http://www.msnbc.com/news/635678.asp

Protesters march on Washington
Thousands demonstrate against plans for U.S. retaliation
Protesters burn the U.S. flag Saturday in front of the Capitol Building in Washington. Thousands of demonstrators marched in Washington to protest possible U.S. military action in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 —  A few thousand activists and anarchists chanted “no war” as they took to the streets Saturday, their anti-globalization cause transformed by the terrorist attacks into a call for peace. The march began peacefully around 10 a.m., but police used pepper spray to control some protesters as they passed the D.C. Convention Center. A Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman said arrests had been made, but she could not provide further details.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Answers

Don't you love how brave they are? Those masks make them look like terrorists to me.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Buddy,

I am old enough to remember the peace protests of the 1960's and early '70's. Do you want to know what I thought when I saw these people?

"Where do they work? What kind of jobs do they have that would permit them to take time off on a regular basis to hold signs and sing and chant?"

Of course, it has been well-established since then that many of these protestors were (and are, even to this day) Rent A Mob types -- PAID noisemakers who are HIRED to do just that.

It is also a FACT that their protests had very little effect on the war. The American people turned against the War in Vietnam, not because of these protestors (every poll, right up to the end, showed that most Americans had a very low opinion of them), but because they were tired of it. We weren't getting anywhere.

I have to believe that these protestors do it for their own personal reasons. Maybe it makes them feel better; maybe it gives them a sense of belonging and togetherness. It's fun to sit around and Belong To Something Important and Sing Pretty Songs.

I really don't know, because that's not my mindset. But they can't seriously believe that their protests actually influence public opinion, because poll after poll has shown that, if ANYTHING, it usually turns the public AGAINST their point of view.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

It's nice to know you do care about what happened in New York on the 11th, Cpr. Your first reaction wasn't to express outrage or shock about this infamous act, or to express sympathy for the victims; instead, you chose to criticize the GICC.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006Lbs

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

You are a MORON with your head inserted in your anus.

I was born on Manhattan Island. I lived there 49 years then for business and personal reasons moved to DFW.

But, I worked for decades within blocks of the Twin Towers. And I lost a second cousin who I never met in the Pentagon attack.

The answer to Bin Laden is simple: Americans can be defeated but they can not be destroyed and THEY WILL OVERCOME.

The Pessimists (10-20 people) who collect themselves in the insane asylum of GICC hardly believe that. They pretend they have some insight into the Real World with their endless postings of every obscure negative report about LIFE they can find. Such a Dark View of the World is not only INSANE, it is truly unhealthy for like a disease it can be spread to those who are not familiar with the propaganda methods used on the site. End of story.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

I agree with what you posted above but the fact remains that when I asked a simple question here on Sept 11 (at the time I asked the question, there was not even an acknowledgement of the WTC on Poole's), you couldn't wait to insult me. An ignorant insult at that, since I never go to GICC and never have.

-------------------------

Hello, anyone home?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread

I guess that when genuinely serious events occur, this is not the forum of choice.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 11, 2001

Answers

Join the CREEPS.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Grassroots% 20Information%20Coordination%20Center%20%28GICC%29

-- UllBeHappierThere (GoToGICC@IDIOTS.net), September 11, 2001.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

This demonstration has been planned since the beginning of the year. It was organized to protezst the stolen election and the world bank ruining economies in other countries. They changed the venue due to circumstances. I think it is unfortunate that is is considered a "protest against the war on terrorism", instead of a protest against indiscriminate bombing in Afganastan.

These are not the "rent a protesters" the like the ones the repugs sent to Florida during the recount, these are hundreds of different groups who planned for 7-8 months to come and protest the international Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank and the economic destruction to third world countries.

These people are not 'FOR" THE TERRORISTS, they are against creating the enviroment for new terrorists to grow.

I have personally known about these marches (they were all around the country) since early spring.

Unfortunatly it appears that the major media is doing the same old thing, putting their spin on them and the population is eating it up.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

What the FUCK was there to "discuss" in the first week when the bodies were still warm?

The media, the President, the Mayor of NYC and most responsible people in leadership were saying all that was necessary.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Cherri is correct about the original scheduling of these protests. It was going to be another IMF/World Bank protest. I'm not so sure about the part about protesting the election though.

As for the masks, and whether they are "rent-a-protestors," the ones in the masks are generally anarchists. These types show up at all anti-capitalism protests, especially the IMF ones, and have their own agenda. They are the ones who cause the most trouble at all of these things.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Meanwhile, legitimate objectors are in a quandry:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/634402.asp

Pacifist churches wrestle with attack

‘Very difficult’ choices for members opposed to military action

By Richard N. Ostling ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sept. 29 — America’s “peace churches,” with 1 million members, are restating their pacifist beliefs but also struggling with how they and the nation should react to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which have forced them to confront questions of citizenship that had been dormant for decades.

 THE CURRENT CONFLICT is “much more complicated” than previous ones, said Albert N. Keim, a pacifist scholar.
       “These people are killing people in a particularly dreadful way,” said Keim, a retired history professor at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Va. “We pacifists know how to behave in war, but we’re still learning how to react to terrorism. We’re finding it very, very difficult.”
       Retha McCutchen, national general secretary of the Friends United Meeting, better known as the Quakers, describes what her fellow believers have been experiencing during the extraordinary days since the attacks: “Grief. Some fear. Anger, of course, and concerns for future loss of life.”
       Like millions, they look for ways to assist relief efforts and console the suffering, and they worry about discrimination against Arab- Americans.
       Unlike millions, they hear a renewed call to oppose war. This week, the Quakers urged members to recall the words of their 17th-century founder, George Fox: “The Spirit of Christ ... will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons.”
       Besides Quakers, the pacifist or “peace church” tradition is upheld by Mennonites, Amish and various Brethren groups, among others. All told, there are more than a hundred such denominations in the United States, with a following of 1 million people. Although not considered strict pacifists, the 862,000 Seventh- day Adventists are asked never to bear arms, and that are allowed to take noncombatant jobs if they join the military. MORE

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

What the FUCK was there to "discuss" in the first week when the bodies were still warm?

Who are you quoting? I never used the word "discuss". I sometimes come to Poole's to escape the hatefilled trolls at Unk's. The quality of language here is marginally better than at Unk's. On Sept 11, I came here to see what was being said about WTC. Several hours after the attack, nothing had been said. I thought that strange, considering that the world has just incurred the most important event since WWII.

I forgot that some people are busier than I. I forgot that Stephen would have been in a 16 hr a day mode at his station.

But nothing?

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Lars,

Personally, I was in shock and didn't post anything anywhere for several days. Can't speak for others though.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Peace Movement member turns to the other side.
http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News1983.html

OPINION
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEACE MOVEMENT
Portland playwright reaches the end of his pacifist rope.

BY CHARLES DEEMER
243-2122

I first marched for freedom, justice and peace in 1963. The place was Los Angeles, and the cause was civil rights. In the late '60s and early '70s, as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I marched often against the Vietnam War. In fact, there has not been a single military action by the United States that I've supported as an adult. Not one.

Over the years, however, I've expressed the view that, if the U.S. were under attack, I would support a military response. And I believe that is the case now, which is why I am leaving your ranks.

I am writing to share my steps in deciding to leave the peace movement; to challenge you to do your work in a way that is constructive rather than divisive (as I believe your early responses have been); and to urge you to avoid easy analogies, such as Vietnam, and to find radical new ways to "wage peace."

1. We are under attack. I know some of you think we are not under attack, a position I cannot comprehend. Others of you think we are justifiably under attack, a position I partially understand.

But the facts are clear: We explicitly have been under attack at least since the late '90s, when various proclamations against us were issued by radical Islamic groups; a "holy war" against the U.S. was explicitly declared. The seriousness of that decree now should be clear to all.

2. When a nation is under attack, the first decision must be whether to surrender or to fight. I believe there is no middle ground here: You either fight or you don't fight, and doing nothing amounts to surrender.

I realize the great danger of fighting is turning into the enemy. But the certainty of not fighting is being defeated by the enemy. I believe one side or the other is going to win this war. I don't think "a draw" is possible. And I believe there is much more opportunity to create "a radical peace," creating a more just world, if the U.S. coalition wins rather than the terrorists.

3. There are many ways to fight. Here is where I part company with my former colleagues in the peace movement.

I do not believe the network of terrorism can be defeated without engaging it directly, which I believe will result in violent acts. I believe this because I don't believe anything can be done to make terrorists surrender, and because I believe, in their world view, dying for their cause is a holy act, which means they are willing to take others out with them, as we have seen. On the Sunday after the tragedy, there were two large marches in Portland. The first, drawing several thousand, was a peace march. In that march, I was able to find only one American flag being carried. Later there was a patriotic march, also drawing several thousand, and almost everyone carried an American flag. The contrast was startling and very misleading.

The danger of the peace movement is that it will convey the impression, in a world in which media images are important (whether we like it or not), that it is neutral, or even negative, about the issue of supporting what has been variously called "the American way of life," or "the values of the civilized world," or "the free world."

Some of you are cultural relativists and believe that the Taliban's treatment of women, to list one example, is "a cultural phenomenon" about which we should not make value judgments. But I believe a war of historic proportions is going on here. Some historians are calling this "the 12th century against the 18th century" in terms of the contrasting views of humanity in conflict; I tend to think of it as a war between two perversions, the perversion of extreme materialism against the perversion of extreme spiritualism.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Buddy--

I can relate. I was in shock too. I came here hoping to find some relief thru others' words. I guess I expected too much too soon. I think there is healthy dialog now. At least it has helped me.

CPR--

An interesting post. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001

Interesting thread. I agree with you Stephen. The protests became nothing more than a pimple on the butt of an elephant (my words), though they exercised their freedom of speech (and had a 'fun' day in the sun).

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001

This find by Maria posted elsewhere reveals that there are still Clinically Weird People on this Planet and that not all of them are in Afghanistan.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006Ul9

Professor Jensen joins us now from Austin. Excuse me, Professor. The president of the University of Texas, your boss, wrote in reply to your column that "Professor Jensen's views are a fountainhood of undiluted foolishness on the issues of public policy," basically calling you a moron, which is unprecedented in the history of the University of Texas. How do you react? ROBERT JENSEN, ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST: Well, I think that public debate that should go around on this issue is central to a college campus, and President Faulkner has received a lot of feedback, much of it negative, that he put a chill in the air on that debate, and I really do think that the college campuses are the place where these discussions should go on. So I was sad to see the president react that way. O'REILLY: All right, but you know, there's a time and place for everything, and now with 7,000 people lying dead and their families devastated, for you to come out and say, you know, those -- that what happened wasn't worse than what the United States had done in some foreign policy is insensitive at worst, subversive -- you know, it's insensitive, subversive. It -- there might be a time where you would have been arrested for those kind of comments. JENSEN: Indeed, there would have been a time when I would have been arrested, and that's one of the great things about the United States, is we've moved to a greater level of freedom. I think that it was necessary to start talking about the history of the United States and the need for an anti-war movement precisely because the Bush administration took away our time to grieve. By the end of the first day of that tragedy, the Bush people were already talking about massive military retaliation. I personally would have liked to have had a lot more time to deal with the feelings that were coming to all of us, the emotions from that. O'REILLY: OK, but... JENSEN: The Bush administration took that away from us. O'REILLY: Ninety percent -- 90 percent of the people -- 90 percent of Americans disagree with you, and while they want time to grieve and pray, they also want the perpetrators of this to be brought to justice, and... JENSEN: As does everyone. O'REILLY: Well, I don't know. I mean, I don't know whether you do or not. See, if you're going to be an anti-war guy, then there's no way they're going to be brought to justice, is there? JENSEN: No, I disagree. I disagree. I think, instead of making this a military question, the Bush administration could have taken another path. They could have said this a crime, an unparalleled crime, a massive crime, but a crime that we are going to pursue through the appropriate domestic law enforcement and courts and -- and reaching out to the international community. I've had e-mails from all over the world, and all of them come the same way. They start, "We grieve for you, we feel with you, we'd like to help you, but please don't rush to war." The rest of the world is not behind this, and based on the e-mail I've gotten and the discussions I've had on campus and in the community, I do not think that the vast majority of people want to rush to war the way the Bush administration... O'REILLY: Well, then you're out of touch. You're simply out of touch, Professor... JENSEN: No, I'm talking about... O'REILLY: ... because the polls don't lie. The polls don't lie. JENSEN: I'm talking about the way -- I'm talking about when you... O'REILLY: Ninety percent.

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26290-2001Sep26.html

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro- terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: A war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans -- perhaps a great many more -- to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001