Why do protestors always have a fire going?

R.A.T.

R.A.T.

Randall's Adventure & Training
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
10,400
Just caught a glimpse of some street protest going on in France and yet again there is a fire raging in the background. Is is written in the protest rule book somehwere that anytime you protest in the streets you have to start a fire? Just curious.
 
gotta light up the Molotov Cocktails SOMEHOW! :eek:

l4dcocktailparty.jpg
 
I have to say, powernoodle, you are a handsome man. Nice profile pic!
 
Fires demand attention. A protest is useless without attention.
I wonder if they charge them with arson. I would hope that arson would get them a serious sentence when convicted.
 
They add dramatic effect and ambiance. It just would feel like a riot without fire. There also should be a tipped bus. Bonus points if the tipped bus is on fire.
 
jaymeister99 said:
No way, can't actually call it that! We need to be politically correct. God forbid you would actually call a "protester" a rioter! :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, if any of you are familiar with the G20 "protest" that occured in toronto this year..

They found a "peaceful protestor" with body armor, and a backpack full of bricks, molotov cocktails, a large axe and gas mask.

If that doesn't have peace written all over it.... :D
 
The fires are
A. a way to draw attention to themselves and add to the "dramatic effect."
B. a way to draw police and fire resources away from the rioters.
 
R.A.T. said:
Just caught a glimpse of some street protest going on in France and yet again there is a fire raging in the background. Is is written in the protest rule book somehwere that anytime you protest in the streets you have to start a fire? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Maybe look at it this way:

Why do the press always show you a picture with fire in the background?

There were a million people protesting in France the other day, did they all immediately start fires?

MMnnn, could it be that we're supposed to associate the right to protest with lawlessness?
 
Depending on the situation, I'd say it's for fear factor.

If someone is waving a gun or a knife or holding a molotov cocktail, that is just one person that can be dealt with individually. If a group anonymously starts a fire, it's hard to pin someone for actually starting it.

As a whole, we're afraid of fire. Sure we use it and respect it, but overall I think everyone has a fear of the power of fire. Might just be their way showing they mean business and try to instill fear in others.
 
["Just caught a glimpse of some street protest going on in France and yet again there is a fire raging in the background. Is is written in the protest rule book somehwere that anytime you protest in the streets you have to start a fire? Just curious". ]

My first post, but sorry, I must disagree with you.
There have been a large number of race demonstrations/riots in the U.S., and most of them have proceeded without fires.
 
It's big. It's dramatic. It gets attention, which these riots are obviously intending to do-and do so successfully. It gives the rioters credibility. They're getting lots of international limelight because of it. Otherwise they'd be just another group of wacked out pissed off demonstrators in front of the White House or at GI Joe's funeral...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top