I've heard throughout the day on ABC radio that in Portland, anti-war protesters burned the American flag, and worse yet, an effigy of an American solider! This is an outright outrage that should have respectible Americans marching in the streets, not a "mostly peaceful" protest.
2007-03-21 07:59:02 · 11 answers · asked by Apachecat 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because the American press is virtually worthless as a fact gathering organization. In NYC some reported huge numbers of people when the police and street commissioners who had to clean up after then said that after a short time, there were no more than a thousand people there. Had to find that in the press. Anti war protesters are people who protest anything. Its a lark, a gag, a chance to feel cool and like you sticking it to the man kind of thing. Committement to ideals? Nope that group.
2007-03-21 08:04:33 · answer #1 · answered by Tom W 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sorry dear, but whether you or I like it, burning a flag or an effigy is not violence, it's protest and is protected as free assembly and speech. As for your comment about respectable Americans, need I remind you it was respectable Americans who protested rather violently in Boston in the 1770's, a tea party I think they called it. Or how about that little protest called the revolution. Seems to me, you've forgotten why and how your nation was formed, through protests. So calm down, get over yourself and respect what your founding fathers created, lest you lose the very right you seem to want to deny others.
2007-03-21 08:14:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Burning a flag is a peaceful protest.
Burning a soldier in effigy is a peaceful protest.
When the protesters start to actively attempting to cause direct physical harm to another person, THEN it's no longer peaceful.
2007-03-21 08:07:06 · answer #3 · answered by Teekno 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, all things are relative. Protestors burned a flag, US forces burned whole villages. Protestors burned a doll, US forces blew up women and kids.
I'm not blaming US forces for these things.,. our soldiers are the best in the world bar none. I'm blaming the National Command Authority that sent them to kill people because of greed.
And in any theory of moral equivalency, killing is far worse than destroying property, especially when you own that property which is yours to do with as you see fit.
2007-03-21 09:18:54 · answer #4 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Peaceful means without violence. just because their actions offended your sensibilities doesn't make it any less peaceful. I can understand the flag burning as a statement about how the current Admin. has disgraced this great country but the soldier eludes me.
2007-03-21 08:11:21 · answer #5 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like "mostly peaceful" A few rotten apples in the bunch. The damn cops do more damage than any anti-war protester. But you wouldn't know because you listen to someone elses story (propaganda media) instead of seeing it for yourself.
2007-03-21 08:04:52 · answer #6 · answered by jeb black 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Burning a flag is not violent. It's been protected speech for decades, whether people like it or not.
And with between 10 and 15 thousand people, if even a hundred were violent, that's still under 1%.
So, "mostly non-violent" is accurate.
2007-03-21 08:04:15 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If there are 50,000 people protesting anything, and a couple of idiots burn a flag or so something else stupid, that protest is still most peaceful.
2007-03-21 08:04:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
They were part of the "not mostly" group. The poor turnout of the anti war marchers left the press balloon a little deflated.
2007-03-21 08:03:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
By that standard, IRAQ is "mostly peaceful!" Funny you never hear that, though.
2007-03-21 08:03:32 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋