----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Woods" <andrew@pokerspot.com> To: "Black Unicorn" <unicorn@schloss.li>; "Jon Beets" <Jon.Beets@pacer.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:29 AM Subject: Re: The amazing victory of "protestor" bullshit. Was: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
I agree with your statements regarding confrontation of heavily armed militia men
What militia men? Hard to agree with a statement I didn't make.
The email was basically a response to the general conception that he was throwing the extinguisher, a conception which is somewhat contrary to the photographic evidence.
You mean your interpretation of same. I shouldn't really need to go into asking why the protestor in question had picked the thing up and continued to hold it if not to throw it. Certainly he wasn't cleaning the streets or looking for a trash bin. Whatever the case, you are no more in his mind than I am and simply asserting that he wasn't going to throw the object doesn't make it so.
The question, given the evidence, is whether the protestors were pounding on the Italian paramilitary, or the paramilitary came to pound on peaceful protestors who stayed in the designated area, and then something went awry.
I think that is hardly the issue. Who cares who started it? All of that presupposes that the protestors were there in the first place, fully aware that armed authorities would be present and that some protestors were likely (certain?) to get violent. After that decision it starts to matter less and less who did what when. I think the issue is that a masked man, who shows up with clear intention to cause at least disruption if not "trouble," probably earned his fate by being present while his comrades, associates or mere spatial neighbors, pounded on armed police men. Wearing a mask and carrying a heavy object probably didn't help much. The _very best_ interpretation is that our departed "protestor" was terminally stupid. Literally.
I agree with both Choate (oops) and Petro, that cops should not be trigger happy, and sending soldiers into "peacekeeping" actions is counter to the majority of their training and habits.
Not sure I understand what the one has to do with the other. Given that the cops endured their vehicle being smashed at, even with weapons drawn, for some time before discharging a weapon, I'm not sure I would rule them "trigger happy" either. Again, "trigger happy" is subject to your personal interpretation and therefore more than somewhat useless. Incidentally, who said anything about soldiers? For the uneducated, the Carabinieri are in fact military police. They are empowered and sworn as officers and complete police training. All Italian police do some riot control training. Comes in handy for the football matches and the world cup. Also for the uneducated, a "peacekeeping action" is generally undertaken by the United Nations in an international conflict. This is "riot control" or "crowd control" an entirely domestic affair.
How can you possibly know the intentions of "most of the protestors"?
I never claimed to know their intentions excepting the obvious- to cause trouble. (This is, of course, what even the most innocent protestors are there to do). Anything above that is your invention. Here was my quote:
The only thing that really upsets me to any degree is that most of the protestors have come into town with the express intent of causing trouble. This means they are generally burning down someone else's neighborhood, not their own. Ah well. Can't have everything.
As the common high school graduate will see, though perhaps the colleges in the valley are less up to snuff, I pointed out that most of them were not from Genoa (a fact widely echoed in media), they were there to cause trouble (i.e. protest) and that they had the effect, therefore, of generally burning down someone else's neighborhood. You don't actually dispute any of these facts, I notice. Only impose your own set of facts and claim, erroneously, that I alleged these instead.
I suspect (but do not know) the intent of the rowdier 10% of protestors was to disrupt the meeting of the Group of 8 through their actions, not simply to fuck up the city of Genoa.
"Some protestors are stupider than other protestors" in other words? Even if so, what does that have to do with any of my points? And what is your point exactly...? That the intent of the other 90% was to sip Lattes and take in the warm Genoa breezes? I don't think so. It was also "to disrupt the meeting of the Group of 8 through their actions." Or at the very least "to smash some pigs while we have the excuse to be lawless." Did it have the effect of "fuck[ing] up the city of Genoa" ? Look at the pictures and tell me what you think. Extra points if you can put a number on the cost of the cleanup to this point. (I'll announce the correct answer in 48 hours to the list).
I will ignore your useless ad hominem attack, because you know even less about me than what happened to Carlo Giuliani.
That's strike four for you. You're striking out quite a lot today. In fact, I know substantially more about you than I know about Giuliani. In any event, I apologize for branding you as a classless armchair anarchist when in fact you probably have the highest tastes in the area of politically inactive seating. (If you want to send me your long distance bill, I'll also apologize for calling you an AT&T customer- I will point out though that certain young parties in the Pacific Northwest will be upset if you don't burn up those minutes calling at all hours of the night though, Mr. Woods- AT&T might be in your best interest). It's also much easier to see your face in the pictures of you I have than it is to se Mr. Giuliani's face. (Most of the blood has drawn out of his by the time his mask is off and his eye is somewhat distorted by its close encounter with a projectile).