Well, first off, the antiwar protesters were not promoting the use of violence...
Secondly, everyone I know who protested did not do it out of some selfless pacifism but because they knew Bush was lying and we could not accept lies. What's the narrative that values facts over lies? You tell me.
Lastly,
Here's what I wrote in my diary:
Maybe the idea of Human Rights is also a mythology, or at least a matter of faith. You can't prove things like souls and dignity. But there is a demonstrable connection between the upholding of human rights and peace, dignity, prosperity and progress. And since I know of no one who wants to be bombed, forced to live like an animal or in fear, I'm going to say that upholding human rights is not a matter of faith but of practicality.
Like I said, more than anything, my answer to all this is that I don't know. I just don't know. But if I were to pretend I see no blaring connection between those who profess their religion most loudly, and those who profess their patriotism most loudly, I'd be a liar. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
True, but for me, the search for peace is an ideology, so if you reserve ideology for violence, you have to find another word :).
Marching for peace wouldn't be an ideology. As Migeru said, there could be all kinds of reasons for going on a march.
And Martin Kramer - a prominent neo-con with a jihadist mentality probably isn't be the best way to debunk Pape.
I like Pape's take on things. I don't know if he's right or not, but his ideas make much more sense to me than neocon jihadist clash-of-civilisation fantasies do.
but how do you label the narrative underlining the peaceful protests of the anti-war movement? Well, first off, the antiwar protesters were not promoting the use of violence...
