this?

Europe Protest

yeah I know that they were marching in Italy and all over the world. I have a friend that lives in Pisa and I had asked her if she was going to go there or not. That is where a big demonstration was going to take place.

And I agree - they demonstrate against demoncratic countries because they know they can't demonstrate against dictatorships. But just because they think it won't do any good - doesn't mean they shouldn't try, especially if they are truly for world peace .

Also - as I've stated before in other threads - no matter what happens it's America's fault. At least this time one of the protestors lumped France and Britain in there too. -

"I think it's a scandalous resolution," said Sean Murray, 29, a member of Workers' Revolution. "It proves once more that the U.N. is a puppet of America, Britain and France."

Of course he seems to forget that 6 other members could have rejected it. Is it America's fault that they went through? I haven't really seen too many demonstrations against the UN. If they feel that the UN is a puppet of America - shouldn't they be demonstrating against the UN? I know - the UN gets the credit when people agree with what they do - and America gets the blame when the people don't agree with what the UN does.

Many of them are demonstrating against a resolution to make sure that Iraq is complying with the ban on WMD - something that was not enforced by the UN before. If they were truly for peace - they should at least allow the weapons inspectors in there. Making sure Iraq doesn't have nuclear, biological, chemical weapons will insure the peace more than let him go on making them. Do they really think that if he gets them and builds up an arsenal uninterrupted that he will just sit back and not use them? Will they be demontsrating against Iraq if he invades his neighbors like he did when he invaded Kuwait?

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
David and Goliath against a fast food restaurant? It's the anti-globilization people that basically have a problem with this. They also seem to be the most violent of the demonstrators. I know there are some environmentalists that are against McDonalds because of the rainforest. But does this require them to competely destroy a McDonalds? I think the case in France though it might have been because they felt McDonalds was infringing on their culture. If the French didn't eat there - then McDonalds would close it's doors.

Yes, do not forget what you are speaking of; a big impersonal corporation versus those that oppose it (people). The fact is, a significant number of people have a tendency to suspect of big multinationals, and an action against them is not seen in the same light as one that would hurt someone with a human face, say, a local shop owner. As for the cultural thing, the real issue is farmer’s income, that some see as being hurt by the fast food culture. National culture is mostly a rally point.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Yes, do not forget what you are speaking of; a big impersonal corporation versus those that oppose it (people). The fact is, a significant number of people have a tendency to suspect of big multinationals, and an action against them is not seen in the same light as one that would hurt someone with a human face, say, a local shop owner. As for the cultural thing, the real issue is farmer’s income, that some see as being hurt by the fast food culture. National culture is mostly a rally point.

To me that is no excuse for destroying personal property.

In Indiana there were these teenagers that ransacked and completely destroyed a 99% completed house because it was built on the lot where they used to hang out. They ripped out the bathroom fixtures, put holes in the walls and everything. They had no respect for the family that was moving in there (who legally bought the property). Their parents also showed the same lack of respect - they told reporters that their should have been "no tresspassing" signs. This act of vanadlism is no different than if demonstarors destroy personal property.

[Elvellon]

Also - as I've stated before in other threads - no matter what happens it's America's fault. At least this time one of the protestors lumped France and Britain in there too.

Hey, blaming the neighbour countries is an old traditional pastime in Europe, do not think we loose half the time with the US, j/k.

[Lizra]

Whenever I think of protesting, my thoughts go back to that horrible thing that went down at Tianamen Square in China. I could easily cry over that.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lizra
Whenever I think of protesting, my thoughts go back to that horrible thing that went down at Tianamen Square in China. I could easily cry over that.

Yeah. Now THAT was protesting ..........and speaks volumes about the initial question in this thread

Edited to add link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/

too grim

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
Whenever I think of protesting, my thoughts go back to that horrible thing that went down at Tianamen Square in China. I could easily cry over that.

The lone demonstrator standing in the middle of the street stopping the tanks. That is a powerful picture.

That's a cool link Coney.

By the way - I hope no one thinks that I'm against demonstrating or voicing one's opinion. I am however against the mob violence. I would like to see some of these "peace activists" and demonstrators come out and organise a huge march against the countries that perform attrocious human rights abuses. They seem to be able to get 100,000 people to demonstate against the US going to war with Iraq - something we haven't done yet - but there weren't 100,000 marching when the Kurds were gassed or when Meloshevic was performing "ethnic cleansing".