Why are so-called "peace' activists so violent?

Question

September 17, 2007

Ricardo Cortez, 24, who [is] accused of shooting and killing his ex-wife, Nikki Cortez, 21, and wounding Sam Jantz in a west Greeley neighborhood Sunday night, had a brief criminal history in Weld and Larimer counties, but just last week took a plea bargain in a second-degree assault and false imprisonment case.

He was arrested five days after participating in a protest of the Iraqi war along 23rd Avenue in south Greeley, which he organized.

He organized a protest against the Iraq war on March 20, the anniversary of the invasion, where he and others held signs along 23rd Avenue in south Greeley

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20070917/NEWS/70917012

Answer 1

Back when the war started there were a bunch of protestors here in Phoenix, I had the misfortune of needing to drive through that area, it was pretty rough, they were coming right up to cars and shouting at people. Same thing with the pro-immigration rallies outside of the high schools here, those were really scary, it was very difficult to drive through there. Unfortunately, I think that protests attract a bunch of young people who don't really care about the causes they are protesting, they are protesting just to protest and rebel, for the "fun" of it and they tend to be the rebellious violent types that go in for that sort of thing.
I don't think that most people against the war or for peace are necessarily like that, it's more of a mob mentallity you are seeing, not the response of the thinking people who have concerns, but a dangerous "group thought".
I ususally do not see conservatives engaged in that type of behavior but I sure the liberals will find the few exceptions. Most of us are busy working.

Answer 2

In some cases, the best way to achieve the desired results is through violent action. During WWII, do you really thing we could have stopped Hitler by simply holding up signs and protesting that we didn't like what he was doing? It's a similar thing on a larger scale.

Another example is the environmental organization Earth First. They are known for taking very drastic - and sometimes almost violent - action to achieve their goals. While I don't necessarily agree with their action, you have to admit that blocking the bulldozer is a much more effective means of preventing trees from being cut than simply protesting.

As for the guy you mentioned. It sound like he may just be a thug who happened to also be a peace activists. Just because someone advocates a specific political point of view, doesn't make them immune from bad behavior.

Answer 3

it rather is major to maintain freedom of speech, and to no longer provide the state the perfect to substantiate what's or isn't pronounced. A at circumstances conflicting superb is privateness and chance-loose practices hostile to verbal or distinct sorts of violence. as immediately because the state is granted the perfect to circumvent speech (writing, songs, and so on.) that it claims might want to precipitate damage, we are on an quite risky slope. it rather is why the perfect court docket, in 1969, (as you reported) finally reached the classic of chance-loose practices of speech that grew to change into into proposed via the Enlightenment (and that i have were given faith might want to be unique to the U. S.): speech is chance-loose till finally the component the position it rather is an area of drawing near criminal acts. So in case you and that i pass top right into a save to rob it, you've a gun, and that i say "shoot," this isn't chance-loose speech. How a concepts might want to it pass? Very mushy question, and my own feeling is that you're waiting to err on the realm of proscribing state ability, as an effortless rule. yet you strengthen an rather good component and that i'm effective you're authentic wide unsleeping that this may be an unsolvable question. My visceral being needs to restriction this verbiage yet my ideas restrains me from appearing straight away. Any call for the shortcoming of existence of someone isn't chance-loose speech, if that grew to change into into the case, it rather is unprotected.

Answer 4

Wonder if he was on friendly terms with that guy who took an Axe to the back of an innocent man's skull because he "Could not find a soldier to kill".

Granted you are pointing out an extreme... Most "peace activists" would run away screaming like banshees if faced with anything tougher than an algebra problem (joke).

Answer 5

Good post... has anyone really taken a good look at the folks at these war protests? Aren't they weired looking? Old hippies...drop outs. Harry Potter looking geeks... mean, mad looking women...singing some stupid chant that no one knows what the hell they are saying...pounding on drums, etc. I think it is just an excuse to get together because they feel guilty about having done nothing for this country except *****.

Answer 6

This is definitely a huge generalization. That's like saying why are all Chinese people violent, and then citing an example of a Chinese person who went to jail for killing someone.
You question is boorish, slanted, and obviously comes from someone who has a grudge against peace activists.

Answer 7

you know, i think the 'peace' word is the word protestors use to get out of the police arrests....i really don't think that peace has anything to do with the rallies...if they can make a point about whatever they're protesting for--then they've done what they feel is right, despite wether it is or isn't...i mean look at the KSU shootings of May 4, 1970---if you want to talk "peace" that is something yo ushould look into---after you've done that, listen to the song Ohio by neil young

Answer 8

At least they aren't blowing up colleges like during Vietnam

Answer 9

Because they are violently opposed to peace at any cost. They would rather surrender to the enemy.

Answer 10

One guy in a whole movement. Isn't that a bit of a leap to question all on the actions of one? If we are to follow that logic, do all the Senators cruise the restrooms for sexual contacts?