>Yes, I have a few ideas, but I can't share them here publicly. Several
>anarchists on the East Coast have come up with a few new strategies to
>neutralize the advantage that New York cops have, but we aren't quite ready
>to put them into motion. Chuck0
>
>------------
>
[...]
>So the counter-tactics are first of all mass scale, with multiple
>centers of action, some peaceful some not, some very large, some
>smaller, but nearby. You also want an indefinite time line. Clear
>enough for the demos to start but unclear enough for the cops to
>manage. All together this makes containment and control very
>difficult.
You're both wrong, because you are both thinking tactically, instead of strategically. So even if your tactics are successful you would win the battle but lose the war.
The object is not to tactically control the situation, to have a march or whatever. It doesn't matter a fuck whether the march proceeds. The march just a tactic. The object of which is to get the message across, not win some petty and futile game against the cops. Chuck wants a street battle with the cops. He's deranged of course and can only analyse a demo in terms of whether the battle is joined or not.
Don't let him suck you in. Let the cops win tactically, who cares. The strategic objective is merely to make a public statement and win public support for your message. If the cops want to use overwhelming force, then the appropriate counter tactic is to demonstrate that this is a massive over-reaction. An unreasonable use of force against reasonable people determined merely to exercise their freedom of speech. So let them win. In fact, let them overwhelmingly and publicly crush you and suppress your freedom of speech. Let the message be "why are the authorities afraid to let these people speak?"
If you fight them, there is a danger you might win the fight, thus publicly demonstrating that MORE force is needed to contain the "threat".
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas