I live here in Seattle, this is what's going on, the protestors who we all knew were intent on protesting before this occurrence to the so precieved greed monopoly WTO. In most parts of down town the protestors remained
peaceful but from this widespread group evolved an unruly 30 or so people who began busting out McDonalds, Starbucks (which was promptly looted) and even the US bank windows. (AAAH, that's my bank!) It was these actions that inspired the tear gas, apparently there is question as to if there was a warning for the morning fumes, however I watched live last night, that they did give warning. Last nite a curfew was imposed, and only a few dotting of people remained, after curfew in the street and were fumed. Of course Im not into this tear gas resolve, but it really defeats the purpose of one wrongdoer to be confronted by a group who makes their statement by committing another wrong. Martin Luther King had the right idea, peaceful march, it demonstrates the most genuine class, and can be deemed as respectable, if you tear up the city, you tend to tear up your credibility. Nanogirl
>In no small part because small organisations of protestors get
>less attention than honking great big coalitions, and the mainstream
>organisations who would have traditionally represented them (left- wing
>political parties, trades unions) don't exist or aren't interested
>any more.
>>
>The danger here is that because these interests are largely excluded
>from the usual political discourse, they will increasingly turn towards
>violent protest as a way of getting the system to respond -- however
>inappropriately -- to their concerns. While we don't agree with techno-
>luddism, I think it'd be better for everyone if we could exchange
>verbal opinions rather than letter bombs and tear gas grenades.
>-- Charlie