G8 Summit - The politics of it all and our right to protest thread

[technophobe 10]

Originally posted by aNTAcid

[

[/b]

 

thanks I know youve answered my question and I kind of expected something along those lines..... about throwing stones and living in glass houses - You reep what you sow and basically USA and British Government are currently now reeping.

 

But the govenment cannot please everyone I dont think its fair to use Terrorism or to cease their own lives to show their dissatisfaction.

 

Twin Towers was an example of a group of 'people' who disagreed with USAs politics and wanted to show how much they disagreed but it just turns into a vicious circle.

 

Originally posted by aNTAcid

[

We need to look at the issues that they feel are important enough to sacrifice lives for and address them. Simply fighting them head on only encourages more terrorist activity

[/b]

 

So how do we stop Terrorist activity??????

 

we cannot say you stop and we'll stop cause then they'll say no I said it first. It will then be another Peace agreement where everyone will hold their breath knowing it will at some stage be broken.

 

 

 

 

 

[TimmyR 10]

I've started a new thread about wars on terror so if anyone wants to talk about that please do!

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42702

[Internetowl 10]

regarding the protest - why not just 'not-arranged' a social 'by chance' meeting near the venue and just decide 'on the spur of the moment' to hang about and have a chat / singsong etc..maybe sit down for a bit and have a picnic - all totally unorganised - if people just happened to all arrive there by 'chance' at a random time and decide to stay there 'randomly' there'd be little to stop them...

 

[Disco_Cat 10]

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

No other country has taken such a draconian measure as to ban all protest marches while the summit is being held.

 

 

Dearest foo fighter,

Regading your comments here:http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=429902#post429902

 

If you care to re read my very first post on this thread (quoted above) you will see that from the very beginning I have highlighted the importance specifically of marches.

 

I continued this with my last post which showed historically change has always come from marches, not obeying what the police want us to do and standing around in park well out of peoples sight and attention. Sadly however you ignored my point and instead posted some obtuse comment about me inventing the importance of a march. Maybe you should re read my comments and edit your post accordingly. As I believe my point that this is a cancellation fo the march not a mere relocation is valid, unlike your observation of me inventing the importance of a march.

 

Perhaps if you spent more time understanding protest movements instead of blindly following the media stereotype that all people seeking change are violent mindless thugs you would be able to understand the importance of marches and the significance of the fact that Sheffield has outlawed any such peacefull action

[Disco_Cat 10]

Originally posted by Internetowl

regarding the protest - why not just 'not-arranged' a social 'by chance' meeting near the venue and just decide 'on the spur of the moment' to hang about and have a chat / singsong etc..maybe sit down for a bit and have a picnic - all totally unorganised - if people just happened to all arrive there by 'chance' at a random time and decide to stay there 'randomly' there'd be little to stop them...

 

 

Becuase The Peoples Democratic Republic of Sheffield have decreed that a group of no more then two people may stand together in the city centre during the summit.

[Tom100 10]

Really think as many people as poss should head up to Scotland, and don`t normally use net to ask stuff like this but wanted to know which groups are organising trips up there? Sheffield anti-war I guess, just wanted details and that. A website preferably. Don`t really mean to start a debate never really used this before, just group of us were wondering what our options in Sheff are.Cheers

[Disco_Cat 10]

Their are some coaches booked if you are interested. Sheffield Stop the War and Sheffield University have both booked them, although I heard a rumour STW had cancelled.

[Bedhead 10]

We pour millions into these corrupt governments only for them to line their pockets and fund their wars. While they are in debt we at least retain some element of control over them and at least some of the money will trickle through to the ones that it is intended for.

 

Wiping out their debt means we lose what little control we have over them, cutting them free of their ties and 'obligations'.

[foo_fighter 10]

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

Dearest foo fighter...

 

...the importance of marches and the significance of the fact that Sheffield has outlawed any such peacefull action

DC, you keep coming up with statements like,

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

I don’t think they should take no precautions but banning protest altogether is ridiculous.

But all protest hasn't been banned, but I digress, we've already laboured this point.

 

You are now highlighting the point that all marches are "outlawed" ( very emotive word, very good ).

 

So what's this about in the very first post,

Originally posted by tim_rutter

...Join the march for Peace and Justice organised by Sheffield Stop the War Coalition on Saturday 11th June – assemble 10.30am, Devonshire Green, march to Peace in the Park Festival, Cemetery Road.

 

 

There's even a nice festival organised when you get to the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. Consider that a free "plug" Tim.

 

[Disco_Cat 10]

No sorry that reply isn’t good enough. I specifically used the fact a march had been banned in my very first post as this is what is so outrageous. So to say it is only now that I am highlighting marches is simply incorrect, why you continue to repeat this despite me showing you this has been my point from the start I don't know, do you actually bother to read other peoples posts?

 

I don't see the point in quoting another user with reference to what I am posting about but since you do I will pick up the point, the march on the 11th is the saturday before the summit begins, If you re read my original post the issue I am concerned with is that Sheffield is the first city to outlaw all protest marches in the city centre whilst the summit is in session. I'm sure the Labour spin doctors would love us to have our marches well before or after thesummit, the point of protest is to do it when it is most effective ie when the summit is in session, but this has been outlawed. And no matter how much you dodge the issue this is still the case.

 

Do you understand now?

[Edward 10]

Bedhead,

While you're correct in your analysis that debt keeps the poor nations in our thrall, there are some pretty massive holes in your logic.

 

Firstly, when poor nations are not in debt, they rarely go to war with each other. Debt causes third world wars. When a government is spending more money repaying foreign loans than on public services, law and order, defence or investing in home industries (this is normally the case with the poorer nations, eg Sierra Leone, 90% govt. revenur goes to debt repayments), then this causes political and economic instability at home, and sows widespread mistrust of the government. Most of Africa's wars over the last 30 years have not been fought between state and state, but between government and rebel. After all, when there is no well-developed industry, the only way for avaricious and ambitious individuals to get to the top and get rich is to seize political power.

 

When a poor nation is in debt, virtually no money goes to the poor, and almost all that countrie's GDP is poured into financing the debt. This is especially due to "structural adjustment" programmes carried out by the IMF and World Bank, which force the poor nation to liberalise its economy, open its borders to foreign multinationals and privatise its public services and prune them back. That does not equal benefits to the poor.

 

It does equal greater Western control over the poor nations. But to suggest that that is a good thing is (and I'm not a member of the PC police, I don't bandy this term around to silence debate whenever anyone disagrees with me) really very racist. What, should we go in and colonise these countries again? What is your logic here, that these darkies are too uncivilised to rule themselves, poor little Sambo can't be trusted with a country of his own, darling doesn't know how to run it?

 

There are corrupt dictators in the poor world, mostly backed by the West during the Cold War, or ones who seized power as I described above. But if we were to let these countries prosper, then peace and stability are almost inevitable. It's much harder to be a dictator of a people when they aren't crushed by poverty.

Edward

[foo_fighter 10]

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

...Do you understand now?

I understand that you want everything your own way.

 

There will be a march, but not when you want it.

 

There will be a protest, but not where you want it.

 

There will (even) be a festival, but you probably don't think the bands are good enough.

 

I'm happy with what the authorities are allowing you to do.

 

You don't have my support.

 

Do you understand now?