The G8 summit in Germany was mostly peaceful. But there were also some violent conflicts between the Black Bloc, the police and other protesters.
Do you think the strict security measures (e. g. a fence to segregate protesters) were adequate or excessive?
Watch this video and discuss. (I don't claim it is not biased...)
Mephistopheles;4196314Do you think the strict security measures (e. g. a fence to segregate protesters) were adequate or excessive?[/quote] They were excecessive. Most protesters were peaceful. [quote=Mephistopheles](I don't claim it is not biased...)
IT IS BIASED. It favors teh police arresting protesters. Without the fence most violence could have been avoided. The police provoked the action of the black block.
Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander
26th April 2004
These people ("mentally ill and violent anarchists") really cared whether there was a police fence protecting normal citizens and property?
The security measures were neither adequate or excessive: they were insufficient as the bandits were able inflict damage. However the security of the event was doomed to fail as the preventive measures did not work, the foreign rogues shouldn't have been able to enter Germany. Borders controls can be reinstituted for a short period for events like this: Germany did it for 2004 European Football Championships. (rfr. Schengen Agreement)
For example, Danish anarchists who occupy abondoned apartments called for reinforcments from European allies to defend the captured apartments. Some of the foreign anarchists were not able to get there as the Danish authorities prevented them.
I have to agree, the measures were obviously inadequate. I am inclined to believe that the fence was more of an inconvenience for the ordinary people living in the area and the peaceful protesters than the violent ones though, the violence should instead have been overrun as soon as the first stone was thrown.
These summits that usually are followed by violence should rather be arranged somewhere where the security can be guaranteed without severe inconvenience to those who live in the area. I'm sure some suitable remote location could have been easily fenced off and defended. The artificial need for luxurious accommodations could simply be ignored.
One must not understand the black bloc as an organization, but as an assembly of individuals.
I don't approve of spitting at people, attacking boom operators, burning of cars of ordinary people, attacking local shops and the like. I believe all genuine anarchists will agree, since the above is not direct action aimed to dismantle repressive structures, but random violence.
What I perceive as odd is how people ascribe the black bloc a dangerous, aggressive nature, while the system under which we labor is in effect a system based on repression.
In regard to the fence, I believe it was a waste of taxpayer money. Helgoland, anyone? :lol:
"while the system under which we labor is in effect a system based on repression." The cavemen had it much better. I protest the protesters, tired of the antics of a bunch of brats
Quetron;4196660 I protest the protesters, tired of the antics of a bunch of brats
You protest the protesters by complaining about it on a message board? Smooth.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
In a sense they were excessive; the situation could and should have been avoided by holding the G8 at an undisclosed location away from any population centres. Do this sort of thing in a little cabin somewhere and no-one would be any the wiser. Even better: Do it by video-conferencing, god only knows we've got secure enough encryption algorithms these days. But no, the G8 had to make their pathetic little statement of power, again, and ordinary people are left to pay the price, again.
On the other hand violence almost always kicks off whenever the G8 get together and it was only sensible to create a physical barrier between the violence and the target.
Just think of the day it's G8202.2 , as in interplanatary trade, lol. The only way to combat this crap is to become rich and powerfull yourselve, otherwise all the protesting is pointless. I don't like it, but then it is a good way for nations to talk without the UN, and I'm sure they talk about all sorts of stuff, not just world bank-money.
tyrannicida;4196597One must not understand the black bloc as an organization, but as an assembly of individuals.
That sounds familiar... Anon, anyone?
Honestly, I have to ask, why is it that at almost every one of these conferences these whack jobs manage to do this much damage?
I mean, look at the video that was posted. The cops don't have riot shields, they don't seem to be using CS gas, and it looks like they're using their bare hands in close combat most of the time. I know they can't shoot these guys, but, damn, they need to work on their tactics. Bumrushing a group of protestors isn't how you get them to disperse.
Peaceful protest is one thing. Burning cars, destroying public and private property, and assaulting police officers is another.
What would work wonders, I think, are flashbang grenades. As the name implies, they create a blinding flash and a deafening bang, stunning everyone in it's effective radius. If you want to get rioters to move the fuck out, toss one of those into their midst. Best part is, it only has a two second fuse. Can't really pick it back up. The flash is emitted from the grenade through a series of pre-drilled holes, meaning no shrapnel at all flies around when the grenade goes off. The main risk is hearing damage and burns, as the ignited magnesium mix used to create the flash can burn clothes and skin if you are very, very (read: holding) close to the grenade when it goes off.
Of course, you could also take the standard military flashbang and modify it to be more suitable for riot use.