My G20 trip, Reflection Thread: READ!

reply to post by tempest501


Don't worry, ill watch it later when I am home and not under a microphone being listened to by my boss.

Oh and for further reading on these "peaceful anarchists"

anarchistnews.org

Imagine, if you will, gentle reader, the animist version of this story in which dumpsters, long accused of complicity in anarchist “lifestylism,” step out of their social role to join the social war. Free food, even when distributed via programs like Food Not Bombs, is not enough—we want freedom itself, and the dumpster does too, and it gains momentum down the hill as it rolls, alone and magnificent, directly into a pair of oblivious policemen.

As Liberty Avenue makes its way southeast through Bloomfield, it passes through a shopping district full of small restaurants, bars, and banks. The march was remarkably timid in this environment, considering that there were no police around whatsoever. Perhaps it really is true that property destruction largely occurs as a reaction to police violence; it may even be that self-professed insurrectionists find it psychologically easier to smash things in the comparative danger of a police confrontation than in the absence of any authorities. In any event, there was practically no property destruction until finally a bank on one side of the street was attacked.

Shortly after 10 p.m., a Bash Back!-themed black bloc a hundred or more strong appeared on Forbes Street between Atwood Street and Oakland Avenue. The march was pushing half a dozen or more dumpsters, which were upended in the intersections while seemingly all the corporate businesses on the block lost their windows. Another dumpster was rolled further down the street and set alight before being upended as the bloc fled north.

This is from the anarchists at the protest. To me it seems as if they had it planned out, they had every intention of being violent, causing mayhem and trying to start a riot.

There was a planned demonstration route, it was supposed to be organized. The people that got hurt by those evil cops were in fact off the protest route and causing trouble first before the cops did anything.

After the anarchists decided to attack the cops had no choice but to retaliate.

reply to post by whatukno


Assuming none of the violent disruptors were plants - does this invalidate any of the complaints of the peaceful protesters?

Do you support the use of the LRAD against any and all people in the streets of Pittsburg?

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Assuming none of the violent disruptors were plants - does this invalidate any of the complaints of the peaceful protesters?

Well let's see, there are people acting in a violent and destructive manner, the people were warned to leave the area, they didn't, so yea, it does invalidate those complaints.

Do you support the use of the LRAD against any and all people in the streets of Pittsburg?

They could have used live ammunition, would that have been better than a sonic cannon? Perhaps Napalm? Oh I got it, flamethrowers!

What I want to see is a map of the protest route and then overlay that map with one where police and protesters collided. I wonder what kind of picture that would paint. Knowing that there are pre-planned acts of violence going to happen, what should the police have done? Tickled the protesters with feathers until they gave up?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06f93afbdccf.jpg[/atsimg]
(New police tactics: Using feather swords to tickle rioters into submission.)

[edit on 10/4/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


That is a disturbing read indeed. Plants or not I wish these idiots would realise the effect they are having.

Also though as you will see in that video from we are change there doesn't seem to be any anarchists around then.

There were many that were peaseful and excessive force was used on them. Luke was arrested and sent to a detention center and was left cuffed in a cell which is illegal (Geneva Convention).

I do believe though that they were being excessive and in that video where they all turn up in riot gear etc looks like something from Nazi Germany when you consider there were not even that many people in the park.

These Anarchists are really idiotic thats for sure from reading that link you gave. Who do they think they are, what ever happened to Treat others how you would like to be treated.

Peace

[edit on 4-10-2009 by tempest501]

reply to post by whatukno


Hmmmm, whats more important.

Some minor property damage inflicted by a tiny minory of probable provacateurs, which included a couple broken windows and a few damaged cars, that will count as a + GDP to the USA when repairs are complete...(seperate arguement...)

or...

the right to assemble by free human beings, an inalienable right as granted by your own constitution, that i enviously wish my countries own constitution was more tightly modeled upon?

perhaps a couple billion of the 24.7 trillion your own government has given to the international bankers could have been assigned to broken windows and torched cars, instead of upgraped body armor and advanced crowd control weapons like the previously mentioned LRAD?

I havent done the math, but I would bet you 100SDRs that 24.7 trillion would buy every car and every window in the northerm hemisphere, but in my opinion it wouldnt buy one ounce of blood of a fallen soldier or striker that died in the name of the defence of human dignity, which you clearly dont posses or value too much. The leaders at the g20, and the interest they are subservient to, dont think much of freedom and its expression either. In fact they see it as a weakness, like you may, and display their dissatifaction with us useless eaters by mercilessly beating our women and spitting all over the documents your forefathers bled for, in cinimatic fashion no less. No wonder Hilary Clintons favorite book was 1984, as it was mine, but for completely opposite reasons.

So if im exceptionally verbose or extreme, its for a good reason. Im an easy going guy. But when I see people support the enslavement of my brothers, as is evidenced by their disallowed god given rights, i get a little pissed.

Youre on the wrong side of history, dude. If we arent allowed to rage in this way, we will find far more constructive ones. This storm trooper s*** will not pass, and you dont want to be on their side when justice is inevitably served.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Neo_Serf]

reply to post by Neo_Serf


I think its not really about protecting the public property at all. Its simple human psychology. They want to try and show who's the boss. They decided a long time ago that humans are workers and thats it. Keep us occupied and dependent on the system while the real decisions are taken by the elites.

Its like a corporation. The decisions are not taken by the workers, are they? Which is probably a very good thing considering they wouldnt know enough to make the decisions. Its not strange that the world works the way it does, it makes perfect sense.

But that doesnt mean the workers have to like this system where they are nothing but ignorant slaves. Fortunately for the elites, the masses are more interested in facebook than the future. The masses dont care at all unless they are personally influenced by something bad. Then they whine for a bit until daddy government makes it good again.

I respect mostly the people who see this system for what it is, and those are the outsiders.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Ok so your of the opinion that the police of Pittsburgh should have let the Anarchists go and do whatever. Once they burned the city to the ground, then what? Politely ask them to stop?

If you lived there, and they torched YOUR car or broke YOUR windows, would that be ok to you?

Would you step outside and ask them to politely stop burning your car which you bought through hard work?

OR

Would you want the police to do something about it?

How about the tea party protests where this sort of behavior did not occur and there was no violence between the police and the protesters? How do you explain that? Is it coincidence or maybe the tea party protesters don't smash windows and burn dumpsters and therefore peaceably protest.

That's what your missing I think. It's your right to peaceably protest, when there is a group of people that start to become violent, that takes away their right to peaceably assemble and therefore anyone else who is around them. It's not really the cops that are taking away your rights here, its the people that are being violent and causing trouble that are taking away the peoples right to peaceably protest. That is because they aren't understanding the right to PEACEABLY protest. Instead what they want is to incite RIOT. RIOTS aren't good. Police are forced to try and protect people's property which is what they are paid to do.

People are free to protest in this country, they aren't free to riot. There is a difference, the anarchists at the G 20 did not understand that difference.

[edit on 10/4/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


You are right, but sadly peaceful protests dont change anything. The french revolution was not exactly a peaceful protest. When you have so many people suffering in a system that only promotes the rich and wealthy, its sane to rebel and its sane to riot. Laws will never allow that behavior but it may be needed to a acquire change. Surely you agree with me on that one.

United States was not built on the foundations of peaceful protest either.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


The french revolution wasn't a protest at all. It was a revolution. Yes when a government does not listen to the people it does become necessary to use violence to solve the problems in society.

But in this country protests work. As we can see with the health care debate going on.

It also does not work when the people go to the protest with the expressed purpose of trying to incite a riot.

That's not protesting, and everyone looses when people turn violent for the expressed purpose of being violent.

reply to post by whatukno


I understand what you mean, but I dont see peaceful protests working and the health care debate is basically only a debate started by Hillary and Obama so people can argue over that and remain blind to what the country really is doing.

But I dont think there will ever be a revolution in the United States. They can throw people out on the streets, they can put in a world government or a global currency or whatever they want. People are afraid of their government so change cannot be acquired.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Fear only lasts so long before its rebelled against.

A wise man once said, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Originally posted by whatukno
A wise man once said, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

He doesnt sound very wise to me. Violence is always the last resort when you need something but has no other way of getting it. Im not talking about wanting something, but needing something. Take away food and water and you will see a lot of really "incompetent" pissed off people.

I think the quote should have the word "desperate" instead of "incompetent", then it would make some sense.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by Copernicus]

What I'd like to know is where are all those who stated "Show me one right that has been repressed due to 9/11?" Where are all those who supported the "patriot act" now? Can they finally SEE that our rights and freedoms have been squandered away yet?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Copernicus

 

Fear only lasts so long before its rebelled against.

A wise man once said, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

i guess that explains the riot armour, the sonic cannon, pepper spray, tasers, and truncheons.
you're saying the police are incompetent.
i agree.

Someone, sorry I can't remember, posted a link to the G20 police band on this site, and I listened to it while I worked.
Thank you for showing me your perspective.
For some strange reason, the major thing that stood out to me about that day was the police finding a woman, needle in her arm, bag of junk in her lap, dumped on the side of the road.

reply to post by billybob


Again, what were the police supposed to do when confronting people who pre planned to be destructive and violent?

I am awestruck by the lack of basic understanding in this thread. People are quick to bash the police when they perceive that police are being overbearing. But wonder where the police are when their lives are on the line.

But no one has yet come up with an explanation why tea party protesters don't have these violent clashes with police, but anarchists do.

A group of anarchists post online that they plan to attend the G 20 with the expressed purpose of smashing windows, setting dumpsters on fire and causing mayhem and your shocked when the police react with less than lethal force?

I am reminded of another protest, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Where 400 or so people died because of the oppression by the Chinese Government.

Effective protesting is an art form. If the people at the G 20 protests wanted to truly avoid clashes with police they should have isolated themselves from people who were there to be violent and wanted to start trouble. They should have stayed on the legitimate organized protest route.

The anarchists involved in trying to incite riot should have been ousted from the crowd. Protesting does not mean smashing windows of peoples businesses, it does not mean pushing dumpsters down the street, it does not mean setting things on fire.

Protesting has to have a clear message. Anarchy by definition is not a clear message. Its all for themselves and none for all.

Again, why is it that these jack booted police thugs don't disrupt tea party protests? Why is it that less than lethal force is used instead of tanks rolling down the streets over "innocent" protesters as the case in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989?

The anarchists going to the G 20 protest to cause violence, stray off of the protest route, and smash things did so against the first amendment right of Peaceable Assembly and protest. The key word here is peaceable. When people refuse to be peaceful in their protests, the result is of course going to be a crackdown on the protesters.

When a group publishes online ahead of time that they plan to smash the windows out of businesses, set fire to dumpsters, make lists of the businesses they plan to target what do you expect the police to do?

Should the police have let the protesters burn down Pittsburgh, and then only afterward ask the protesters to not do that anymore? If you owned a business on the list the anarchists had as a target, what would be your expectation of the police? Wouldn't you want your business protected? What of the rights of the business owners that worked hard to run their business only to see it smashed up by a group of people?

Do these people not have a reasonable right to have their property safeguarded against people who's sole purpose is to cause destruction?

Yes you do have the right to assembly in this country. Absolutely, I agree with peaceful protest. Any day that people stand up peacefully and protest against what they feel is wrong in this country I feel that freedom truly does ring.

When people purposely plan to be destructive and violent, I cannot agree with their views. I will have to agree with the police actions in Pittsburgh. Sorry but the Anarchists were in the wrong and they got what they deserved.

[edit on 10/4/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

Ok so your of the opinion that the police of Pittsburgh should have let the Anarchists go and do whatever. Once they burned the city to the ground, then what? Politely ask them to stop?

It would take a lot more than three or four rowdy "anarchists" to burn the city to the ground.

Some of you really are completely ridiculous. You don't deserve a constitution, you don't deserve the groups and organisations who defend your basic rights as citizens.
These rights are for all citizens, that includes those you "think, might possibly" do something you don't agree with. You can't keep these rights to yourself, limiting who is protected to suit your needs and whims.

You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot bang on about the protection of property against "potential" damage by "possibly" rowdy people, and then demand that the rights of all should be removed to do so. It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

You're suggesting "guilty until proven innocent" and "thought crime" as acceptable! Do you not see this?

reply to post by detachedindividual


You can put as many of this smiley as you want, it still doesn't make any difference when it's people who's sole purpose is to be violent doing the protesting.

Peaceful protests always have their place in a free society. They are good, they are right, and they will always be supported by people who love freedom.

Perhaps the police should have just put snipers on the rooftops to just target people throwing rocks and pushing dumpsters over as to surgically remove the violent protesters from the other protesters that were not on the permitted protest route?

We have the constitutional right to peaceful assembly in this country, what your missing is the PEACEFUL part. What part of PEACEFUL don't you understand? Is it that hard of a concept? Is it that far beyond your realm of understanding? PEACEFUL?

When you have a group who you know is going to be destructive, who you know is going to be violent, what do you purpose be done about it? Let them just destroy as much as they want and clean up the mess afterward?

Freedom does not mean anarchy.

thought id add this video.

This video explains WHY i feel the way i feel about what happened during G20.

it was about peoples voices being herd, NOT anarchists running around causing trouble, PLEASE stop dragging this thread away from what its promoting.

awareness of rights infringement. awareness of the police state, awareness of the constitutional rights being taken away.

[edit on 10/4/2009 by ugie1028]