MARINES TO OAKLAND POLICE: 'You Did This To My Brother'

reply to post by SecondAmendmentUser

SecondAmendmentUser, I have been on the receiving end of psyops before, and I have to say that the only poster I have seen on this thread that sounds or acts like such a "G man' would be you, sir.

Most, not all by any means; but most, of the other posters that I am reading here are at least being cogent and attempting to stay on topic. I don't disagree with some of the things that you are saying, but the constant attempts to incite a violent response from your verbal jabs reminds me strongly of the 'agents provocateur' that were repeatedly used by big business during the greatest period of growth of the labor unions in America and other countries.

It has reached the point where some of us may just have to just have to ignore your voice until it states something with meaning versus rabble rousing.

The fact is that many people are angry that Scott Olsen and others were injured during the events that occurred on Tuesday last, and many are responding emotionally rather than thoughtfully.

Knowing that Mr. Olsen is a Marine says to me that a violent response would be the last thing that he would want, because there is no immediate danger to the lives of others he would probably prefer that things be taken care of in the most peaceful possible manner. Many people think that a Marines first response is violence, those people either don't know the Marines, or they know only the bad ones.

Originally posted by tangonine
Scott Olson was thrown the *&$^ out of the Marines for being a scumbag. He in no way represents the corps. The implication that he's some sort of "hero" and that the Marines are behind him in any way is disingenuous.

This little piece of crap received an "Other Than Honorable" discharge from the Corps. It means he was a dirtbag and was thrown out on his arse.

If you want to chose him as your poster boy, go ahead. It reflects nicely upon the occupy movement to lionize losers like him.

Would you please give us your verifiable source for this information as to the nature of Scott Olsen's discharge? I have had different sources state everything from an Honorable to Medical to Dishonorable Discharge and have been looking for proof for exactly what type he received. their responses

Although it would make no difference in the events that occurred, perhaps it would allow people to step back and think about their responses rather than jump first.

funny how the liberal lefties are all the sudden 100% behind our soldiers, and just so outraged at the treatment of this man.

HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO OUR SOLDIERS??

what they mean is, ONLY WE CAN TREAT SOLDIERS THIS WAY..

Originally posted by gamesmaster63

Originally posted by tangonine
Scott Olson was thrown the *&$^ out of the Marines for being a scumbag. He in no way represents the corps. The implication that he's some sort of "hero" and that the Marines are behind him in any way is disingenuous.

This little piece of crap received an "Other Than Honorable" discharge from the Corps. It means he was a dirtbag and was thrown out on his arse.

If you want to chose him as your poster boy, go ahead. It reflects nicely upon the occupy movement to lionize losers like him.

Would you please give us your verifiable source for this information as to the nature of Scott Olsen's discharge? I have had different sources state everything from an Honorable to Medical to Dishonorable Discharge and have been looking for proof for exactly what type he received. their responses

Although it would make no difference in the events that occurred, perhaps it would allow people to step back and think about their responses rather than jump first.

I've gotten 3d party stuff, but I'll get on it. The buzz on all the big boy sites is "other than honorable" I'll try to confirm.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by tangonine

 

Hippies, lol. Seriously, stop making assumptions based on things you don't know.

Other than honorable can mean alot of things. What does this have to do with anything?

The point? You've totally missed it, buddy. The constitution has been stomped on and violated by our supposedly elected officials in Washington D.C. It doesn't matter whether they claim left or right wing. they ignore it repeatedly, and create laws that violate it.

The constitution only stands if people get off their asses and defend it from all enemies, foreign and especially
domestic. Otherwise, if no one fights for it and makes sure it is followed, it is little more than a document on display. The constitution was designed to keep the politicians in check, not the people. Which is as it should be.

Some of us, apparently not you, took an oath to defend it. We kinda take it seriously.

and "other than honorable" means: scumbag

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
reply to post by SecondAmendmentUser

 

SecondAmendmentUser, I have been on the receiving end of psyops before, and I have to say that the only poster I have seen on this thread that sounds or acts like such a "G man' would be you, sir.

Exactly what I would expect from intel types working a "situation".

Nice esoteric avatar you have there.

Most, not all by any means; but most, of the other posters that I am reading here are at least being cogent and attempting to stay on topic. I don't disagree with some of the things that you are saying, but the constant attempts to incite a violent response from your verbal jabs reminds me strongly of the 'agents provocateur' that were repeatedly used by big business during the greatest period of growth of the labor unions in America and other countries.

Keep it coming...more of what I would expect from professional ops people .
Try and make your enemy out to be lacking in credibility by hinting that the person is actually the REAL plant, and having a unstable mind. Nice work, but it doesn't phase many people here on ATS thankfully.

It has reached the point where some of us may just have to just have to ignore your voice until it states something with meaning versus rabble rousing.

Who made YOU the "authority" here in this thread, ah, you did.

Many people think that a Marines first response is violence, those people either don't know the Marines, or they know only the bad ones.

But you see the initiator of the violence was the LEOs , people in the US have the right to defend themselves with deadly force from ANYONE that unjustly threatens their life with the same. It is that simple.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by nenothtu
Should I riot, then, and kill a few unrelated people, or should I concentrate on resolving the issue and exposing the coverup? You decide for me - what is my proper course of action? What is justified? I have a choice to make here, and I'm allowing you to make it for me.

For all their rhetoric that violence is the only course of action, what are people like AnonymousFem and SecondAmendmentUser actually doing? Nothing; but it is a lot easier to act brave behind a computer screen than it is to act.

edit on 1-11-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

You're right, but they aren't the ones I worry about, and it's not really for them that I respond. It's for the quiet ones out there reading this, who may not comment, but instead think to themselves "Damn! That's a great idea! let's go kill something!"

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Not negative, the cops tried to cover up their beaten of Rodney king.. And they were caught out of doing so, by erasing footage of them beating him.

And the riots were building up due to the fact the LAPD were notorious for their beatens of Blacks, Hispanics etc. Call me a lair all you want. I am entitled to my opinion as are you.

OK. You got me. Those poor, zombiefed mobs really didn't have any choice in the matter, really couldn't think for themselves, and were obviously under external control, so they HAD to riot and kill off a few people unrelated to their ire, and injure quite a few more, some permanently, such as Reginald Denny. Doesn't matter that Denny was just passing through, his horrific injuries were completely justified because some unrelated cops beat an unrelated black guy and a crowd of zombies under external control just couldn't help themselves.

And another thing I did not try and cover it up. Anyone clicking the link would have read it the full account of what happened leading up to and after those riots. So you accusations are baseless.

I'll let the readers decide whether they are baseless or not. They have eyes, they can read and think for themselves, and they can see what you chose to point out HERE, in THIS discussion... well, the ones who aren't up for mob zombification, that is.

Subject is:

MARINES TO OAKLAND POLICE: 'You Did This To My Brother'

I'm aware of the topic. If you don't want tangential responses, don't make tangential statements.

Any updates on the Scott Olson's Condition?

If you want to pick nits, Scott Olson's condition isn't the topic, either. The response by other Marines as to how he got into that condition is.

Originally posted by SecondAmendmentUser
Agreed....and you have to question why some of the "members" here are against what the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers CLEARLY provided for in the Second Amendment ....the right to FORCIBLY REMOVE A TYRANNICAL GOV'T FROM POWER. WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER RECOURSE ...WE HAVE REACHED THAT POINT IN TIME.

And so what are you doing about it? You are awfully brave behind that keyboard.

Why is now the time and why is your first resort violence?

reply to post by SecondAmendmentUser


You still have not answered the questions asked of you, you've resorted to diversionary tactics instead.

Was the violence justified as an act against a tyrannical government or is was it caused by agent provocateurs?

Why will you not answer the questions?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
SecondAmendmentUser, I have been on the receiving end of psyops before, and I have to say that the only poster I have seen on this thread that sounds or acts like such a "G man' would be you, sir.

We should choose to ignore his diversionary tactics instead of responding to them; that allows him to dictate the course of conversation and avoid the hard questions being asked of him.

Originally posted by WingedBull


We should choose to ignore his diversionary tactics instead of responding to them; that allows him to dictate the course of conversation and avoid the hard questions being asked of him.

One of the benefits of studying what people like you do helps greatly. I always wondered what the "manipulators" think and feel when the tables are turned on them?

Angry yet? Frustrated? Annoyed? Good.

Originally posted by SecondAmendmentUser

Keep it coming...more of what I would expect from professional ops people .
Try and make your enemy out to be lacking in credibility by hinting that the person is actually the REAL plant, and having a unstable mind. Nice work, but it doesn't phase many people here on ATS thankfully.

Is it just me? Does anyone else see irony in this statement, an accusation of attempted credibility assassination coming from as source also screaming about "shills", "PsyOps", and "paid agents"?

Please, someone tell me it's not just me seeing that...

Originally posted by SecondAmendmentUser
One of the benefits of studying what people like you do helps greatly. I always wondered what the "manipulators" think and feel when the tables are turned on them?

Angry yet? Frustrated? Annoyed? Good.

Why will you not answer the questions asked of you.

Was the violence at OWS Denver a justified response against a tyrannical government or was it the work of agent provocateurs?

Why do you think violence is necessary now and why do you think it is the first resort?

And if violence is necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government, what are you doing other than sitting behind a keyboard?

Originally posted by SecondAmendmentUser

Exactly what I would expect from intel types working a "situation".

Nice esoteric avatar you have there.

You are the second person who has attacked my avatar just because I disagree with them.

Keep it coming...more of what I would expect from professional ops people .
Try and make your enemy out to be lacking in credibility by hinting that the person is actually the REAL plant, and having a unstable mind. Nice work, but it doesn't phase many people here on ATS thankfully.

Nowhere did I accuse you of having an unstable mind, I called into question your motives, not your mental stability.

Who made YOU the "authority" here in this thread, ah, you did.

I also never claimed to be an "authority", just suggested that you were making so little sense that perhaps those who choose to deny ignorance should ignore your rants.

The focus here is on exactly what happened that caused the injuries to Scott Olson and others at Occupy Oakland, the presence of "official instigators" is quite possible, but should be discussed dispassionately so that the truth can be found.

But you see the initiator of the violence was the LEOs , people in the US have the right to defend themselves with deadly force from ANYONE that unjustly threatens their life with the same. It is that simple.

edit on 1-11-2011 by SecondAmendmentUser because: (no reason given)

Actually, people have the right to defend themselves with the least force necessary to stop the assault, if that requires deadly force, so be it, but if it doesn't required deadly force, then they would be facing a minimum of involuntary manslaughter charges.

Also, since you claim to be such a proponent of the Constitutional Amendments, perhaps you should allow me to exercise my Fourth Amendment rights without attacking me unnecessarily, with respect and thanks.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Is it just me? Does anyone else see irony in this statement, an accusation of attempted credibility assassination coming from as source also screaming about "shills", "PsyOps", and "paid agents"?

Please, someone tell me it's not just me seeing that...

You are certainly not the only one, in fact, I am choosing to no longer interact with this person. Lack of coherency aside, I am tired of the personal attacks, after my last response, I am giving him no further fodder.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
You are certainly not the only one, in fact, I am choosing to no longer interact with this person. Lack of coherency aside, I am tired of the personal attacks, after my last response, I am giving him no further fodder.

It is not a matter of choice any more. It seems his lust for violence has got him banned.

reply to post by WingedBull


Thanks for replying. You know there are pictures of the Washington Mall filled with a few HUNDRED THOUSAND protesters back then. It sure got attention. Blowing up a few government buildings did too. But then, things went back to the ole staus quo.

The Detroit and Chicago riots and Kent State sure scared the hell out the administration and President. Altho they were for different reasonings, they all encompassed the same things all mashed together, even tho started for similar reasons.

The best thing that came out of all that? I think it was when we all grew up...and ran for public offices. To a degree, that helped at least a little, but change still after all these years has hardly a noticeable result.

We still: want an end to big busines
We need: equal rights for everyone
We want: to end the war and bring the soldiers home
We have to: find jobs for everyone
We must: Starve the rich and feed the poor
We should tax proportionately
We've got to start: making love not war
We rise when we: Fight the power.

Does any of this sound currently "Occupational-istic" like the protests today>

They do...and unfortunately...we are still fighting for them. Pretty much the same causes...different era. No change. Yet.

Todays protesters need to realize that. Its a long road. And the answer my friend...is blowing in the wind.

reply to post by nenothtu


Thanks my friend. See my reply to WingedBull on this page. Peace. Always

reply to post by tangonine


And you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties, it seems. Ah, well.

Let me spell it out for you: Defending American citizens who are exercising their rights to display grievances and displasure at the govornment is defending the constitution. If the cops are preventing demonstrators from practicing their free speech rights, it is the cops who are attacking the constitution, not the protesters. And thus, the cops become antagonists to the American constitution.

If I thought the protests were riots or just random troublemakers, then it would be different. However, everything I've seen so far shows very active, passionate protests, but only minor problems associated with it, as far as the general public is concerned.

You do realize the constitution protects everyone's right to public protest, whether you agree with them or not, right? So in intimidating, attacking, or trying to disrupt protests and demonstrations in the name of the sitting govornment, you are ultimately attacking the first amendment. And given what I've seen of cops for the past 5 years, I'm positive that the cops are also violating the 8 of the other 10 amendments. The Patriot act was a direct assault against amendments 4,5,6, and 7.

So I would suggest you try reading the constitution first, before deciding who is attacking it, and maybe be shocked by how many violations our lovely govornment, with passive consent of the people, have performed on the Bill of Rights alone.

Again, I say, the constitution is useless unless we are willing to defend it to the letter. And this includes standing up for people who you don't even agree with when they are exercising the same rights you have been granted.

Wake up, or at least sharpen yopur reading comprehension, please.