Are they protesting something specific or just the colossal waste of money that the meeting itself represents?
PROTEST! Down with STUFF!
#22
Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:33 AM
Quote
Keep in mind, though, those are Canadian dollars.
Unrelated to the topic, but I looked this up the other day and we are actually kicking a lot of ass on the US dollar and even the Euro. That NEVER happens these days. The whole time I was growing up the Canadian dollar was worth like 60 cents US and less than half of a British pound....now its like 95 cents US. Its raping our exports but the cross-border shopping has been great lately.
@ Cold Iron
I dunno. The legitimate protests were the usual raft of G20 protest stuff
- save teh 'virement!!
- save teh walez!
- Human rights!
- Save Africa!
- Stop the War in the Middle East!
Then on sunday the cops arrested nearly 800 people that weren't really involved with the "black block" on special powers granted for the duration of the summit because they were intentionally spreading out police resources with their peaceful protests so that less police would be around to stop the black block group. He even went as far as to say it was a pan-protest conspiracy involving nearly every single protestor to distract the police so the black block could do their work. Ha.
And apparently they beat the piss out of some poor journalist for a London newspaper and he's pretty high profile and is launching a huge lawsuit on the Toronto PD. Class-action suits are sure to follow on the part of the 800 innocent people they arrested and occasionally beat up on Sunday.
........oOOOOOo
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....BEERS!
......\\| | | |
........'-----'
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....BEERS!
......\\| | | |
........'-----'
#23
Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:12 PM
I know, the Canadian dollar is doing great, I get most of my material from 1985.
I think the less focused protesters tend to be generically anti-globalization, but the more focused ones (besides unrelated side issues that Cerveza lists) are specifically opposed to the World Bank and the IMF, the latter of which they believe does pseudo-"good" things in an extremely shady, exploitative, predatory way -- it essentially provides loans to third world countries and then exacts extreme, not necessarily beneficial guidelines upon these countries on top of committing what is essentially usury.
I think the less focused protesters tend to be generically anti-globalization, but the more focused ones (besides unrelated side issues that Cerveza lists) are specifically opposed to the World Bank and the IMF, the latter of which they believe does pseudo-"good" things in an extremely shady, exploitative, predatory way -- it essentially provides loans to third world countries and then exacts extreme, not necessarily beneficial guidelines upon these countries on top of committing what is essentially usury.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.
#24
Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:10 PM
What do you mean Worry
Usury in what way? I'm generally uneducated about such things since I already spend too much of my time learning about other random stuff.
I thought my "unrelated side issues" (as you put it) were the bulk of the protests...as in no cohesive overall protest direction, more an amalgamation of many small interest groups' topics. Never having studied or participated in protests of any kind, I dont' really understand the cause all that well.
New question:
In a case like the recent G20 protest in Toronto, what do you think happened. Was the Black Block vandalism spree a form of real protest? Were they trying to add to the voice of the peaceful protestors or were they just taking advantage of a situation where they could easily intermingle with crowds so nobody would see them coming? You'd think they could do that just as easily by tipping over some random subway cars or blowing up a cop car on any normal day. I guess at that point you label them "terrorists" though.
Hooo...interesting point. With a group like the Black Block. Are they terrorists in a strict sense or does the label only apply when they commit acts of vandalism/violence out of the blue for no apparent reason? I think the prevalent word for them in the Canadian media is "anarchist"...but their actions seem pretty "terrorist" to me.
That would be sick...if they all got charged on new terrorism laws. Ha.
Usury in what way? I'm generally uneducated about such things since I already spend too much of my time learning about other random stuff.
I thought my "unrelated side issues" (as you put it) were the bulk of the protests...as in no cohesive overall protest direction, more an amalgamation of many small interest groups' topics. Never having studied or participated in protests of any kind, I dont' really understand the cause all that well.
New question:
In a case like the recent G20 protest in Toronto, what do you think happened. Was the Black Block vandalism spree a form of real protest? Were they trying to add to the voice of the peaceful protestors or were they just taking advantage of a situation where they could easily intermingle with crowds so nobody would see them coming? You'd think they could do that just as easily by tipping over some random subway cars or blowing up a cop car on any normal day. I guess at that point you label them "terrorists" though.
Hooo...interesting point. With a group like the Black Block. Are they terrorists in a strict sense or does the label only apply when they commit acts of vandalism/violence out of the blue for no apparent reason? I think the prevalent word for them in the Canadian media is "anarchist"...but their actions seem pretty "terrorist" to me.
That would be sick...if they all got charged on new terrorism laws. Ha.
........oOOOOOo
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....BEERS!
......\\| | | |
........'-----'
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....BEERS!
......\\| | | |
........'-----'
#25
Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:50 PM
I wasn't making a personal point, but suggesting that is their argument. The G20 protests aren't meant to just be a mishmash of causes, even though there are plenty of tag-along special interests. I'm no expert either, but the argument is that the developing countries get loans from the IMF ostensibly to become economically stable and prosperous on the world stage -- but the loans come with huge, domineering, even detrimental strings attached -- and the countries are expected to pay the loans back at usurious rates and on an unreasonable timetable, regardless of how poorly the IMF-required economic restructuring policies performed. It's essentially predatory lending, they argue, and a sneaky way to go about neocolonialism rather than a good faith effort to help out these developing countries. There's a pretty good documentary called Life and Debt that covers this side of the argument, with Jamaica serving as the example.
As far as the Black Block goes, they're essentially opportunistic violent morons. If you're proud of your actions, don't wear a mask. Getting caught should be worth it, if you are on the side of right. Plenty of more righteous people have taken a lashing for their outspokenness. I wouldn't call them terrorists though because I would restrict that to groups who intend to strike fear/paranoia into an entire population, in order to achieve a goal (I don't subscribe to the "for no apparent reason" definition). Riot behavior doesn't fit the bill to me.
As far as the Black Block goes, they're essentially opportunistic violent morons. If you're proud of your actions, don't wear a mask. Getting caught should be worth it, if you are on the side of right. Plenty of more righteous people have taken a lashing for their outspokenness. I wouldn't call them terrorists though because I would restrict that to groups who intend to strike fear/paranoia into an entire population, in order to achieve a goal (I don't subscribe to the "for no apparent reason" definition). Riot behavior doesn't fit the bill to me.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.