until it was closed by the Senate..

Anarchism has alwas to talk about social problems and the sticks should hit the right persons..

After spending a fair few months in Exarhcia and going out with the people who conduct these missions, i saw that violence is not only ever used against drug dealers. I can’t give you 100% truth in my statement as I do not speak Greek..but two of the people I saw being beaten were actually old men on a moped – they got tazered and beaten with sticks. There seemed to be some infighting amongst the ones who were under balaclavas. I presume some thought they were dealers and some not. There are many people in Exarchia who agree with the action for gangs to go and kick the drug dealers out and as of recently there has been some fighting in the square regarding drug related issues..which doesn’t make exarchia look very good at all. I am also sure that the police are deliberately pushing the dealers into the district of exarchia as to give it a bad reputation and cause infighting. My personal opinion is that yes it is good to keep these kind of people away from Exarchia (dealers) but that the ones conducting these missions should be really careful, it is only a matter of time before dealers could potentially decide to take action in vengeance, and this is going to cause more problems for the movement and in a sense start a turf war, which is not at all needed between the far left and drug dealers…I can also note that if you were to roam around the streets of Athens by night – you would see fascists dressed in black, faces covered attacking immigrants..then you have anarchists dressed in black, faces covered beating migrant drug dealers…for uncorrupted eyes this would confuse people on the role that both far directions play on the political/social spectrum.

But I just wondered what was meant here by “ambivalent” as in “groups of anarchists and others have chosen the ambivalent tactic of forcibly moving dealers and users out of the area.”? Does this mean they felt ambivalent about chucking them out of the area, or is it an incorrect translation – that what was meant was “ambiguous” (but if so, what was ambiguous about such an excellent action?).

Any answers, anybody?