violent peace protesters

[wrbones]

Setting an Example
by Larry Arnold, Concealed Handgun, V.4 n.4
Picture yourself at a protest. Let's say a famous speaker is appearing, and you are outside where pro and anti gun demonstrators are exercising Freedom of Speech. You are legally carrying your concealed handgun. Suppose the gun prohibitionists are calling you hateful names. Then one of the anti-gun protesters punches you out. Your nose is bleeding. How will you react?
That moment of truth came for Shariar Ghalam. (More of this story is available in the Boulder Weekly, at http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/040600/waynesword.html.)

Charlton Heston was speaking in Boulder, Colorado. Shariar, legally carrying his Sig Sauer 9mm, was holding a sign and speaking through a bullhorn. Robert Howell, vice president of the Boulder Chapter of the Bell Campaign, which lobbies for gun laws and peace, was there with about 100 peace protesters.

Some of the peace protesters told Shariar he looked like "a dirty Arab," others said he "looked like a Middle Eastern terrorist." He isn't. In fact, he speaks five languages fluently: Arabic, English, French, Kurdish and Persian. He started SMG Construction, his own business, from scratch. He was honored for renovating the Boulder County AIDS Project in record time. Before he immigrated to the U.S., Shariar had to smuggle his father from an Iranian prison, to save him from execution by Hezboallah ("Party of God") guards who served the Ayatollah Khomeini. He has fought Middle Eastern terrorists. In Colorado, he ignored the taunts.

Then Robert Howell physically attacked him. Television footage shows Howell throwing the punch that bloodied Shariar's nose. The tape shows Shariar backing away, trying to end the confrontation, and Howell pursuing. The video continues while law enforcement officers physically subdue Howell. In contrast, Shariar immediately and peacefully identified himself as a legally armed Colorado permit holder.

"The gun was loaded," reported the officer interviewing him. Also from the official report: "He was cooperative, and said he did not wish to fight."

Then the same officer wrote, "I turned towards Officer Davis, and saw he was on the ground with his subject, later identified as Robert Howell. Officer Davis was telling the subject to calm down. ... I released Shariar Ghalam and went to assist Officer Davis. Officer Davis eventually talked Mr. Howell into calming down."

Is that not the epitome of non-violent conflict resolution? The impression Shariar left with the TV crew and the law enforcement officers gives the lie to the gun control philosophy.

Meanwhile, the Bell Campaign is attempting to rescue their integrity by writing guidelines for their "peaceful" members. Really? And why do "non-violent" people require guidelines against assault and hate speech?

So that's the story of an immigrant, one who experienced the kind of terrorism we only read about. It is also the story of a legally armed U.S. citizen, threatened with less than deadly force, who responsibly decided not to draw his gun. And it is the story of a confrontation with ignorance, which Shariar countered with honor and strength of will.

When it's your turn, how will you react?







Larry Arnold
Email him at larnold@ktc.com.

Copyright © 2000,
Larry Arnold.
Posted with permission.

Larry Arnold, 2nd Vice President of the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor Association, resides in Kerrville, Texas. He is the author of several award-winning articles in the concealed-carry arena.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000; Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor Association
Updated . Contact TCHIA.

[wrbones]

ROBERT KILLIPS/Lansing State Journal <br />
<br />
<br />
What: &quot;Michigan Says No to War&quot; march and rally <br />
<br />
<br />
When: Noon on Feb. 15 <br />
<br />
<br />
Where: Starts at Beaumont Tower on MSU's campus and heads down Michigan...

[wrbones]

©2002 GEO, 177 Kiles Rd, Stillwater PA 17878
www.geonewsletter.org
www.geo.coop
Cooperatives and Peace Activism



By Ken Estey

I am a member of the Editorial Collective for GEO and the executive director of Peace Action of New York State. As a GEO reader, are you also a member of a peace organization? If so, does your work of peace activism and in cooperatives ever overlap in concrete ways? Cooperative economic relations and peaceful, cooperative relations overall are two expressions of a common task to build a world-wide cooperative commonwealth. Both movements need each other more than ever before.

The events of September 11 have caused the GEO Editorial Collective to ponder the role of cooperatives and the creation of a peaceful world. In the face of endless war and the ongoing threat of terrorism, do cooperatives have anything to do with solving such intractable problems? To pose the issue very sharply, is it possible that our work toward a world-wide network of worker-owned and worker-managed cooperatives—true inter-cooperation—is also the work of peace activism? Will our work to create and sustain worker cooperatives everywhere help to eliminate the massive structural inequalities that help promote terrorism, conflict and war? I suggest that even without an ironclad “yes” to this question we continue our work on cooperatives as if our lives depended on it. Indeed, they do..




Cooperatives as a living example

The work of cooperatives is a living example to peace activists who are expert on ideas to stop war preparation and end war but lack a systematic analysis of the economic factors that lead to dispute and conflict. Many otherwise peaceful members of the peace movement in the United States neglect the warning that capitalism and imperialism are intimately related. Even when grassroots activists and peace movement leaders consider economic alternatives, rarely do cooperatives emerge as a solution. Peace activists have an insufficient knowledge of and appreciation for the peaceful potential of worker owned and managed cooperatives.

In recent years, the relationship between peace activists and those working for economic justice has not been a close one. The movement against corporate globalization that found its footing in Seattle has not led to enduring alliances with the peace movement because of distinct generational differences and divergence on tactics and methods. The protests, whether in the United States or in Prague, Quebec City and Genoa, have had no trouble attracting college and even high school age students. Many in the peace movement, eyeing with envy the composition of the protesters and their media and technological savvy have asked “How can we get the young people involved?” The diversity and boldness of tactics have also shocked and piqued the interests of peace activists. Peace activists wonder where the line is drawn between violent and non-violent protest. Globalization protesters view once innovative peace activist street work as unnecessarily tame and a holdover from the 1980s nuclear freeze movement or even relics from the 1960s. Nonetheless, peace activists and globalization protesters need to work together, combine forces and press their respective issues as two sides of the common coin of the cooperative commonwealth.

Peace activists and globalization protesters have complementary insights. Corporate globalization is only possible with the globalized military of the United States that ensures unfettered access to commodities and uninterrupted production, sales and distribution. As for peaceful human relations, one prior condition includes an equitable distribution of material goods and true democratic participation in the institutions that guide our economic life.

The peace movement also has much to offer the cooperative movement. A major challenge for the democratically governed worker cooperative is self management and conflict resolution. The peace movement has nurtured thousands of its own activists over the years to practice peaceful self-governance amongst themselves and with others. The cooperative movement could learn from this deep well of expertise. At GEO, we are interested in your experiences and your suggestions about the overlap between the peace movement and the cooperative movement. Do write or send an e-mail to us at GEO if you would like to continue this conversation.

[wrbones]

How much information do you want to see about this issue?

The violence the often begins with peace 'protesters' goes back some time. Nearly month after month, year after year around the world, those who claim to desire peace offer violence and vandalism instead.

[Marine-of-1861]

They P*** me off and a good persone like me would end up under the jail.

Screw those Basterds !!!!!:D

[greensideout]

Bones,

Did these stick to your foot while you were in a restroom?

I would guess that some of these scumbags get there income from the poor dumb brainwashed protesters that believe the world should be a level distribution of all commerce produced by all governments in the world. The fact is, some economies work and some don't. Not hard to figure which is which. The world wants the U.S. to subport it. Yes, that's the hard work of the american people in a free country, moving this globe forward into a better life. The difference is, we earn it. They are just begging.

They make me mad!

[greybeard]

The aformentioned--are examples of the rights that you went/(are going) into combat to protect. Don't like it any more than you do, but it's a fact nonetheless. The day may come, when issues avail themselves that will force people such as the membership of this forum to protest in a similar fashion--perhaps not against war, or in favor of gun ownership, but perhaps against far worse travesties applied against the citizens of this country. One never knows when one of the bill of rights will be needed in our own lives. Politicians are not to be trusted 100% with the future of this nation.

[wrbones]

Folks can say what they want, I suppose. Least ya know where ya stand with them. My point was that so many of them claim to be for peace, yet some of their tactics involve blatant intimidation or violence to others and their property. There have been reports of their physically attacking veterans and familys of military personnel for wearing military items and t-shirts with military sayings and logos out in town.

[wrbones]

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER)
Military wives need public's support



Marion Colston
Published February 6, 2003

Ft. Sheridan -- I am the wife of a U.S. Marine. He is leaving. And that's OK. His job was part of the package when I married him.

Several of my fellow Marine wives, however, have experienced verbal and physical abuse in the past few weeks from so-called "peace protesters."

One woman was told from another car at a stoplight that her husband was a baby killer, and that they hoped he would die.

Another, and her young son, were yelled at and manhandled by a group of protesters as they were passing through the area.

Why did this happen? Because the wives either had a Marine Corps sticker on the car or a Marine Corps shirt on.

Military wives, and especially Marine wives, are fiercely proud of our husbands and of the role we play in keeping it together on the home front. And we display our pride on our cars, our shirts, our coffee mugs.

But now many of us are taking off the stickers and shirts and are putting away the mugs. And that's a horrible feeling--like we should be ashamed that our husbands serve our country.

Please, our job is hard enough--moving frequently, having husbands leave with little or no notice, being mom and dad, giving birth alone, trying to help our small children remember Daddy.

We need the support of our fellow Americans.


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

[JChristin]

We Americans have the greatest Republic in the history of all the world. We must keep it exactly just that. We owe it to new generations of Americans to provide them with a clear idea of what they have and what they need to do to keep it.

The Roman Empire lasted for over 330 years and disintegrated. We are their successors. What can we do to prevent our fate from going down the same road as Rome? We must, come hell or high water. We have control of the hell, and high water has gone by the board, that is unless the ice caps melt. It is now up to our great Republic to profit by history's mistakes.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments, The Bill of Rights, and the free market system. Unfortunately, since I hold those views, especially where the right of "Free Speech" is concerned, I must from time to time allow others the right to demonstrate and to express views that are dangerous to the great principles given in those documents that guarantees their right to voices opposition in the first place.

Is the war with Iraq a just war? I don't know. But what I do know is that our country was attacked and people died, unjustly. Those who survived have lives altered for all of time. Can the same happened again? You bet. Will it? Of course it will. When? Most likely sooner rather than later. What other negative impacts will be felt by our country and against our citizen's worldwide now that terrorism is becoming a way of life? What about our allies and our responsibilities to them?

I am greatful that we have diverse groups in our great Republic. Their right to assemble and rally helps to serve as the alter conscience (or ego) of our great nation. I will fight anytime to uphold their right to voice opposition to the ideals and principles I strongly believe in. However, I'd like to see that happen in downtown Bagdad.

Haven't heard of any peace rallies or marches by the people of Iraq in downtown Bagdad calling for their leader to work for peace. Heck, I'd think they'd being doing exactly just that, since they are the one's with the most to lose. But then again, they haven't the right of peaceful assembly when voicing a view that run's counter to that of the great Saddam- have they now! Humm, sounds like our own "peace" protesters have lost sight of what really counts, the right for people from all around the world to enjoy freedom of assembly and expression.

So I guess logic would indicate then that these peace protestors are against the granting of freedom to the people of Iraq. That the people of Iraq should be forced to live under the tyrant rule of a dictator who employees the use of biological and chemical weapons against his own people to force them into a state of absoulte and total submission. I have never seen an election when ALL the people voted for just one candidate, with no opposition. Uhmm, the great Saddam recently pulled this one off. What does that tell the world? Read your history. Look carefully at the lives of Hitler, Stalin and Tito.

I hope that all will understand that our great country and the reason why so many other nations adopt so many of the primary principles founded in our Constitution and Bill of Rights is because of fundamental truth. The Truth of Humankind to live free and to prosper and grow towards the pursuit of happiness.

Have wrongs been committed in our own country along the way. Most certainly. Afterall, anything set up by humankind is doomed towards defeative acts of people. But goodwill shall override the wrongs - in the final analysis. This is of course, provided we are diligent and careful how we exercise our fundamental rights (freedom with responsbility) always seeking to do that which is just and right along the way. Read your history.

It is not only the future of our great Republic that is at stake. It is the right of people worldwide to live in an international society that promotes peace once ALL have the rights that are presently accorded to only the few. Then perhaps we can ALL contribute to that which really requires development and fulfillment: World hunger, Health and Housing Issues, Education, and Space Exploration.

It has taken "blood, sweat and tears" to create our great nation and to maintain it. We fought a Civil War to settle that question. Unless the coming generations are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it, this great Republic of ours - and other societies like it, will go the way as did the city states of Greece, the Roman Republic and the Dutch Republic.

If those who rally for "peace" really understood the issues at stake then they wouldn't be out there promoting a "do-nothing" stance that will continue to force people to live under a dictatorship comparable to that of a Stalin. But if they don't really care how that affects an individuals life who has not choice but to live under such rule, then perhaps our great Republic is on that road that Roman followed to its ultimate destruction. History has a way of repeating itself. Read your history.

Semper Fi
JChristin

[firstsgtmike]

I want to respond to this from the oblique. In order for you to appreciate that, you need to know the direction I am coming from.

When I have been asked to counsel young pregnant girls and advise them as to whether to carry or terminate, I never revealed my personal bias. I gave the pros and cons for aborting, and the pros and cons for having the baby. Once equipped to make an informed choice, the decision was theirs.

My position was simple. I was not paying for whatever choice they made. Financially, I was not attached to them for the next eighteen years. Emotionally, I was not attached to them for the rest of their lives. Therefore, I did not feel it my place to effect the outcome.

Too often, there have been pro-this, and anti-that, who changed their positions and left those who followed them, or took their advice, to fend for themselves. (Born-Again drug pushers would be a perfect example.)

JChristian makes the argument that; "Haven't heard of any peace rallies or marches by the people of Iraq in downtown Bagdad calling for their leader to work for peace." (and blames it on living under a dictatorship)

"So I guess logic would indicate then that these peace protestors are against the granting of freedom to the people of Iraq."

The anti's comeback to that would be; "No, I am for freeing the people, but you don't have to kill them in the process."

Both sides have a valid point to make. (As do those who support, and those who are against, abortions.)

My position is that those who are in a positon to MAKE the decisions, should be the ones willing to PAY for the decisions.

(I want a red one, you want a blue one, you are buying, therefore the color is blue.)

The only problem I see is; How to make the ones responsible for the decision, pay for it.

(Jane Fonda skated. She apologized, but how could she undo what she had done 25 years before?)

If payment in full WAS required, I believe there would be many people/countries who would refrain from taking a position.

Instead they would limit their involvement to; "Here are the facts, here are the figures, here are the benefits, here are the consequences. Since YOU, not I, will be paying for it, the choice is YOURS.

Unfortunately, that doesn't happen (except with ME). The normal thing is like dealing with attorneys. "We won, I get HALF!" "We lost, YOU'RE going to jail."

The world, being interdependent as it is, will require the U.S. to step in and provide support for France, Germany, etc., even though they voted with the opposition.

The rules are made up as the game is being played, except for the basic rule. He who has the gold, makes he rules. And all the arguments you hear, are arguments protestingthat fact.

I say to the marchers/protesters, individuals and countries. When the results are in, will you be hiding or standing tall, to accept the applause, or to make the payment due?

Just for the record, that includes President Bush.

(I'm not anti-anything. I'm pro-accepting responsibility.)