In the comments, I noticed some complaints about a video I posted from some San Francisco protests.

I didn’t see any thuggery in this video, just people expressing their views as one would expect in a free and open society.

And:

I’m with Dumsfeld.

The debate gets a little heated, and both the leather jacketed guy who got in the peace protester’s face, and the peace protester with the bullhorn yelling “Get the fuck out” at the flag wavers were over the top, but I saw no “thuggery.”

So I ran the video again, and I came to this conclusion:

I stand by my original assessment.

While this video may not devolve into assault, the fact remains it showcases what I define as Peace Thugs.

You see, while assault may have been the catalyst of why we launched this site, ti encompasses other behavior as well.

I would argue that vandalism, threats, intimidation and bullying are including in my personal definition of peace thug behavior.

All encompass the same general concept: Intolerance and disrespect to opposing ideas, and all deal with the same tactics of trying to attack or influence the messenger rather than debate the message, and the end result is too often an attempt to silence the messenger by force or intimidation.

One of the other comments that struck me was this one:

I must protest your generalization of tarring and feathering all protesters as terrorists. Did it ever occur to you that some of them may be provacatuers. Google COINTELPRO. People are frustrated of an administration that thinks it’s above the law and the people, ignoring them.

So according to “Tyler”, there are some that are just people who are provocateurs, people who provoke trouble, causes dissension, and act to deliberately agitate the crowds.

In this case I am assuming he is referring to the concept of the agent provocateur, who is hired to makes suspected bad people act bad. IN this case, by use of his reference, he is accusing the Government of trying to deliberate spike the anti war movement by inserting people to do bad things.

How useful. Unfortunately, it won’t hold to scrutiny.

Too many of the people are openly associated and have been for far too long to magically appear and act bad. They do this as a cause that they celebrate, and the violent actions of their own and their peers are treated with glee and passion. Take this comment by peace activist Ed McCormick:

HEY SWARTHOGS THE NEXT TIME YOU GO TO A PEACE RALLY TO TAUNT ACTIVIST LEAVE THE CHILDREN AT HOME THIER IS NO REASON TO SUBJECT THEM TO THE VERBAL ABUSE THAT YOU GIVE OUT.

ITS NOT PATRIOTIC ITS PSYCOTIC.IS IT ANY WONDER WHY A 82YR OLD WIFE OF A COMBAT VETRAN KICKED YOUR ASS.MAYBE THE GATHERING OF EAGLES CAN GIVE YOU A PURPLE HEART FOR THAT!!! AS A PEACE ACTIVIST I RESPECT THE ELDERLY AND ALL COMBAT VETRANS AND WOULD NEVER TAUNT THEM AS YOUR FAMILY HAS.PEACE ACTIVIST ARE NOT ALWAYS PASSIVISTS LIKE THE WOMEN IN BLACK I QUESS YOU FOUND THAT OUT!!. YOU GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR –REAL PATRIOTS–

As you can see, Ed starts with taunts and name calling and never really rises out of the kindergarten level assault he has begun.

Ed is a classic Peace Thug, who has spent a lot of time taunting the kids in this family and generally acting juvenile.

So gentle reader beware, there is more to peace thuggery than assault. Intimidation is just as bad.

Going back to the SF rally. Yes, I class that as peace thuggery. The people with the signs and flags were standing still in their formation. The crowd surrounded them, shouted at them, verbally assaulted them, taunted them and tried to provoke them. They encroached on their space and tried to force them to leave.

Why?

For not agreeing. For not toeing the line of the anti war activists. For standing up for the military and showing pride in the USA.

For those crimes, they must be stopped, according to the peace thugs.

So, my evaluation stands. You are welcome to disagree, and I will happily debate why. That’s how dialog works.