OWS drops the 'peaceful protest' charade

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/After-lull-Occupy-protest-resurfaces-in-Oakland-2802264.php

Then came Saturday, which started peacefully enough — a midday rally at City Hall and a march. But hours later, the scene near downtown Oakland had dramatically deteriorated: clashes punctuated by rock and bottle throwing by protesters and volleys of tear gas from police, and a City Hall break-in that left glass cases smashed, graffiti spray-painted on walls and an American flag burned.

More than 400 people were arrested on charges ranging from failure to disperse to vandalism, police spokesman Sgt. Jeff Thomason said. At least three officers and one protester were injured.

On Sunday, Oakland officials vowed to be ready if Occupy protesters try to mount another large-scale demonstration. Protesters, meanwhile, decried Saturday's police tactics as illegal and threatened to sue.

OWS=Criminal scum. And that's my final answer.

 

[Big Don]

Gee, Bill, you mean you don't think they are just like the Tea Party?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...sesses-city-hall-damage-after-occupy-break-in

Mayor Jean Quan said Occupy protesters have caused an estimated $2 million in damages from vandalism since October. She said the cost to the city related to the Occupy Oakland protests is pegged at about $5 million.

Police arrested about 300 people Saturday as Occupy Oakland protesters were thwarted trying to take over a vacant convention center and enter a YMCA. Protesters later broke into City Hall, where they burned a flag taken from inside.

@OaklandPoliceCA tweeted around 3 p.m., "Area of Oakland Museum and Kaiser Center severely impacted. Persons cutting and tearing fences for entry. Bottles and objects thrown at OPD."

Once they reached the center, organizers planned to kick off a two-day "Oakland Rise-up Festival" to celebrate the establishment of the movement's new space.

Occupy Oakland spokesman Leo Ritz-Bar said the action would signal "a new direction for the Occupy movement: putting vacant buildings at the service of the community."

Occupy Oakland demonstrators shield themselves from an explosion Saturday during a confrontation with the police near the Oakland Museum of California in Oakland, Calif.

He also warned that protesters could retaliate against any repressive police action by blocking the Oakland International Airport, occupying City Hall or shutting down the Port of Oakland.

Fine upstanding law abiding peaceful protesters, just looking to get their message out my puckered patooti.

 

[ballen0351]

Its always Oakland that city needs to just be bulldozed

 

[ballen0351]

Looks like its washington DC turn next they gave protesters until noon tomorrow to get out of the parks and remove their tents.

 

[Haakon]

Looks like a photo from Palestine with the burning flag and cowards wearing masks.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Anybody notice the OWS sympathizers have suddenly and mysteriously gone quiet? Perhaps they'd like to explain again that OWS is peaceful, there are only a tiny fraction of a minority that seems intent on breaking the law. Heck, they're probably in the pay of the Koch brothers, agent provocateurs, trying to discredit the movement, right?

 

[Sukerkin]

In what fashion is this a surprise to anyone? The transition from peaceful protest to non-peaceful was always going to happen at some point. I suppose tho' in the modern era of instant gratification they didn't have the patience to wait two decades to get results:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/908843.stm

The protest in and of itself is just a symptom of the failing system that hoovers the wealth up to the top. Changes are in the wind to try and ameliorate the defects and still retain the spirit of mercantile exchange founded on private enterprise. But these changes will be slow to occur, too slow for most people to tolerate without an explanation of the long-view, macro-economic, background. The OWS want change now and that, combined with not actually knowing what changes they need means that the lid was going to come off eventually.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

View attachment 16036

In what fashion is this a surprise to anyone?

It's not a surprise to me; I predicted it. The only thing I'm surprised about is the lack of one or more charismatic leaders.

The OWS want change now and that, combined with not actually knowing what changes they need means that the lid was going to come off eventually.

And as a citizen who wants problems fixed, but doesn't want city halls 'occupied' or flag burnt by Wobblies, I fully support police truncheons brought down on their idiotic noggins.



And I notice a disturbing trend; OWS uses 'Anonymous' as their willing bullyboys and toughs. Instead of roughing people up in the streets, they dig out their personal family information and 'out' them online, suggesting slyly that it would be a grand good thing if they were injured or killed to teach them a lesson. A slightly more cowardly version of the SS.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
This is for discussion not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
This is for discussion not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section

What's different? Not a huge amount. Except that I don't think the USA is dictatorship. And since it is not, I do not want it overthrown. That puts me on the side of the government. So I want this rebellion put down. And FYI, OWS is now referring to their 'movement' as a 'rebellion' and a 'revolution'. Armed insurrection is treason. Throwing bottles and rocks and firebombs at cops is being 'armed'. If this is 'revolution' and they're throwing rocks, they're committing treason. I want them arrested and locked up. I do not want revolution in the USA.

And that of course dances around the statement I made; those who claimed OWS was a peaceful movement that they supported are mighty quiet now. At the very least, they're not saying much about the 'violence'.

Why aren't they out condemning it? All I hear is silence.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not condonng them in the least but you realise the way you regard them is the way the Syrian, Libyan and Iranian etc protestors are regarded by their governments? What makes the demonstrators in America different from these other demonstrators in your eyes? the Syrian govrnment calls their demonstrators everything you are calling these, they believe it too, not for one minute do dictators and their ilk actually think they are wrong, many actually think they do know what's best for the people. why is violence the answer in some countries and not others. I'm interested in why people think some violence is fine, is it when you don't support a regime and when you do there shouldn't be violence? or should there never be violence?
This is for discussion not taking pops at each other, it's the Study not the TKD section

What makes America different from Libya, Syria and Iran?
Honestly.

That'll answer the question.

1- We don't haul protestors off to the side and execute them.
2- We defend their right to peacefully assemble.
3- We haven't machine gunned them just because (and anyone who says mace = bullets is an asshat)
4- etc.

In the US we have a guaranteed & protected right to freedom of speech and expression.
We don't have a right to breaking and entering, theft, vandalism, assault, and so forth.

 

[granfire]

What's different? Not a huge amount. Except that I don't think the USA is dictatorship. And since it is not, I do not want it overthrown. That puts me on the side of the government. So I want this rebellion put down. And FYI, OWS is now referring to their 'movement' as a 'rebellion' and a 'revolution'. Armed insurrection is treason. Throwing bottles and rocks and firebombs at cops is being 'armed'. If this is 'revolution' and they're throwing rocks, they're committing treason. I want them arrested and locked up. I do not want revolution in the USA.

And that of course dances around the statement I made; those who claimed OWS was a peaceful movement that they supported are mighty quiet now. At the very least, they're not saying much about the 'violence'.

Why aren't they out condemning it? All I hear is silence.

First of all, nothing has really changed since November/December.
The country is still in the crapper
the OWS people do what they have done then.

The US could very well be qualified as a dictatorship of Money. And when you peel the labels off, you might find that your own interests are much more in line with OWS than with the Money driven government.

peaceful protest always has the potential for violence.
Be it that the protesters get fed up with being ignored (and Mark, i think the movements in the 60s did not have patience either, re: 20 years in the making )
or the powerful trying to bully the protest into submission.

Protest is the voice of the people who are rendered mute after the ballots are cast.

The Middle eastern protest did not start as armed protest - or treason as you classified it. Just a bunch of people tired of being treated like mushrooms.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not sure if the argument is' what makes America different' from those countries, I think it's more 'when is violence right'? There are still more supporters of the government in those countries than are rebelling, they would tell you that the rebels are criminals. If the majority of the people in a country don't riot and rebel and do support the government, which we know to be by our standards undemocratic and dictatorial, can we support those who are violently demonstrating?

There has been in recent times a groups of people who have been hi-jacking all sorts of demonstrations across the globe, however they are seen for what they are anarchist 'rent-a-mobs' and not actually connected to the demonstrators whose marches they disrupt how can you be so sure that's not what is happening with the OWS? do people hate them so much they won't or can't see the oWS as a legitimate protest even if they don't agree with what they say?
Recetnly we had the demos outside St. Pauls, one of their grieviences was that big companies weren't paying tax, it was rubbished by the government and press right up till the point it came out that companies like Vodaphone weren't paying taxes, public annoyance was evident when we found out why they weren't paying tax!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Protest is the voice of the people who are rendered mute after the ballots are cast.

This is not protest.

Revenge? Very peaceful.

Not protest, vandalism:

Not protest, insurrection:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

USC Article 1 - Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Getting closer.

Getting closer.

Almost There.


The Oakland group involved thousands with 300+ arrests. NYC has involved thousands. Other major cities similar. The City, County and State law enforcement has stretched thin, run up huge tabs in overtime, and been stressed. If these events continue on this path, these LEO's will be hard pressed to contain them and maintain order so that the other 99.995% of the population that doesn't feel the need to be prats can go about their lives unmolested. When an event like this turns into a contained riot...calls for troops will be put out. As they escalate further, the US Constitution and US Law fully authorizes the President & Congress to order military action as at that point we will be in a full revolt, the first such mass revolt since the 1700's.

As that point, it's a cluster frack.

 

[Big Don]

Then there is the idiocy of them using Guy Fawkes masks...
Rant and rave and rail against government and churches, wear a mask of a dedicated theocrat.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Then there is the idiocy of them using Guy Fawkes masks...
Rant and rave and rail against government and churches, wear a mask of a dedicated theocrat.

Way it was explained to me Don by 1 of them is that it's not so much what or who the -real- Fawkes was, but more about the V for Vengeance guy.

So to show they hate big government and big corporations and want more jobs in America, they use a prop which if bought legitimately puts royalties in the hands of Warner Brothers, or if not, into the hands of the Chinese who make the knock offs.

Yeah, not the sharpest spoons in the drawer.

 

[granfire]

This is not protest.

Revenge? Very peaceful.

Not protest, vandalism:

Not protest, insurrection:

Not sure the chick in the picture...did she break the model house?

Burning the flag, however distasteful it might be to an individual is a powerful statement. And it does not kill anybody, and only the people with the match might get hurt.
I think that is pretty peaceful.

As to the masks. Yeah, I agree. If you have something to say, put your face to it.
(then again, if you are a hired hand, might as well cover your face. And now we can debate on who gains more from paying mercenaries to cause trouble)

And since we are living in a place that prides itself on democratic values, how can it be insurrection? That's a term a tyrant uses to discredit opposition.

Now, if that was not their flag they burned, we can add theft and vandalism....those flags with the fringe and tassles are not cheap.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not sure the chick in the picture...did she break the model house?

No, she's the Mayor of Oakland. The model was a 100-year-old model of the City Hall building, all that was recovered after the earthquake; a treasured city heirloom. Broken by OO protesters when they broke into the City Hall and vandalized the place.

Burning the flag, however distasteful it might be to an individual is a powerful statement. And it does not kill anybody, and only the people with the match might get hurt.
I think that is pretty peaceful.

The flag wasn't theirs to burn. They broke down the front doors of Oakland City Hall, 'occupied it', and proceeded to smash everything they could find, vandalize the walls with spray-paint and graffiti proclaiming 'REVENGE; and "F*** THE POLICE' and defecated in the hallways. Then they hauled the flags of California and the USA outside and set fire to them.

Peaceful? Yeah, sure.

As to the masks. Yeah, I agree. If you have something to say, put your face to it.
(then again, if you are a hired hand, might as well cover your face. And now we can debate on who gains more from paying mercenaries to cause trouble)

And since we are living in a place that prides itself on democratic values, how can it be insurrection? That's a term a tyrant uses to discredit opposition.

Now, if that was not their flag they burned, we can add theft and vandalism....those flags with the fringe and tassles are not cheap.

Correct, not their flag. The broke and entered to obtain it.

Insurrection is a word that describes what they did.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Sorry, but your definition is not correct.