Genoa

path · 07-08-2001 11:39AM #1

extensive personal account of genoa at:

http://thumped.com/thepath

click on the 'true: genoa' link.

regards

Von · 08-08-2001 01:32PM

Bloody communist. Be off with you and take your vile anti authority propaganda with you.

Bard · 08-08-2001 01:35PM

... he's posted it to quite a number of irrelevant places... perhaps it's relevant here, but that doesn't stop it being SPAM!

Bard

G'wan... giz a click

path · 14-08-2001 07:56AM

Originally posted by Bard:
... he's posted it to quite a number of irrelevant places... perhaps it's relevant here, but that doesn't stop it being SPAM!

Come on for fox sake.. its hardly 'spam'. I was talking about going to Genoa to other people on this board. If I had tagged on 'and please visit this FREE xxx site' at the end of it then maybe.. and what irrelevant places did I sent it to.. and what makes you think I'm a 'he' ??

regards

http://thumped.com/thepath

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 14-08-2001 09:06AM

I wouldn't say it's spam- but it's certainly no less colored than any "official/government" sources. People floating about generically moaning about how "the planet's getting screwed over maan" without truly understanding the issues are no less dangerous than the uninformed in power. In fact, it's likely that the uninformed masses elect the uninformed politicians.

Having studied protestive gatherings briefly at university, I can state with certainty that the feeling of camaraderie in your account sounds most familiar. It is in fact, exactly the same brand of camaraderie and solidarity I would expect to find in the Genovese police unit trying desperately to keep some kind of order amidst the influx of reprobates, most of them ignorant of the issues, and several of them with violent intentions in mind.

Whatever your political view, demonstrating about an issue that you don't fully understand isn't just irresponsible, it's fundamentally wrong. I put it on a level with voting for someone based on the color of the hat they happen to be wearing. I'm wondering how many of the people who traveled to Genoa actually take an active part in the political process. It's childish to complain about a system you haven't even tried to get to grips with yet. There are no easy answers, but until effort is expended in drawing attention to an issue in an undemonstrative fashion, these gatherings will only attract a media presence who focus on violent elements attending.

As has been mentioned before, any kind of threatening action made against a police force long experiencing a political struggle like the Genovese, and that too, a force expecting a violent element of protest, deserves everything it gets. Play with fire, and you'll get burned.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

path · 14-08-2001 11:00AM

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
most of them ignorant of the issues

PROTEST THE PROTESTERS, PROTEST THE PROTESTERS they're all idiots, none of them fully understand 'the issues', they're all fools for going to a protest, much better to sit back and do nothing, YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS, I AM A SMART INDIVIDUAL YET I FULLY ACCEPT THE WORLD IS UNJUST BUT ANYONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE IT WITHOUT FULL COMPREHENSION OF AN ISSUE IS FOOLING THEMSELVES etc etc.. how many times have I heard this from reasonably intelligent people in the last few weeks, putting their energy and voice into abusing people who want to do something constructive. If only they could focus their anger elsewhere, suppose its easy to tar protesters with the same brush..

Do you have to be a lawyer to protest against an unjust law? Do you have to be a politician or have a degree in political science to combat corrupt politics? Do you have to have a PhD in Ecological Science to call for further environmental law reform? By your logic, IQ defines a right to free speech? Stupid people shouldnt be allowed shout?

People have a right to protest. Your labelling of them all as ignorant shows you to be exactly such. To say that 'most' of the people in Genoa did not comprehend why they were there is an insult. You could equally say the huge delegations of the G8 did not know why they were there either, short of a good junket.

I think history (and hopefully more immediate results) will be kind to us, e.g. the aris 1968 insurrection was hammered (even by those considered allies) but people now see that as a genuine and extremely imaginative attempt at change (fusion of workers and students, ideas and actions).

What 'constructive' methods do you propose as an alternative for change? Or do you think that the world is fine the way it is?

regards

Von · 14-08-2001 01:03PM

Bob's right. Letting the moronic masses of the public (who haven't been to f**cking university) have the right to vote on issues they clearly know nothing about is a big mistake. Democracy? DEMOCRAZY MORE LIKE!

JustHalf · 14-08-2001 02:30PM

I don't think Bob was saying that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you haven't attended university... rather that people who vote should inform themselves. And people who protest against something should really know why they're doing so.

Von · 14-08-2001 02:57PM

People who use knackered cliches like "play with fire and you'll get burned" are quite evidently too staggeringly illiterate and dull minded to be allowed to express their idiotic uninformed opinions.

JustHalf · 14-08-2001 03:31PM

Castor Troy? Gandalf?

Are you thinking "Trolls"?

Ping Chow Chi · 14-08-2001 08:53PM

I do think Von is making a good point, who would decide who should vote then Bob, perhaps you ??

Ping Chow Chi · 14-08-2001 08:55PM

[Damm IE :P ]

[This message has been edited by Ping Chow Chi (edited 14-08-2001).]

R. Daneel Olivaw · 15-08-2001 12:03AM

Originally posted by path:

Do you have to be a lawyer to protest against an unjust law?

No, but I'm willing to bet that you would have to be to understand the law in general or in question.

Do you have to be a politician or have a degree in political science to combat corrupt politics?

No, but a degree in political science would help you understand those same politics, and with it you would be able to make an educated decision on whether they were corrupt or not.[/b][/quote]

Do you have to have a PhD in Ecological Science to call for further environmental law reform?

Call for it all you want, but the person with the PhD, without doubt, understands the environment in ways far beyond your comprehension; why not let *them* decide whether environmental law be reformed.

Stupid people shouldnt be allowed shout?

Yup they should they are people too, and have every right to complain. But to suggest that those same people by virtue of the fact that they are simply shouting are qualified and educated to speak and guide and decide conclusively on political, environmental and legal matters is shortsighted.

There is a reason education exists - to be educated in a doctrine of your choice. Your logic very CLEARLY says that beyond protesting, people from whatever knowledge they possess should be able to govern.

Would you also say that you don't have to be a medical doctor to decide what the most likely positive and best treatment for a condition is?

To say that 'most' of the people in Genoa did not comprehend why they were there is an insult.

I'm sure in their own ways, each for his/her own reason, they all understood why they were there, but it was plainly obvious it was not enter into discussions with elected leaders. It was not to peacefully protest. It was simply to be there, THAT was the purpose they all understood.

You could equally say the huge delegations of the G8 did not know why they were there either, short of a good junket.

By delegations I take it you mean teh Carabinieri? The police force of Italy were in some way present for no purpose other than to fight? Perhaps you didn't see the car torchings and molotovs.

I think history (and hopefully more immediate results) will be kind to us, e.g. the aris 1968 insurrection was hammered (even by those considered allies) but people now see that as a genuine and extremely imaginative attempt at change (fusion of workers and students, ideas and actions).

There's a degree of arrogance here that is unfounded and quite jealous of past "protests". Stop trying to be a hero and let history judge for itself.

What 'constructive' methods do you propose as an alternative for change? Or do you think that the world is fine the way it is?

There are plenty of ways the world could be improved. Increasing aid to third world countries would be a start. And, OOOOH, that's exactly what a major point of the G8 discussions were based on. Or did you also miss that speech by Bush and Blair?

So my opinion is that these protestors were CLEARLY by their own logic, AGAINST increased third world aid and increased collaboration of the western world to help nations that would have in past times been ignored.

So, in teh interest of fairness and presuming that the protestors, even with logic, are not heartless fu(ks who want to stop third world aid, they could only have been present to simply...be present. And of course the damage caused and civil disturbance and racketeering through a classical renaissance city was part of......being present.

regards

[/B][/QUOTE]

Von · 15-08-2001 02:22PM

Of course I'm making a good point. However, I'd be wary of arguing with someone who by virtue of his unif*ckingversity education can make assumptions about the intelligence and political savvy of 100,000 strangers. Such people with such bloated conceits are not to be trifled with.
Oh for a modern day Durutti Column. Yeah.

Shinji · 15-08-2001 02:41PM

Don't talk árse Von. At no point did Occy attempt to lord any form of education over you; I've no idea what your own educational background is but frankly you're getting defensive over an affront that was never made.

I never went to university myself, as I didn't feel any need to. However, I see exactly what Occy is saying; if you don't educate yourself about issues, you have no right to comment on them. You argue like you're defending democracy, when in fact you're defending stupidity and ignorance, because one of the responsibilities which anyone who lives in a democracy has is that they must educate themselves about issues and cast their vote or make their voice heard from an informed standpoint.

Most of the rabble in Genoa were utterly ignorant of the matters they were protesting about, as was blatantly obvious from seeing any of them interviewed, or speaking to those who had been there myself.

You don't need to have gone to school to be informed. And going to university sure as hell doesn't make you automatically less ignorant than others.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 15-08-2001 04:42PM

I'd like to begin by commending Daneel for organizing his response effectively and presenting it in a very convincing manner. I'll certainly try to do the same here- it'll be a long post however.

Originally posted by path:
they're all idiots, none of them fully understand 'the issues'

Misquoting me isn't going to earn you any points. I merely said "most" of the protesters didn't understand the issues, and in fact, they generally don't bother trying to. In your own account at that link you posted, you freely admit to walking into a round-table discussion, and leaving the second you hear news of a formed protest elsewhere. And why? Because you thought it was boring. Fair enough I say. But if you don't bother to find out what the issues are- why are you protesting?

People have a right to protest. Your labelling of them all as ignorant shows you to be exactly such. To say that 'most' of the people in Genoa did not comprehend why they were there is an insult. You could equally say the huge delegations of the G8 did not know why they were there either, short of a good junket.

Sure people have a right to protest. But the moral duty to use this right selectively and only alongside effective dialogue far exceeds it. Example: Nations have a right to invade, they are legally chartered to kill citizens of another nation (within certain constraints) and indeed to capture said citizens and hold them for blood-ransom (prisoner exchange). Just because nations have a right under provisions of the rules of war to do such a thing- doesn't mean that their moral duty not to exercise these rights unless absolutely necessary, is neglected. Simply, just because they're allowed to, doesn't mean they should.

It's a shame you view my statement as an insult. I happen to think it's true- and your response has done nothing but strengthen my conviction that it is true. Far from not knowing why they were there, the delegates of the G8 had an organized and selected agenda. Third World debt was the title discussion- delegates spent the weeks prior to the conference being briefed thoroughly on topics to be discussed. The fact that you seem to think they're all sitting in a hotel room twiddling their thumbs only deepens my suspicion of your and other protestors' ignorance of the issues.

I think history (and hopefully more immediate results) will be kind to us

You can't say or even loosely predict whether posterity will even record these protests to any significant level- let alone whether you'd be judged favorably for your actions. The reason previous protests, particularly industrial ones, have been vastly more credible, is that the people protesting were directly affected by the issues. Perhaps you'd care to explain to me how any of these issues, in the main, directly affect protesters?

I usually hate being filmed but this occasion I was more riled than ever as a) they didn't ask first this time, and b) they looked like a serious news crew, and nobody in my authoritarian circles (i.e. work) knew that I was over there. The last thing I wanted was for a manager to be tucking into their chardonnay during the 9pm news and see my head preparing for combat. During my brief but illustrious period as a cop, in the middle of the workshop, they approached me and asked me if I would like to do an interview for the BBC.
Before I was finished my blunt "no" <snip>

May I then assume that you don't even have the strength of conviction to state an opinion to the media? These hated government leaders risk far more than you by having their mug in front of the camera. But they do it- because it's their job and the strength of their conviction in a system. Being afraid that your boss might see you shouldn't really matter- he might disagree with you in principle, but if you really believed in your cause (whatever that might be) surely you'd have done an interview? Please...

As far as constructive means- why not join an NGO interest group of sufficient size not to have to send a pack of societal buffoons to a large ineffectual(except at causing public damage)demonstration.

Either that, or write to your MP/head of government. Write to the papers, expressing what you think should be done.

There's little more to be said- except to say

a) Sorry for the long post

b) Von/Ping Chow Chi- Fetch a clue, the right to vote has nothing to do with this discussion- just because you have a right, that doesn't preclude your duty to exercise it responsibly.

c) path: If you had a cause for going- why not express it? Or did you go just for "the experience?"

As for Von's obvious distaste for my use of metaphor in language at the end of my last post- I really couldn't care less. Violent protesters who travel all that way to deliberately cause trouble are basically relatively well-off thugs. The police are there to do a dangerous and important duty- attacking them gives them zero respect (from me at any rate).

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Von · 16-08-2001 03:22AM

How many protesters “understand” the “issues” then? Go on, a rough estimate will do. Do you know what the issues are that the protesters are pretending to be interested in? Do you consider yourself privy to the inner workings and objectives of the Italian Tute Bianche movement or what? Are you displeased that the protesters are not as au fait with the basic tenets of situationism as you are? You’re making spurious claims you can’t possibly back up. Give us some more “man in the pub” style generalizations. How about “most black people can’t swim” or “73% of people are too tall.” Nobody has to justify to anybody why they choose to do anything (such as attend a protest) if they’re not breaking any laws or harming anybody.

People should only be interested in issues which affect them directly eh? I’ve never had to go to hospital so public health isn’t my concern. F*ck them sickies and cripples!! Turn hospitals into superpubs or brothels specializing in cripplesex!! So very JG Ballard. How many people are affected directly when kids are locked in cages in Honduras or some other f*ck awful place for 12 hours a day making Nikes? None. Some woman gets mugged in the street. Nothing to do with me. Why should I intervene? Like most people, I don’t give a toss about third world debt or AIDS in Africa (unless some coked up rock star decides to put on a big show in a stadium and make famine-chic cool again) but pollution, privatisation of education and GM foods might be a tad bothersome wouldn’t you say?

Then there’s the usual hippy dippy liberal claptrap about nasty violent protesters ruining the “credibility” of the protests. What about the police doing their “dangerous and important duty” of assaulting the GSF and IMC buildings in which sleeping protesters armed with sleeping bags were battered senseless? Why did one policeman call that night “Chilean Night”? Why were people forced to shout “Viva Il Duce” while being tortured in custody? What about the police use of agent provocateurs? Why were the black bloc anarchists not arrested at their campsite since the police were blaming them for the violence all along?

What was sorted out by great democrats like Berlusconi at Genoa anyway? Were there any moves on intellectual property rights, third world debt, AIDS in Africa, environmental protection, GM foods or governmental corruption? Why was Russia represented at the G8 summit when it has a virtually worthless currency, people earn an average of $150 a month, its society is so riddled with organized crime its tax collectors are walking armouries and its army is still raping and pillaging Chechnya? Enlighten us you patronizing ar$e.

Lastly, if you write or speak using meaningless language mangling cliches like “play with fire and you get burnt” (Uh..Wha’? Even with two layers of fireproof clothing on?), your opinions will tend to be grounded in stunted sanctimonious hackneyed cant and you will leave yourself open to accusations of rank bullsh*ttery. From me anyway. Try having an original f*cking thought or else just shut up, sit in front of your PC, watch Big Brother or whatever the f*ck is on now, listen to your U2 muzak and munch on McJunk til you die of your own f*ckheaded inconsequence.

[This message has been edited by Von (edited 16-08-2001).]

Shinji · 16-08-2001 11:44AM

How many protesters “understand” the “issues” then?

You want a rough estimate? Fine, here's a rough fúcking estimate for you:

FÚCK ALL OF THEM.

Some of them - I'm not going to pretend to know figures here - are well meaning but thick as pigshíte.

Some of them are just bloody sheep who want to go along to a protest because it's the DONE THING, because it's AGAINST THE SYSTEM MAN, because their fúcking parents grounded them for smoking once when they were fourteen and now they're ANGRY AT THE WORLD.

And some of them couldn't give a shíte about the "issues", but they're clever folk who like a bit of a barney and see where there are sheep to be led astray.

You seem to fall into the first category. You spout a pile of rhetoric and shíte about kids in cages and slave labour for Nike, which is all very emotive, but you don't actually tell us what the link between that and a hundred thousand folk shouting on the streets of Genoa is. There's no middle step in the logic here - "Bad shít happens in the world. We'll protest about it!"... Neither you, nor ANYONE else I've ever heard express views that go along with these idiots, have EVER told me what the middle step is here; what's the plan for FIXING this? Eh? You're going to go and shout at the police, get on the television, get infiltrated by scumbags breaking windows, and this is going to achieve... What?

It's going to tell the world that bad shít happens? We're all going to look at people getting beaten up in Genoa and say, "Holy Crap, there's bad shít happening in the world! Well gosh fúcking golly! I never knew that, I thought everyone lived in the suburbs and drove a nice car!"

It's going to convince the politicians that they need to change the way the world works? It's going to convince exploitative companies that they need to change their policies? ******** it is.

The exploitation of poor countries is appalling and wrong. Nobody disagrees on that. It has to be changed. Nobody disagrees on that. But you can't change it by screaming on the streets and making yourself look like a twát. There has ALWAYS been exploitation in the world - fúck knows, Ireland saw its fair share of it - but it doesn't get solved overnight, and you can't blame outside factors for all of it. The utter oversimplification of the matter by the rabble on the streets is frankly stupid.

"Anti-globalisation" (what a ridiculous phrase!) has become the new communism, discussed in ganja-smoke filled rooms by students and society dropouts who wouldn't know the real world if it slapped them in the face, understand nothing about politics, economics or the human psyche, and consider everyone else to be some form of ant-farm bourgoise. A shower of wasters, in other words.

As to the matter of the Italian police... I'm not going to excuse police brutality, but frankly, given the history of the country and of the police force, what the hell did people expect? Of course, given that this lot don't bother to think very hard about what they're protesting most of the time, I doubt they bothered looking into the probable police response either...

So frankly, you, for all your bluster, rhetoric and downright insulting crap, are like all the rest of this lot. Heart in the right place, head lodged firmly in rectum.

Von · 16-08-2001 02:48PM

Hang on a sec. Are you the same Shinji that threw a punch for no reason at Eric during a LAN a while back? You've got some f*cking nerve condemning someone for breaking a bank's window. If you're not that guy I apologise. It was some other nerdy twat then.

Anyway, that was a fascinatingly inarticulate view there. A truly incisive view into the mini-mind of the inveterately vapid. I wasn't using rhetoric. I asked questions which you are unable to answer because you are too f*cklazy to find out anything about the protest groups or their objectives for yourself. You mention oversimplification. What is simpler than sitting on your swivel chair tut-tutting and labelling groups of people you know nothing about as commies, druggies blah blah like some 1950’s crewcutted throwback. For your information, I voted for Fine Gael and the PD's in the last election. How dare you call an acolyte of Mary Harney a lefty. You f*cka. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the protesters (assuming again that you’ve gone and found out why they’re so upset), refusing to question why the police were so apparently bent on subverting the peaceful demonstrations by using agent provocateurs and outright brutality is a pretty f*cking stupid tack to be on. Perhaps the police tactics were the same as used in disputes like the miners’ strike. Discredit the protests and prevent any further growth of popular support by depicting all protesters or strikers as mere thugs mad for a ruck with the friendly bobbies. That or it’s a way of saying to the “nice” protesters “Look, the “bad” protesters are ruining your cause. Stay at home and watch telly like a good prole or get your head smashed in.” I’m guessing but it’s not inconceivable.

So by your logic, if protesters are to expect heavy handed treatment from a police force which is rooted in fascism and proud of it, surely they’re entitled to be more aggressive. Are you in your own confused way suggesting that protesters should be more militant rather than whinging about being beaten up? Or are you saying that nobody should ever think of rocking the boat because they run the risk of getting their heads hopped. What did they expect? Here’s one explanation from a member of an Italian organization.

If in Genoa we were naive, then this is how we were naive: remaining faithful to the pact, respecting those who thought differently from us but who like us wanted to achieve an objective. Was it a trap? Yes, set there to ensnare the entire movement.
In the past, it has been written that the Tute bianche were faking it. That confronting the police was a gag. There were those who went to the point of saying that we had some kind of agreement with the police forces. It has never been so. Two, three years ago we thought at length about how to act in a conflict without it becoming destructive. Our technique was different: we stated publicly what we wanted to do, letting it be known that if the police attacked us, we would defend ourselves only with shields and padding. It was our rule because it was essential that we create conflict and consensus about the objectives that we set-up for ourselves. In Genoa we expected that more or less the same thing as usual would happen. They deceived us. Try and remember the meetings of the Genoa Social Forum with Scajola and Ruggiero: none of the guidelines agreed upon were respected by them. The police forces used firearms, even though they had assured us that they would not be.

Here’s another extract from an account.

Last friday in Genoa were some German anarchists of the Schwartze Block. They hit such precise targets as banks and big corporate offices. They had no intention to attack other demonstrators. On Saturday a Dutch journalist of Vrij Neederland magazine met them while they were packing and maybe going back to Germany. They told him they were ****ed-off because of what other "men in black" had done. In fact what went on saturday had very little to do with the BB's modus operandi: the BB has a method. One may disagree with them, and yet they have a method and go their own way without interfering with other forms of action. On the contrary, in Genoa the carabinieri escorted the trashers all day long, and never charged them, not because they were too fast and informal, as someone commented. No, they had all the time to go inside banks, trash them accurately and set them on fire, an operation which requires more than a quarter of an hour. In the meanwhile, the carabinieri hanged on in the street, waiting for them.
When the trashers went out, the magical mystery tour went on. The carabinieri quietly accompanied the trashers to the places where many other people (belonging to the GSF) were demonstrating in other ways, as if they were walking their dogs. There are hundreds of testimonies. All along the path the men in black attacked small shops, set fire to cars that certainly didn't belong to millionaires, destroyed very little gas stations and so on. Then they were unchained in the square where hundreds of members of the Lilliput network were doing a sit-in. The carabinieri followed them and beat up women and children, boy scouts, peaceful demonstrators.

Interesting no?

R. Daneel Olivaw · 16-08-2001 05:14PM

The carabinieri followed them and beat up women and children, boy scouts, peaceful demonstrators.

Yeah and "Soldier" starring Kurt Russel is liek totally ****ing REAL man. Seriously, at what stage did you jump off the life wagon and start supporting crap like that?

Boy Scouts? BOY SCOUTS? WTF would they have been doing there? Do you think they were selling ****ing cookies while trying to help the protestors push down the barricades and torch the cars? WTF are you on?

"I asked questions which you are unable to answer because you are too f*cklazy to find out anything about the protest groups or their objectives for yourself."

I actually responed quite accurately to your initial rant. What, can't you come up with something better than the "no your just wrong" argument. Maybe you shoudld try your own method, and try and find out what was being accomlished at the summit by the G8 group. You are obviously, to paraphrase you, too ****ing lazy to find out about the groups or their objectives yourself.

If you'd just stop playing with your ****nballs for just one goddamn minute this is basically what happened:

G8 were there to discuss helping thrid world countries regarding debt and how to reduce it.

Anti-G8 people started trashing a fine city and denouncing G8.

Result: I believe anti-G8 protestors do not have the interests of third world countries from the way they acted AGAINST the people who were there trying to help.

Now, can you answer this accusation honestly and fairly and say that this logic is somehow incorrect? That my summary of events was essentially wrong?

What were G8 REALLY there for then? Devising more secret plans to stop you sitting around a ****ing camp-fire singing kum-by-****ing-ah and hugging trees?

The police forces used firearms, even though they had assured us that they would not be.

That is pure hearsay if one can't see it in an offical statement also issued by the Italian police. They are the goddamn police and they do not ATTACK: I suppose if G8 was in Ireland and the Garda Siochana beat teh **** out of some high **** they are also wrong? "Defenders of the peace" doesn't ring a bell?

Perhaps because to you, you ignore the wishes of the 99% of the population who believe the police are right to do what they do. Who PAY the police in TAXES to do what they do. What right do you have to tell the majority that they are wrong. WHO THE **** ARE YOU?

Vietnam, whatever, all those protests were done by people who were directly affected (e.g., the draft). I suppose you know all about the Congo and how all THOSE people did everythign they could in the past 2 years to sell that earthen thing for 80$ a kg to Nokia and the rest because THEY DAMN WELL WANTED TO. It's a component of capacitors in most tech boards - called tantalum. No pressure, no companies even setting up there.

But you know what happened? These people were earning around 2000$ a month (that's a lot when the prior average earnings are a few dollars). Greed is universal buddy, deal with it.

In summary, why don't you take your wannabee-rebel needs which are from your obviously unaccomplished life, dust them off, shine them up real nice, turn it sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass.

Because the millions.......millions of the worlds fans don't give a rats ass if a few thousand wannabee rebels-without-a-clue want to protest against talks to help the third world.

You make me sick that you would protest against aiding third world nations. But you defend it, even with retrospect. You should be ASHAMED of yourself.

Sit back and educated yourself to BOTH sides from now on. Did you even look at the items discussed PEACEFULLY by the G8 folk? But you jump straight in and simply presume that they are wrong, simply because you don't to get off your ass and do something that's harder than causing damage.

Your like ****ers who drive over the speed limit at 90mph who I always catch up with at the traffic lights on the motorways. It's real ****ing easy to drive fast, you know. Just ****ing floor it and **** everybody else, yeah? Same like the Genoa protest?

But you know what? The person who obeys the ****ing law and isn't basically a **** will win. Simple as that. You protestors make no argument other than the usual oh-poor-me ****.

I am ****ing GLAD the police belted them. If I can't walk down a street and park my car someplace that I can't trust that a thief, or a mugger or a vandal could interfere with, then the police aren't doing their job.

The hob which 99%+ of the population PAY for them to do. So that hopefully the car isn't torched, the building windows aren't smashed, and so on.

Genoa

Comments