We all know that the reasons for the people is protesting in Genoa are right and we all hope that G8 may take conscience of the other (poor) side of the world...

We all know that the reasons for the people is protesting in Genoa are right and we all hope that G8 may take conscience of the other (poor) side of the world, but this is not the right way to get heard at all, no way. All of you say "they got the power" so it's useless (and, as unfortunately seen today, very dangerous) to fight against "them" using power and violence. As much as the demonstrations will get more violent the G8 become dumber to the reasons peacefully put in Genoa streets by the protesters and "they" can find a reason not to listen to the protesters' voice: "we don't come to talk with violent people". What's happened today displays the tragedy of man as a conflictual being, torn by ideals crashing with reality. I hope G8 act right as it should do towards all the world (no state excluded).

May these words be useful to stop the violence in Genoa and as much as all of you can to activate information campaigns and forums and whatever is concerned on G8 and world poverty.

Street fights in genoa aint bout talkin with G8 but bout initializing its downfall. All we want is crash of the spectacle of alienation, boredom and poverty not, holding hands together with beaurocrats from G8 over our "agreement to help rearrange and settle down". Truly, if things get really sorta outta control theyll be just happy to say, yes, lets talk. They will invite "antiglobalisation movements leaders'" that may emerge if movment is not radicalized, to talks, offer them, not neccesary money, but the status in spectacular world, in which theyll be seen as kinda political stars, "radically" shaking hands with owners of todays world.
They wont talk to us if only a few is violent. If all get violent theyll be happy to talk to, but the trick is not to talk just to get violent.

peace out. motloch48@wp.pl

I've changed so many times my opinion on violence vs non-violence,that I'm still undecided on the subject but here are the arguments (incomplete, I'm sure...) I've heard for each.(I'm sorry for my bad english)

Non-violence:
-Violence doesn't achieve anything because they have more capabilities of making violence than we do
-Violence turn off other people from the protestors, we are still small.
-Violence is the best tool of the propaganda system to criticize the movement.
-We should aim for a society without violence.
-Violence is irrational, those with the bigger guns win, not those wich are "right".(i think you know what I mean by this)


Violence:
-Violence against property is not violence and against police is self-defense (thus violence will now be under "").
-Every revolution has had some amount of "violence" that ignited mass riots.
-"Violence" calls for people to act aswell against the system, it is an ignitor of sorts.
-If "violence" is the best tool of the propaganda to criticize the movement why are they so *helpfully* explaining to the viewers that only a small minority is doing the violence, that the majority is against them, peacefull and has a good point against "globalization"? Perhaps to remove the violence feature of the demonstrations wich could lead a to a mass revolt?Perhaps in their perspective violence *is* threatning to them?

Well, this last argument I just had in my head and it just made me kinda swing to the "violent" side.

I'm still very undecided...

Daniel

I agree with michal frydrych. We don´t want any talk nor any agreement with them. We just want to destroy their power. They are the enemy. While we act without leaders, we will be strong, but if leaders appear, they will be bought by the power.

Anyway, we should be carefull with the use of violence. The revolution must be done with the agreement of most of the people, and an excess of violence may lower the number of people who join us.

I am sure that G8 shall act "right": they shall do the best for the profits of multinationals!

Salud!

i know here in the USA there would have been absolutely no report of the protests if there was not violence. It's kind of a catch 22. No violence - no story. Violence - and they dismiss protesters. Cleary in this situation some antagonism was required because there is no point in marching through what I understand was a ghost town if no tv cameras are going to show it. Most people now know that there was a large protest in Genoa and despite the media's assertion that it was just a bunch of violent kids - some people will be inquisitvie enough to wonder why tens of thousands of people would protest and thousands would risk injury and arrest. Thanks to the internet all they have to do is type the word Genoa and they will probably find a resourceful site.