RIOT - Just do it

We have to analyze an entirely different situation in order to propose any meaningful counter action.

i liked that line the best. you are correct, sir.

wonderful article.

You raise an extremely important point - how to protest when the crazies will join a protest and drive it in a violent direction? What's more this is what the media will focus upon.

I think the answer is that it takes planning and discipline. Being ready to engage the crowd in calming down the situation and dissuading the crazies. Even then it can be very difficult, especially since the police commonly use agent provocateurs to provoke violence as a way of discrediting the demonstrators and providing an excuse for assertive (usually violent) police action. Another tactic I've noticed ever since Seattle (and it's been in use every time since then) is to make dire predictions of violence in the weeks leading up to a protest, promising strong police action in response. This scares away the peaceful protestors and attracts the violent kind.

The MM&M cabal are in fact more concerned with "people power" than they are with terrorism. One provides an excuse for increasing their control while the other weakens it. Perhaps that's the reason for the police tactics above... it's more about discrediting the demonstrators than preserving order.

"And there's no more info on the Copenhagen riot. Whatever - I'll spill it out if I some day bother to set that "Sentinel" guy right."

Could have. Should have. Would have.

You've had over two weeks to put that "Sentinel" guy right. You know, the one you labelled as a Nazi in lieu of an argument.

"In my recent discussion about the 16th of December riots in Copenhagen, someone extremely authoritarian and on the side of the police no matter the circumstances"

There you go again, making wild assumptions devoid of reality.

You do not know me from a bar of soap.

I questioned the motives of the rioters and the legitimacy of the rioters in that one incident.

I'll wager a bet that I have seen and been involved in more riots, from both sides of the shields then you are ever likely to experience. The causes for some are legitimate, others are not.

But your surprise at the middle aged woman throwing a glass bottle exemplifies your naivety in this area quite well.

People lose their identity in a crowd; more so in a violent crowd and they perform actions that they would not normally perform; it is like assuming a group identity and losing individual responsibility.

That is why when the security forces decide to act to break up a riot it is done with as much noise and disorientation as possible. Most security forces are trained to beat their shields with their batons. The appearance of extreme and organised violence is used. CS gas is deployed in into the near front and midsection of the crowd to roll them back. The apparent leaders are taken away from the mob by snatch squads and baton charges are used to splinter the mob into more manageable groups, steering them away from the flashpoint.

It is a carefully formulated procedure, borne out of countless years of experience and with an eye to the psychological break-up of the mob mentality and back to individual responsibility, as well as the physical dispersment.

It can seem quite frightening and over the top to the uninitiated. But that is the whole point of it.

That rioters are extremely dangerous, more so then any other civil disturbance because of the loss of identity and individual liability into the identity of the mob and can be expected to act in a savagery normally beyond the individuals usual remit is well known to members of all security forces.

That is why I said that after reviewing the footage of the 16th Dec riots that I posted, (if I were in their situation) I would have used my firearm (if they managed to get the occupants out of the van) because their lives would have been in imminent danger.

If you don't believe that have a look at this footage of an attack on two members of the security forces in Northern Ireland who had accidentally drove near a funeral. Watch as they are boxed in by taxis; the mob surrounds their car; someone with a crowbar rips open the roof and their are dragged out, stripped, beaten and eventually shot on a waste ground.

footage of this incident starts at 1:28

Both men had guns but only fired two warning shots in the air, and they didn't try to run anyone over either. They were more worried about the trouble they would be in for being there and for letting shots off then the trouble they were already in. They didn't think that what was about to happen, could happen.

It did, and it does.

I would not hesitate to open fire in a similar situation.

Better judged by twelve then carried out by four.

"Because this wasn't done by a political group and it never was a legal demonstration. It was just a bunch of young immigrant boys who decided to go down town and go crazy. And so they did"

I would get used to that if I were you.

http //www 'dot' youtube 'dot'com/watch?v=Pgzz-uXkEkk

I forgot about links being omitted, here is the link to that footage. It is quite disturbing but footage of this incident starts at 1:28

Interesting. An article about riots that develops into name calling on one side and the distribution of conspicuous and easily refutable lies on the other. Then, after Godwin's Law has been invoked, the debate thread continues. Let me try to clear it up:

Dishonorable conduct according to CoH
The first mention of "Nazi" is by Sentinel (#3) who claims that Benno Hansen, the author of this article, has called him this on another discussion thread. Link is not provided, so we have to take Sentinel's word for it. Benno Hansen, however, does not refute the allegation. He states in #3.1 that a comment by Sentinel is "Nazi bull@!$%#." After that, Nazi keeps appearing over and over, but more interestingly: Sentinel use the term "Nazi" about a group of people outside the discussion.

Misleading information
From the other side: It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the killing of soldiers in Ireland to the riots around the youth house. The allegations that Sentinel and others make that this is not, in fact, a youth house but a center for organized violence is absurd. Truth is that the youth house has been under surveillance for decades. I used to visit the place in my early youth, and you would hardly ever experience any violence or even tension, nor would you witness criminal activities except that of lighting and smoking a joint. That said, demonstrations in Denmark that escalate into violence can be as dangerous as any place.

The actual story buried
It was an interesting article up to the point where it degenerated. I am confident nobody outside Denmark will ever have a decent understanding of the riots, and it is all right that readers perceive it as young troublemakers who are brought into the fold by the police and authorities (and a Christian sect who wants to demolish yet another epicenter of evil in the name of Jesus). I so would like people outside Denmark, however, not to present false statements about a complex that involves now between 10 and 20 local organizations and community groups. These are ordinary people who know the details of the problem intimately; they are not anti-establishment or caught in the spur of the moment, throwing water bottles at the police. They are trying to resolve a local issue without making global headlines and having 130 rounds shot point blank into a crowd of civilian protesters.

Police state and agent provocateurs
A number of sensational statements have been made. Benno Hansen claims that Copenhagen City was transformed into a police state during the Bush visit. That one is true. I can vouch for that. People were evicted from their apartments. Journalists in the vicinity of George W. Bush were told they would be shot without warning if they as much as moved to take a piss. Secret Service crews were ordering cars removed, streets blocked, and generally treating locals as if they were total strangers or secondary citizens. Benno Hansen also claims that the police uses agent provocateurs. This is a commonly accepted assumption, but as he also stresses, not verified. Something like this is, by nature, very hard to verify. What is easy to verify is the use of open provocation and brutality to provoke conflict and confrontation by the police on one side, and the grasping for media attention by certain political gang bangers. Any sceptic can go to a public demonstration and witness for themselves.

Undercover on Newsvine? Clarify please
Another statement, made by Sentinel, caught my attention. Sentinel claims to be law enforcement. I can read it no other way. In that case, I will have to ask you to verify that, Sentinel. As I understand it, a police officer has to identify himself if he is asked directly, unless he is deep undercover of course. We do not allow the use of stingers in Denmark, by the way. Is some similar rule the case in Britain? Because I would really, really like to know who I am dealing with on Newsvine, particularly if they represent the authorities. Now, some of what you say also indicates that you were present during the Danish Youth House riots. You said you do no "remember" the sound bites from Lord of the Rings, but have to take Benno's word for it. As I see it that statement only makes sense if a) you were there or b) you had been briefed in detail with extensive recordings of the event. Or, did I misunderstand that?

Even if you are not on official duty I would like to know that you are an embedded news journalist and commentator.

These are reasoned comments and deserve a reasoned response, and I will attempt to expand upon them in the order they were made.

But first, the reason I have seldom provided links as references is because links are omitted at submission and subterfuge has had to be employed in order to get around that, which I suspected may breach some rule. Mr Hansen has been kind enough to remedy the link conundrum in any case.

Mr Jacobsen:

You refer to "the distribution of conspicuous and easily refutable lies" with the clear implication that I am the purveyor of such untruths. In order for me to go to the lengths of concocting falsifications I would have to have some overriding motive to do so. I do not. You may disagree with my perception of events but that does not make my perceptions in any way contrived or deliberately false. And I have not seen any reasoned refutation of these perceptions as yet.

In fact I have demonstrated that Ungdomshuset are themselves guilty of obfuscation and falsehood. I wrote in regard to Mr Hansen's assertion that the "not-paying-rent part is false" that it was in fact central to the whole issue, and that Ungdomshuset had clearly stated their intentions:

"Even Ungdomshuset themselves do not dispute the fact that they were non rent-paying squatters and took the matter to court on the basis that it should not have been sold whilst it was being occupied. The court decided otherwise; it is clearly common-sense.

I am sure that your position on squatters would change if they were to occupy your premises.

They state on their website "We have reached the end of a 2 year long trial against activists from Ungdomshuset. The court has spoken and the verdict turned out in favor of Faderhuset."

Because the verdict was returned against them they then state "We do not acknowledge their so-called justice system!"

They obviously "acknowledged" this same justice system initially to the degree that they participated in it to seek a judgement in their favour. And I can guarantee you that if they had secured such a judgement they would have "acknowledged" that too.

It was only when they did not get what they wanted (and lets face how could they have in the name of reason) that they then decided that the law was not for them after all.

They then go on to say "There will never be anything but Ungdomshuset in that house and therefore we will do anything in our power to defend it!"

Considering that the legal avenues had failed how else did they propose to "defend" the house?

"On the 23rd + 24th we hit the streets to show them that we are many, that we are powerful and that we will NOT be ignored!"

"It is no longer a matter of IF we are going to fight for the house, but rather WHEN! But WE decide when it's time to fight - therefore the demonstrations will be non-confrontative ." (sic)

The two statements above from Ungdomshuset clearly show the intention of how this "house" they had no right to be in was going to be defended, By fighting. By violence. The last part of "non-confrontative" is merely a disingenuous caveat.

The act of opposing the application of the law by way of large physical presence meant it was never to going to be anything other then confrontational and they knew this. Indeed they did everything possible to provoke the police by donning face masks and disregarding democratic procedure. To get the police to react first in order to gain the moral high ground is old as the hills and most people can see through it."

"interestingly: Sentinel use the term "Nazi" about a group of people outside the discussion"

It relates back to the previous discussion I had with Mr Hansen; it is used in that context. I was drawing attention to a highly personal article I decided to pen in an attempt to explain the rationale behind my thoughts; and illustrate that it was not based on any preconceived ideology or even motivated by any political influence at all.

"It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the killing of soldiers in Ireland to the riots around the youth house"

I was referring to footage of a portion of the 'Ungdomshuset riot' that I had linked in a previous discussion with Mr Hansen, more specifically the events shown 23 seconds into that footage. The van that the police were in was attacked from all sides with paving slabs and rocks (how had they materialised in such abundance and so quickly?) and is not heavily armoured at all. More like a slightly improved UPS vehicle. The rioters would not let the van pass and appeared to be attempting to gain entry; it could easily have tipped over in any case and may have had to have been evacuated because of that or a variety of other reasons. Given the situation you can see in that footage, what do you think would have happened if the police officers had emerged from that van? It is safe to say that the rioters would not have said "fair enough, on you go." The footage I linked of the soldiers murdered in NI was to show the extreme way that these situations can develop when mob mentality replaces personal responsibility. As I said those soldiers clearly did not think what happened was going to happen otherwise they would have knocked people over to get away and fired every round they had into the crowd; and who could have blamed them in hindsight? (when it is all too late) This is not the only time this has happened by any means (remember the lorry driver at the start of the LA riots, for incidence) and has happened in many more places then just NI but it is one the few occasions where it was all caught on camera. That was my main point.

"That said, demonstrations in Denmark that escalate into violence can be as dangerous as any place."

Exactly and that is one of the reasons the police would have hit it so hard. An example. A warning not make this the norm.

"The allegations that Sentinel and others make that this is not, in fact, a youth house but a center for organized violence is absurd. Truth is that the youth house has been under surveillance for decades"

Why exactly? And by whom? And for what possible long-term purpose? How did the surveillers justify the protracted budget expense if tangible reasons were not produced.

"you would hardly ever experience any violence"

But still some.

"witness criminal activities except that of lighting and smoking a joint"

Still a crime nonetheless. To say that they not engaged in any criminality is clearly wrong. Also that substance has to be produced and processed somewhere and by someone. Usually members of organised crime who have links to other subversive groups.

"I am confident nobody outside Denmark will ever have a decent understanding of the riots...I so would like people outside Denmark..."

These are nationalist sentiments and something I understand, it is natural. However, for reasons I am not prepared to discuss (which may become apparent later) I do have a vested interest in Denmark and its future. I have family there too and I have a contract that takes me to Denmark (amongst many other places) on a fairly regular basis.

"having 130 rounds shot point blank into a crowd of civilian protesters"

Theses are baton rounds you are talking about, colloquially known as plastic bullets, not live rounds from conventional firearms. I think we should be clear about that. The ballistics and purpose of the round means that they have to be fired at point blank range. To do anything else by the way is very dangerous as when they hit the ground they spin and will break bones at the very least. (As we have done intentionally in NI) I have been hit by baton rounds a couple of times. It hurts but you get over it, usually very quickly.

"Undercover on Newsvine? Clarify please"

Hardly.

"Sentinel claims to be law enforcement"

No I do not. I am a former soldier with the British army and I have made that perfectly clear. To serve in the British army is to assume a very strange multifaceted role, one largely dominated by the odd concept that we are 'global policemen' and I had spent a large part of my service deployed as such. That is where the term 'security forces' comes from, but it is generally applied to all Government security apparatus.

"As I see it that statement only makes sense if a) you were there"

I have already said that I was in the proximity during the course of that days events.

"Even if you are not on official duty I would like to know that you are an embedded news journalist and commentator"

No I am not. I am a private citizen.

"how can you claim to have experienced a lot of demonstrations on both sides of the shields? I think that one needs a follow up"

I have been on both sides of the shield in many places as a servicemen and on the shiny side as a private citizen a couple of times. For obvious personal security reasons I will not be drawn into specifics that could led to my identification, and I think I have already said too much in the article I produced in response to the 'Nazi' charge. But I will say that security forces use spotters in crowds that may turn volatile and relay the apparent ringleaders to the snatch squad commanders. That is not acting as an "agent provocateur" but merely as the eyes and ears on the ground.

Mr Hansen:

"I'm not saying he is an actual Nazi and I never will"

I refer you back to your post in which you said:

"In all honesty, all it tells me is you are a lying nazi. Honestly. Sorry for not wrapping up my words"

As I later pointed out to you, not only did you call me, personally, a Nazi, but alleged that I was not even an honest Nazi.

"I am rather unfazed by attacks and provocations"

I am not sure that I have attacked you. Some of my more questionable comments were made after you called me a lying Nazi (but then bizarrely took offence at the suggestion that you may have qualified under four of the ten regurgitated definitions of 'fascism' from one of your previous posts-but I did not call you a lying 'fascist' or even just a plain old 'fascist')

"please note too that Sentinel have tried to put me down by suggesting I'm not of true Viking ancestry more likely a slave descendant (mind boggling)"

I feel that we have somewhat descended into playground farce here.

I said:

"The træl thing I picked up from Danish relatives and friends (admittedly it is more of an Icelandic preoccupation though) and was mentioned because invariably wherever I find people who express that they are anti-nationalists I find people who have reason to fear nationalism"

And with hindsight it was a somewhat tenuous link to that assertion and I can now understand why it comes over as so offensive (I mentioned what I had said to Danish relatives and friends they looked at me as though I had told them I had just got a nun pregnant-but these were amongst the same people who had drawn my attention to it in the first place. As an Englishman it would never have occurred to me.) And, again, that comment was made after the lying Nazi jibe.

"my nation, Denmark, didn't properly fight the invading Nazi army during WWII (which I kind of agree with)"

That was said in context to the Nazi jibe. And I believe it is historically accurate.

"strangely trying to put suspicion on me by posting my portrait at his blog (not that I care) as well as a few other tricks"

I am not sure how I have placed any suspicion on you. It is in the public domain anyway. I only used it (and others) to break up the reams of text and perhaps to gives some reference to the article. If you find it offensive or underhanded though I am more then happy to remove it. I am not sure what other tricks I have used either. I thought I had been scrupulously polite throughout the article.

"Despite all of this, I think somehow both I and Sentinel have gotten a bit smarter by reading each others contributions"

I agree. I do not know you and I do not harbour any personal animosity toward you whatsoever. I do not make posts to be combative either. I am genuinely interested in what other people perceive, particular those capable of articulate and rational output. I suppose I could sugar-coat my posts somewhat but it is part of my nature to be succinct.

As I said:

"I believe I have proved my point and you believe otherwise. Debate can get to the facts of the issue, if both sides allow them in, but facts do not change strongly held beliefs if the holder has no desire for that belief to be changed. In essence, perception is king."