The goal of anti-war protesters, most of the time, is to send the message that "violence begets violence." Some of them have no problem with some of the war effort against radicals that cause terror, and their only complaint is Iraq. However, a large portion of the anti-war left are against war of any form, even if used as a defensive measure. They are entitled to their opinions. They have the ability to protest as they do because of the blood shed by our military heroes.
The problem I have is that their argument is against war, against violence, but more often than not the protests by these people become violent, as they are becoming in St. Paul.
Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?
According to the Associated Press, "Thousands of protesters descended on the city hosting the Republican National Convention Monday, some smashing cars, puncturing tires and throwing bottles in confrontations with pepper-spray wielding police who arrested at least five people."
On Fox News there have also been reports of fires being started, and many of the groups causing general mayhem throughout parts of the city of St. Paul.
As a side note, organizers hoped for 50,000 protesters, but only about 8,000 showed up.
Remember, these are the people claiming they are protesting the violence of war.
If violence begets violence, then why are these protesters so violent?
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio: Republic Review
1 day ago