Activism Discussion: Protestors "Resist State Terrorism" With Pillows

Protestors "Resist State Terrorism" With Pillows
Posts: 25

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2009-04-05 13:43:29 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://tinyurl.com/cjnj44
Protestors “resist state terrorism” with pillows
by Troy Farah and Matt Roberto
April 2, 2009

At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived with a
shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff’s Heritage Square and
began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and fluff flew, but
the mass of people also collided with the cops.

Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness of
and protest the arrest of the “Republican National Convention Eight”
(the RNC8).

The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and St.
Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to their
political organizing. They all face up to seven-and-a-half years in
prison under the terrorism enhancement charge, which allows for a
possible 50 percent increase in the maximum penalty. The legal expenses
for those involved with the RNC8 are estimated to be $250,000.

The last time such charges were brought under Minnesota law was in 1918,
when Matt Moilen and others organized labor unions for the International
Workers of the World, also known as “the Wobblies.”
[That's "Industrial" Workers of the World.--DC]

“I brought a feathered pillow, which was a bad idea, I guess. I couldn’t
even see for a second,” said Houston Scott, a student getting his GED at
NAU, referring to the explosion of his pillow.

Amidst the sea of smacking linen, a girl handed out chocolate-chip
cookies, and a bearded man wore a dress. A shopping cart draped in
cardboard, dubbed “The Peace Tank,” housed a stereo blaring Rage Against
the Machine, Bob Marley and Daft Punk. Some protesters waved black flags
and banners declaring “resist state terrorism” and “defend the RNC8 —
community, solidarity, resistance.”

While resting between their pillow warfare, the protestors chalked
messages and symbols of peace and love on the brick of Heritage Square.

Three Flagstaff Police officers arrived at Heritage Square after local
businesses complained about noise and the mess of feathers floating in
the air.

One officer asked around for the leader, but someone in the crowd
answered, “There is no leader.”

Aaron Levy, a second-year English graduate student at NAU donning a
cat-ear cap, stood atop one of the Square’s benches and gave a speech
through a megaphone.

“When we come to the pillow fight today, we want to show the world there
is a better way to do things,” Levy shouted into his bullhorn. “You
don’t need guns, you don’t need Tasers, you don’t need handcuffs, you
don’t need politicians and we don’t need anybody but ourselves to
operate in a world of peace and justice.”

The crowd cheered, and the cops crossed their arms.

“Today, tomorrow and forever will always be remembered as the day that
we pillow fought in Flagstaff!” Levy said. “But it doesn’t start with
pillow fighting; we must now make sure that every day is a day for us to
reclaim ourselves from the system of degradation and capitalism.”

The cops took Levy aside and began to question him about the complaints
they received.

“You just gonna leave that out there?” Officer Condon pointed to the chalk.

“It will just kinda take care of itself,” Levy said.

“Nobody wrote anything vulgar or anything?” Condon asked.

“No sir. It’s just peace, love,” Levy said.

The cops let Levy go, and the group began to clean up the mess with
borrowed brooms and bare hands.

“It was (expletive) badass,” Scott said. “One of the funnest times I’ve
had all year. I would do this many times over.”

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"




























Stan De SD
2009-04-09 23:17:45 EST
On Apr 5, 10:43 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cjnj44
> Protestors “resist state terrorism” with pillows
> by Troy Farah and Matt Roberto
> April 2, 2009
>
> At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived with a
> shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff’s Heritage Square and
> began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and fluff flew, but
> the mass of people also collided with the cops.
>
> Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness of
> and protest the arrest of the “Republican National Convention Eight”
> (the RNC8).

Proof that the American Left is comprised of wackjobs.

> The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and St.
> Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

The only "criminalization of dissent" exists in the minds of the
wackjob leftos who were surprised that for once someone would actually
take legal action against the commie rent-a-mob that breaks shit and
incites violence.

> They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to their
> political organizing.

More bullshit. It wasn't "political organizing" that got them in
trouble, so don't bother running that idea up the flagpole. The actual
charges have to do with inciting a riot and conspiring to commit acts
of vandalism.

PseudoCyAntz
2009-04-10 08:10:19 EST
Stan de SD <StanDeSD@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cb197968-eb59-467e-9235-9475331e846f@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 5, 10:43\ufffdam, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> News & Views for Anarchists &
>> Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smy
> go
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cjnj44
>> Protestors \ufffdresist state terrorism\ufffd with pillows
>> by Troy Farah and Matt Roberto
>> April 2, 2009
>>
>> At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived
>> with a shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff\ufffds Heritage
>> Square and began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and
>> fluff flew, but the mass of people also collided with the cops.
>>
>> Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness
>> of and protest the arrest of the \ufffdRepublican National Convention
>> Eight\ufffd (the RNC8).
>
> Proof that the American Left is comprised of wackjobs.
>
>> The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and
>> St. Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.
>
> The only "criminalization of dissent" exists in the minds of the
> wackjob leftos who were surprised that for once someone would actually
> take legal action against the commie rent-a-mob that breaks shit and
> incites violence.
>
>> They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to
>> their political organizing.
>
> More bullshit. It wasn't "political organizing" that got them in
> trouble, so don't bother running that idea up the flagpole. The actual
> charges have to do with inciting a riot and conspiring to commit acts
> of vandalism.

Would a charge of "inciting a riot" require the prosecution to prove as
fact to obtain conviction, that a riot had happened? The RNC 8 are all
looking at 4 felony counts in the original criminal complaint, all
conspiracy, and no physical criminal acts were alleged. In reality, two
conspiracy charges were doubled-up with "terrorism" enhancements.

Count 1 - conspiracy to riot in the second degree
in furtherance of terrorism
Count 2 - conspiracy to riot in the second degree
(without terrorism enhancement)
Count 3 - conspiracy to damage property
in furtherance of terrorism
Count 4 - conspiracy to damage property
(without terrorism enhancement)

Police informants were used to obtain data at the planning meetings. The
criminal incictment only mentions possible actions which were discussed,
none that were agreed to. The worst of these possible actions discussed
was attempting to kidnap delegates. Other possible acts largely were on
the topic of blocking traffic, by using buring tires under bridges, and
abandoned vehicles on the roadways. Ar other meet-ups, the criminal
comlaint made frequent notice of moltov cocktails, but never once
alleged that an actual molotv cocktaiol had veen observed. Instead it is
alled that classes on how to throw a molotov cocktail using a platic
bottle full of water occcurred, and an alleged overheard discussion
between two of the charged about using paint and gasoline to make
molotov coctails. The "weapons of terror" discovered in searches
included homemade tire spikes, sling shots with marbles for ordnance,
Class C Fireworks, plus lots and lots of bottles containing "an unknown
yellow liquid" (the state just couldn't come out an admit, they were
bottles of piss). Other alleged "terroristic" possessions were mostly
defensive attire against police riot suppression tactics, like helmets,
gas masks, padded clothing, and mylanta (used to alleviate tear gas
effects).

It's diificult to understand how this could possibly have lead to
terrorism enhancements, until considering that this was the Republican
National Convention, and successfully terrorizing a Republican is a
trivial pursuit, which only requires telling a Republican you are an ond
duty vice cop inside a public restroom facility.

On April 9, 2009, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, dropped the two
terrorism enhancement charges in an amended criminal complaint. There
had been extensive community backlash against them, and it is rumored
that Gaertner has political plans to run for governor in the next
election.

The prosecution also suffered a significant setback recently when a
primary state witness, FBI informant, Andrew Darst, was found guilty of
third-degree damage to property, a gross misdemeanor, and two counts of
assault in the fifth degree, which are misdemeanors, in an unrelated
incident of last January 11, where he

"kicked open the front door of a Minnetrista home
in the wee hours of Jan. 11, he 'wasn't comfortable'
with the two dudes accompanying his wife, as he would
later tell police. So he beat shit out of them (the two dudes)."

Matt Snyders, "RNC snitch found guilty of assault",
Minneapolis City Pages, March 23 2009
<http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/03/rnc_snitch_foun.php>

This should any rational person top wonder if the real terrorist in all
of this is reall the government.

Stan De SD
2009-04-10 11:14:58 EST
On Apr 10, 5:10 am, PseudoCyAntz <numero...@IntelligenceDecline.us>
wrote:
> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote innews:cb197968-eb59-467e-9235-9475331e846f@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:43 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> News & Views for Anarchists &
> >> Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smy
> > go
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/cjnj44
> >> Protestors “resist state terrorism” with pillows
> >> by Troy Farah and Matt Roberto
> >> April 2, 2009
>
> >> At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived
> >> with a shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff’s Heritage
> >> Square and began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and
> >> fluff flew, but the mass of people also collided with the cops.
>
> >> Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness
> >> of and protest the arrest of the “Republican National Convention
> >> Eight” (the RNC8).
>
> > Proof that the American Left is comprised of wackjobs.
>
> >> The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and
> >> St. Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.
>
> > The only "criminalization of dissent" exists in the minds of the
> > wackjob leftos who were surprised that for once someone would actually
> > take legal action against the commie rent-a-mob that breaks shit and
> > incites violence.
>
> >> They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to
> >> their political organizing.
>
> > More bullshit. It wasn't "political organizing" that got them in
> > trouble, so don't bother running that idea up the flagpole. The actual
> > charges have to do with inciting a riot and conspiring to commit acts
> > of vandalism.
>
> Would a charge of "inciting a riot" require the prosecution to prove as
> fact to obtain conviction, that a riot had happened? The RNC 8 are all
> looking at 4 felony counts in the original criminal complaint, all
> conspiracy, and no physical criminal acts were alleged. In reality, two
> conspiracy charges were doubled-up with "terrorism" enhancements.
>
> Count 1 - conspiracy to riot in the second degree
>           in furtherance of terrorism
> Count 2 - conspiracy to riot in the second degree
>           (without terrorism enhancement)
> Count 3 - conspiracy to damage property
>           in furtherance of terrorism
> Count 4 - conspiracy to damage property
>           (without terrorism enhancement)
>
> Police informants were used to obtain data at the planning meetings.

Glad to see that the cops aren't waiting around until these clowns
start breaking shit. Fact of the matter is that there is a
professional hardcore of violent agitators who use these events to
start problems, and most people who have been around the block a few
times politically know who these people are. Maybe next time the
allegedly "peaceful" protesters will keep a good distance from people
looking to start trouble, and stick to parading around with their
signs and singing their silly songs instead.

> The
> criminal incictment only mentions possible actions which were discussed,
> none that were agreed to. The worst of these possible actions discussed
> was attempting to kidnap delegates.

If somebody came to your planning meeting for your demonstration and
started talking about committing criminal acts, why don't you call the
cops, if only for covering your own ass?

Other possible acts largely were on
> the topic of blocking traffic, by using buring tires under bridges, and
> abandoned vehicles on the roadways. Ar other meet-ups, the criminal
> comlaint made frequent notice of moltov cocktails, but never once
> alleged that an actual molotv cocktaiol had veen observed. Instead it is
> alled that classes on how to throw a molotov cocktail using a platic
> bottle full of water occcurred, and an alleged overheard discussion
> between two of the charged about using paint and gasoline to make
> molotov coctails. The "weapons of terror" discovered in searches
> included homemade tire spikes, sling shots with marbles for ordnance,
> Class C Fireworks, plus lots and lots of bottles containing "an unknown
> yellow liquid" (the state just couldn't come out an admit, they were
> bottles of piss). Other alleged "terroristic" possessions were mostly
> defensive attire against police riot suppression tactics, like helmets,
> gas masks, padded clothing, and mylanta (used to alleviate tear gas
> effects).  

You mean crude armor, the type used by people who intend on engaging
in violence as opposed to merely protesting. Nice try, dimwit... :O|

*Anarcissie*
2009-04-10 12:53:49 EST
On Apr 10, 11:14 am, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:10 am, PseudoCyAntz <numero...@IntelligenceDecline.us>
> ...
> > The
> > criminal incictment only mentions possible actions which were discussed,
> > none that were agreed to. The worst of these possible actions discussed
> > was attempting to kidnap delegates.
>
> If somebody came to your planning meeting for your demonstration and
> started talking about committing criminal acts, why don't you call the
> cops, if only for covering your own ass?
> ...

Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.

However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
that informers will be in the meeting. They may even be
the organizers of the meeting.

I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
colored.

Stan De SD
2009-04-10 16:04:01 EST
On Apr 10, 9:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:14 am, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 5:10 am, PseudoCyAntz <numero...@IntelligenceDecline.us>
> > ...
> > > The
> > > criminal incictment only mentions possible actions which were discussed,
> > > none that were agreed to. The worst of these possible actions discussed
> > > was attempting to kidnap delegates.
>
> > If somebody came to your planning meeting for your demonstration and
> > started talking about committing criminal acts, why don't you call the
> > cops, if only for covering your own ass?
> > ...
>
> Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
> much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.

I see you're still absorbed in your silly-assed fantasy that all
provocateurs are police? What's it like living your life along some
romanticized proto-marxist script?

> However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
> kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
> leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
> identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
> that informers will be in the meeting.  They may even be
> the organizers of the meeting.
>
> I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
> I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
> colored.

I have participated in several organized demonstrations, primarily pro-
border-enforcement and anti-illegal immigration. We get people who
seek to turn the issue into a racial one (anglo vs. hispanic),
regardless of the fact that many of the protesters on our side of the
issue are legal citizens of hispanic heritage. The organizers of such
events make it clear that there will be NO tolerance for, or
acquiescence to race-baiters or violent agitators (regardless of
whether they are white supremacists or lefties seeking to discredit
us) and on more than one occasion such people have been called out,
told flat out in no uncertain terms that they are NOT welcome, and
advised that they WILL be reported to law enforcement as potential
instigators of violence if they dare show up at the event. Easy enough
to do... :O|


*Anarcissie*
2009-04-10 21:22:41 EST
On Apr 10, 4:04 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 11:14 am, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 5:10 am, PseudoCyAntz <numero...@IntelligenceDecline.us>
> > > ...
> > > > The
> > > > criminal incictment only mentions possible actions which were discussed,
> > > > none that were agreed to. The worst of these possible actions discussed
> > > > was attempting to kidnap delegates.
>
> > > If somebody came to your planning meeting for your demonstration and
> > > started talking about committing criminal acts, why don't you call the
> > > cops, if only for covering your own ass?
> > > ...
>
> > Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
> > much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.
>
> I see you're still absorbed in your silly-assed fantasy that all
> provocateurs are police? What's it like living your life along some
> romanticized proto-marxist script?

I said "often", not "always'.

> > However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
> > kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
> > leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
> > identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
> > that informers will be in the meeting.  They may even be
> > the organizers of the meeting.
>
> > I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
> > I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
> > colored.
>
> I have participated in several organized demonstrations, primarily pro-
> border-enforcement and anti-illegal immigration. We get people who
> seek to turn the issue into a racial one (anglo vs. hispanic),
> regardless of the fact that many of the protesters on our side of the
> issue are legal citizens of hispanic heritage. The organizers of such
> events make it clear that there will be NO tolerance for, or
> acquiescence to race-baiters or violent agitators (regardless of
> whether they are white supremacists or lefties seeking to discredit
> us) and on more than one occasion such people have been called out,
> told flat out in no uncertain terms that they are NOT welcome, and
> advised that they WILL be reported to law enforcement as potential
> instigators of violence if they dare show up at the event. Easy enough
> to do... :O|


Fred
2009-04-11 06:55:07 EST
Stan de SD wrote:

> On Apr 10, 9:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
>> much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.
>
> I see you're still absorbed in your silly-assed fantasy that all
> provocateurs are police? What's it like living your life along some
> romanticized proto-marxist script?
>
It is well documented that the police do plant provocateurs into
demonstrations. Community groups planning peace vigils and such are
unlikely to be violent. So the conclusion that it was police or
secret service provocateurs is a sound one.

>> However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
>> kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
>> leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
>> identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
>> that informers will be in the meeting.  They may even be
>> the organizers of the meeting.
>>
>> I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
>> I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
>> colored.
>
> I have participated in several organized demonstrations, primarily
> pro- border-enforcement and anti-illegal immigration. We get people
> who seek to turn the issue into a racial one (anglo vs. hispanic),
> regardless of the fact that many of the protesters on our side of
> the issue are legal citizens of hispanic heritage. The organizers of
> such events make it clear that there will be NO tolerance for, or
> acquiescence to race-baiters or violent agitators (regardless of
> whether they are white supremacists or lefties seeking to discredit
> us) and on more than one occasion such people have been called out,
> told flat out in no uncertain terms that they are NOT welcome, and
> advised that they WILL be reported to law enforcement as potential
> instigators of violence if they dare show up at the event. Easy
> enough to do... :O|

Provocateurs don't show up ahead of time. Usually the first thing
that warns people of their presence is the violence they do. It's
often just an excuse to use violence against the protesters.

--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

Steve
2009-04-11 07:12:07 EST
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:55:07 -0300, Fred <fred@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca>
wrote:

>Stan de SD wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 9:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
>>> much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.
>>
>> I see you're still absorbed in your silly-assed fantasy that all
>> provocateurs are police? What's it like living your life along some
>> romanticized proto-marxist script?
>>
> It is well documented that the police do plant provocateurs into
>demonstrations. Community groups planning peace vigils and such are
>unlikely to be violent. So the conclusion that it was police or
>secret service provocateurs is a sound one.
>
>>> However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
>>> kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
>>> leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
>>> identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
>>> that informers will be in the meeting.  They may even be
>>> the organizers of the meeting.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
>>> I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
>>> colored.
>>
>> I have participated in several organized demonstrations, primarily
>> pro- border-enforcement and anti-illegal immigration. We get people
>> who seek to turn the issue into a racial one (anglo vs. hispanic),
>> regardless of the fact that many of the protesters on our side of
>> the issue are legal citizens of hispanic heritage. The organizers of
>> such events make it clear that there will be NO tolerance for, or
>> acquiescence to race-baiters or violent agitators (regardless of
>> whether they are white supremacists or lefties seeking to discredit
>> us) and on more than one occasion such people have been called out,
>> told flat out in no uncertain terms that they are NOT welcome, and
>> advised that they WILL be reported to law enforcement as potential
>> instigators of violence if they dare show up at the event. Easy
>> enough to do... :O|
>
> Provocateurs don't show up ahead of time. Usually the first thing
>that warns people of their presence is the violence they do. It's
>often just an excuse to use violence against the protesters.

Fred lives life with a brown paper bag over his head so his only view
of the real world comes from the reflection off his toenails...

*Anarcissie*
2009-04-11 09:38:13 EST
On Apr 11, 6:55 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> Stan de SD wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 9:53 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Such people are often provocateurs, so there is not
> >> much use calling the cops; they _are_ the cops.
>
> > I see you're still absorbed in your silly-assed fantasy that all
> > provocateurs are police? What's it like living your life along some
> > romanticized proto-marxist script?
>
>         It is well documented that the police do plant provocateurs into
> demonstrations.  Community groups planning peace vigils and such are
> unlikely to be violent.  So the conclusion that it was police or
> secret service provocateurs is a sound one.
>
>
>
> >> However, you are correct in saying that people advocating
> >> kidnapping or other acts of violence should be invited to
> >> leave, regardless of whether the proposers have been
> >> identified as provocateurs, because it is almost certain
> >> that informers will be in the meeting.  They may even be
> >> the organizers of the meeting.
>
> >> I'm assuming here that the stories as given are true.
> >> I suspect that they may not be, or may be brightly
> >> colored.
>
> > I have participated in several organized demonstrations, primarily
> > pro- border-enforcement and anti-illegal immigration. We get people
> > who seek to turn the issue into a racial one (anglo vs. hispanic),
> > regardless of the fact that many of the protesters on our side of
> > the issue are legal citizens of hispanic heritage. The organizers of
> > such events make it clear that there will be NO tolerance for, or
> > acquiescence to race-baiters or violent agitators (regardless of
> > whether they are white supremacists or lefties seeking to discredit
> > us) and on more than one occasion such people have been called out,
> > told flat out in no uncertain terms that they are NOT welcome, and
> > advised that they WILL be reported to law enforcement as potential
> > instigators of violence if they dare show up at the event. Easy
> > enough to do... :O|
>
>         Provocateurs don't show up ahead of time.  Usually the first thing
> that warns people of their presence is the violence they do.  

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are involved in
an action from the beginning. It's hardly unknown for
the organizers of an event to also be police informants.

This is why hot talk about "shutting down the convention"
at meetings was pretty dumb -- if there really was any.

> It's
> often just an excuse to use violence against the protesters.

It also keeps people away from the events.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron