I guess I don't see it as so out of the realm of comprehension that an anti-war rally would "turn violent". (Which of course depends on what that means). Get ANY large group of people together who feel strongly about something, and they feed off eachother. (my lord, there have been violent conflicts with the police and RIOTS after football games!) add a few people who has the exact opposite belief, or as is more likely the case, a few folks whose beliefs arent all that different but where each side is portraying the other as black and white as possible and voila.

I also think that sometimes people have a tendency to want to make the whole issue black and white. the assumption is that if someone is opposed to this war (or even this war at this time...i myself may have changed my mind at some future time) that that person is HERSELF an "ANTIWAR PERSON".

Other folks, who may have supported Bush's decision to begin this war are often labeled "PRO WAR". Assuming those things about eachother certainly emotionally charges those rallies as well. I am, for example thinking about the rallies in my home town. One person will have a "no war ON Iraq" sign, (as if iraq isn't participating) another will be waving a "support our troups" sign in that guy's face (as if all folks against the war are "against the troops").

someone else will have a "no blood for oil" sign..... see where I'm going? this is all so complex. How can a gathering of 10, 20, 30 thousand people with all those differing views have a nice, pleasant "rally".

Put another way, i think it oversimplifies the issue to assume that "anti war" means "I will always behave and would never ever be violent" just as "support our troops" doesn't mean "i'm a baby killer"

okay, I'm rambling, its been that kind of day. I'll stop now, but thanks for letting me spew.