Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Hypocrites, among a long list of other things.

Hypocrites???? I’ll give you a much better example of something hypocritical.

The OWS crowd cries about their right to protest and screams for their constitutional protection, but apparently that only applies to them. This past Friday some OWS’ers took it upon themselves to destroy the sign of a counter-protester because they didn’t like what he had to say.

Two Occupy D.C. protesters in McPherson Square were charged with assault Friday after they allegedly ripped a sign out of the hands of a counter-protester, according to the U.S. Park Police. For the second consecutive day, a man has held signs stating "get a job" and "we want R Park back" in front of the encampment at McPherson Square on K Street NW. According to police, the protesters were arrested after they ripped the signs out of man's hands Friday afternoon.

link

So tell me again about double-standards and hypocrisy. Apparently OWS only believes in constitutional rights when it benefits them!

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So, it's okay that in America students are beaten up, pepper sprayed and fired on because they were there for longer than a day? Do I have this right?

Sorry, but however you look at it, this is hypocrisy.
Both groups of people are protesting peacefully against their government, and both groups have been attacked by state controlled forces.
Whether they are protesting for an hour or a month is neither here nor there.

You need to watch this video if you haven't already:


Take a look at how much time they gave the protestors to disperse. They ONLY were pepper sprayed AFTER the protestors blocked the police, and THEN the police told them repeatedly what would happen if they didn't move.

It's easy to take a look at just the pepper spray portion and be outraged. But if you see everything in context, you realize how the protestors made extremely poor decisions.

Hardly an "attack" on peaceful protestors, IMHO.

Are the Russians beating down the protesters? I haven't seen anything to show that they are.

reply to post by SLAYER69



Do you like that people have been hurt? No? Well, then quit standing up for the US government who is infamous for saying one thing and then doing another.

Fact is, the US government and states have been violent to peaceful protestors. Many have been hurt and even close to death at their hands. That is truth.

So yes, it is hypocritical. Very much so.

If I slap you and then I yell at you for slapping me back, would I be a hypocrite for saying it is wrong to slap people? Yes.

The US government was violent against peaceful protestors. They are a hypocrite for telling Russia to respect the peaceful protestors.

It is silly for anyone to say, that they had some time to get their message out. That does not matter. Whether it took the state, one day or one year, they turned violent on the peaceful protestors and while I can't speak for anyone else, violence is wrong, in my eyes.

Slayer,go punch some one. Right now. Then when they get mad at you and want to do the same, tell them it is wrong to hurt people....See what they call you.

I bet the word hypocrite comes up.

The US by and large allowed for protests for months as some have already pointed with the recent OWS demonstrations. People deliberated about it on TV, the internet, and amongst family and friends. Therefore, their message got out. However, how long are they to protest until they become a nuisance? Camping out in public areas leaving behind trash, excrement, and who knows what else. Clogging up streets and sidewalks and making noise disturbing residents who may live within the general area as well. When does it end?

As far as I am concerned, they have been give more than ample time to get their message out. Lets not get too over-dramatic about how the US treated their protestors, and how the Russian police and security services treats theirs. Russia's track record in terms of human rights, freedom of speech, and legitimate democracy is a matter of criticism and debate among the international community and even opposition groups in Russia. Russia has in the past shown complete and utter contempt toward protests of any kind. The protests are usually brutally crushed before anything can take shape.

If anyone thinks the police tactics on the OWS crowd was harsh, and Russia is any better? Then they are being hopelessly naive about the political situation in the Russian Federation. Now, where there incidents of alleged brutality with OWS? Of course there were, but whoever said pacifying an unruly crowd was easy? I'll admit that there were some injuries to protestors, and even hospitalization. However, I cannot recall one instance of lethal force being used on any occasion whatsoever. The accidents usually occurred as a result of using non lethal force. That can happen from time to time, because the world is not perfect.

Now, people can make mountains out of mole hills and that is their choice. Drama is what gets attention whether it is true or not. Personally, I think the US should stay out of making comments about any nation, because they don't care. Furthermore, they ought to start concerning themselves with the situation at home first which is slowly unraveling at the seams. I digress, and that argument is for another time. Yet, to compare the US and Russian tactics in terms of crowd control is just plain ludicrous. In mother Russia you don't protest the State, the State protests you with skull cracking, lengthy imprisonment, and even lead.

You see those on this thread, saying that "OWS is different!" and "Apples and oranges!". Recognize these people as the supporters of tyrrany here at home. There can be no doubt now.

If someone is trying to convince you at this point that the beating of american citizens for protesting (no matter what the cause they are protesting for) was "not so bad", you know that they do not support american freedoms of speech and peaceable assembly, at the least, and should not be treated as someone you trust.

Originally posted by Jakes51
The US by and large allowed for protests for months as some have already pointed with the recent OWS demonstrations. People deliberated about it on TV, the internet, and amongst family and friends. Therefore, their message got out. However, how long are they to protest until they become a nuisance?

According to the Constitution, as long as they want. You do agree with the Constitution, dont you?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So, it's okay that in America students are beaten up, pepper sprayed and fired on because they were there for longer than a day? Do I have this right?

Sorry, but however you look at it, this is hypocrisy.
Both groups of people are protesting peacefully against their government, and both groups have been attacked by state controlled forces.
Whether they are protesting for an hour or a month is neither here nor there.

You need to watch this video if you haven't already:

Take a look at how much time they gave the protestors to disperse. They ONLY were pepper sprayed AFTER the protestors blocked the police, and THEN the police told them repeatedly what would happen if they didn't move.

It's easy to take a look at just the pepper spray portion and be outraged. But if you see everything in context, you realize how the protestors made extremely poor decisions.

Hardly an "attack" on peaceful protestors, IMHO.

Yes, please continue to make excuses for Gestapo like tactics. Your contribution is noted.

As an American, if you want to peacably assemble and chant for months on end, our forefathers gave us that right. The rights do not leave because you do not agree with the cause.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


So you are allowed to encircle the police, chanting rude things at them, and then when you are told to move and let the police through, you don't have to do it?

Did you watch the video?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jakes51
The US by and large allowed for protests for months as some have already pointed with the recent OWS demonstrations. People deliberated about it on TV, the internet, and amongst family and friends. Therefore, their message got out. However, how long are they to protest until they become a nuisance?

According to the Constitution, as long as they want. You do agree with the Constitution, dont you?

To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

So you are allowed to encircle the police, chanting rude things at them, and then when you are told to move and let the police through, you don't have to do it?

Did you watch the video?

In my opinion, the police put themselves in a negative position by even being there. why are they even there in riot gear? the demonstration was peaceful until the police got there and started being confrontational.

also, "chanting rude things" is not an assault, and not justification for beating someone senseless with a stick. DIdnt your mother ever teach you "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

So you are allowed to encircle the police, chanting rude things at them, and then when you are told to move and let the police through, you don't have to do it?

Did you watch the video?

You may also want to look up the Boston Massacre. British troops fired into an unruly colonist mob, killing many. It was the main reason that the right to assemble and free speech were American rights for 200 years until our generation decided they werent allowed anymore.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jakes51
The US by and large allowed for protests for months as some have already pointed with the recent OWS demonstrations. People deliberated about it on TV, the internet, and amongst family and friends. Therefore, their message got out. However, how long are they to protest until they become a nuisance?

According to the Constitution, as long as they want. You do agree with the Constitution, dont you?

Of course I do! You know they have been given their right to assemble peacefully and for months with the police merely shadowing the protestors to keep the peace among the general public and even the protestors. Protests are not intended to go on indefinitely either. Just to take up space for the sake of taking up space is nothing more than a nuisance.

Sooner or later they are going to have to go home if their movement is not gathering steam among their audience or legislators in Washington. No one is telling them they cannot protest. They did just that, but life must go on as well. People have jobs to go to, they would like to utilize public places for recreation and business, and other pursuits. They have to cave into OWS, because they have taken it upon themselves to set up encampments in those places indefinitely? Lets be reasonable here shall we? Thanks for your reply.

The sad part for me is the inability of many posters to recognize the differences in the two situations.

Go ahead and argue that there are differences, but they don't matter because of A, B, and C. But to say you can't even see the differences removes any credibility you might have as a critical thinker.

By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

I don't need to define this, as the law already does this.
Local laws, County laws and so on.
Love the fact that in one sentence you chastise in the idea I created the rule, that make your own.
I suggest Any European Country for you.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Protests are not intended to go on indefinitely either.

Says who? Who gets to decide how long the protest endures? I guess you would have told Ghandi to "just go home, you made your point!"

Originally posted by charles1952
The sad part for me is the inability of many posters to recognize the differences in the two situations.

Go ahead and argue that there are differences, but they don't matter because of A, B, and C. But to say you can't even see the differences removes any credibility you might have as a critical thinker.

By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I must disagree.
I am but a Clown in ATS, here to waste time between things.

Please, don't take anything I say as anything more then a Right wing whack job that only wants to kill grandma, cook and eat babies and throw the poor and suffering out on their butts in the cold f the Christmas Night.
I am all that is evil in the world.