questionswhat's the point of violent protests?


I think the whole point about anarchists is that they have no point. They want no rules insanity.


I don't know if it's what they were trying to do but they gave an example of what anarchy really is- lawless disorder. I feel sorry for the people who suffered property damage but at least it served as a deterrent for any normal human being. The idea of having no government may be enticing in theory as they have shown theory and reality are not the same. At least everyone would know exactly what they're getting into before supporting their cause.


There is no point, unless they were trying to make me sit in traffic for hours.

I think it makes some people feel in control, but they don't understand enough to know that smashing some dudes Altima isn't going to change the government. It's like those chain emails that you see sometimes saying nobody should buy gas from a certain company, say Shell, because they think it will hurt Shell and make them lower prices. When in reality all it does is threaten the livelihoods of the Shell station owners and employees, none of whom are actually Shell employees.

Also herd mentality, it's easy to rationalize something when you see others doing it. Same thing happened in the London riots, that's why there have been arrests of some well off people that were only rioting because everyone else was.


when i read this on an online site, they associated these window smasher people to the Occupy "May Day" movement. were they?
the 4 anarchist guys who tried to blow up the bridge in Cleveland were said to be part of the Occupy Cleveland movement but the Occupiers disassociated themselves with them saying they were into some off the wall extremes that the Occupiers weren't into or supporting

i'm all for protesting because it's our guaranteed right, but there's a line between violent and nonviolent protesting and there's no need for violence right now. showing strength in numbers is powerful as is, IMO


@w00tgurl: i don't think they were part of Occupy, but it's possible. one of the local reporters followed them after they did all the damage. they reported the anarchists left the scene, changed clothes and then blended back into the crowd of non-violent demonstrators.


@w00tgurl: "4 anarchist guys who tried to blow up the bridge in Cleveland"
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe that actually happened. Plotted to do it, maybe. Homeland Security wanting us to think it, probably. As long as they make us believe it, make some of the public fear for their safety, they get funded.
The rest is a 'wag the dog' scenario, you just have to ignore the obvious to see what's going on sometimes.


I learned the term Black Bloc yesterday. I mean, it doesn't explain WHY, really, but the whole "movement" has been around for a while:


@agingdragqueen: Black triangles are cooler, I heard.


I don't support violent protests nor protesters who think destruction sends any kind of useful message. That said, the photos I've seen of people smashing and destroying stuff were not Occupy protesters, they were Black Bloc anarchists out to cause trouble and diminish the non-violent, non-destructive Occupy protests.


There is no point. It's a bunch of entitlement kiddies crying because nobody handed them what they feel they deserve to have, with no work. The fact that the rest of us manage to get ahead while working within the system doesn't seem to phase them.


@agingdragqueen: Very interesting read. By the dress alone, they appear to be dangerous, and most likely, their numbers are exaggerated by bystanders due to the dress and sticks, etc. carried because of the fear they engender - sort of like "there were a real swarm of bees" vs "two or three bees flew right at me type of thing". My own feeling is that the City of Seattle handled this in exactly the correct way; i.e. not bringing out the tear-gas and combativeness. Sadly, the vandalized car belonged to a Canadian tourist if I read it correctly. Nothing gained by this show of stupidity and houliganism (is that a word?)


@fenriq: And, you're sure there is a difference? I'm not.


@kmeltzer: Yes, I'm sure there is a difference between the Black Bloc and Occupy. Back when Occupy Oakland was starting up and the cops were responding very aggressively, there was a citizen journalist named Spencer Mills who captured a bunch of action on video and it showed, me at least, that there were small pockets of people out to just cause trouble regardless of the damage they did to Occupy.

I'm sure some of the Occupiers might have gotten caught up in it but the majority of images I've seen of people causing damage are all dressed top to bottom in black clothing and obscuring their faces. And every Occupier I've spoken to says that the Black Bloc provocateurs are NOT part of the Occupy.


@fenriq: Didn't the Occupy movement call to block roads and bridges in NYC?


@kezef: Pretty big difference, to me, in blocking a road and smashing in a plate glass window.


@agingdragqueen: But wiki didn't call them what they are terrorists.

I understand that many are anarchists, sort of. I have watched many of their tactics and actions at every WTO or G9 convention. Smashing bricks to throw at people, places, and cars, then to blend back into the population.

Problem here is the police must not have been ready for them. They normally are prepared when these folks start massing up for an assault on some city.


To answer the OP's question, why violence. To quote a message from a book I recently read, "despite what your mother told you, violence does solve problems". This is a true statement. The problem with their approach is that it isn't widespread enough nor viscious enough to force change. It is just enough to piss people off.