It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Police and Demonstrators Clash at G8

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
These Governments have been elected by the people , they were not forced on you like in some Countries yet you still rebel. Thats why the police are there to stop anarchy, the minority cannot rule the majority.




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Bulldog 52, we vote people into power to reprosent their constituency and the views of the public that are within that area. When my MP bothers to live in this constituency, visit here and talk to the people I might just believe a word you have to say.

However, when you have groups of MPs (Parties) being told to vote together by the Whips then that in fact stops there from being a democracy and that at present is what is happening. It's common knowledge that MPs have a pager and they get told how to vote on issues no matter what their constituency thinks.

So how again do they reprosent the people? Oh wait no, they don't. They reprosent the leaders of the Politica Party's.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Odium, protesters are more often than not a minority. There will always be a minority that do not agree with a government that is in power because all people have different ideas, and what a minority like you might want, might not be exactly what the rest of the people want. Minorities do have rights, but those rights do not include you, or anyone else resorting to violence. If you want to resort to violence, then be prepared to pay the consequences.

Most people like yourself, instead of accepting that you have broken the law, after they are arrested for being violent, they profess their rights are being infringed....but these same people never seem to realize, for some strange reason, that having rights does not mean you can become violent, throw rocks at public figures, or any other civilian, police officers or military personnel because they don't think like you...or even when protesters destroy the property of any civilian or even public property. You are not the only one that has to pay for what you break in riots.

Freedom comes with responsibilities, in anarchy noone has to be responsible, and that's what many protesters seem to want, anarchy, not freedom.



[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
granted,

but please let us know what should be done in the hypothetical situation that these governments 'elected' by the people have infact thwarted the system, and are really tyrants hiding behind propaganda?

i am not condoning random acts of violence, which basically boil down to more terrorism, and only hurt our cause. i am however condoning resistance, however bold it may seem. public scrutiny will bring change.

basically, ~what if~ there really was a conspiracy? (not a 'whatif' in my eyes)

we may be a minority, in that we're willing to do something about it. but as for people who will notice more and more oppression, we will be a majority soon. just watch.

whether you agree or not, our society is coming to a climax, be it good or bad. it will effect you. your efforts now will shape the circumstances. keep fighting the good fight guys, we've got some tough years ahead of us.

i protest. i DO NOT want anarchy.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by lost]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost
.......................
whether you agree or not, our society is coming to a climax, be it good or bad. it will effect you. your efforts now will shape the circumstances. keep fighting the good fight guys, we've got some tough years ahead of us.


Can i ask what climax are you talking about and what you think is going to happen? What kind of society are you implying is right around the corner? what sort of economy? Do you have any economy in mind that you think is going to make the world a better place?

What is it exactly you are implying by the above?


Originally posted by lost
i protest. i DO NOT want anarchy.


More often than not protests seem to be acts of anarchy than real peaceful protests. I am not saying all of them are, but a lot of them seem to end up in acts of anarchy.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Can i ask what climax are you talking about and what you think is going to happen? What kind of society are you implying is right around the corner? what sort of economy? Do you have any economy in mind that you think is going to make the world a better place?


....and this is the part where i cement myself in your eyes as another kook. the part where i go on about my long winded theories complete with outlandish names, dates, motives and details.

oh wait, i cant do that. lemme just say atlantis, be it real or mythical - was a very real metaphoar.

studyers of history, please recall an age even remotley resembling our own (economically, technological, global etc.) there are none. this is our frontier.

i might be a few too many steps outside the box, but the human psyche has never had to deal with so many variables. we are rendered helpless, or atleast we're led to believe that. we're presented with all the opposing agendas, and we can watch our planet continually shrinking. pretty soon all the sh!t is gonna hit the fan. thats all im saying.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by lost]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
It is the people behind the violent protests that make the government reduce our freedoms and human rights. I think that the protesters are counter-productive and have shot themselves in the foot.


dh

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodAtum
It is the people behind the violent protests that make the government reduce our freedoms and human rights. I think that the protesters are counter-productive and have shot themselves in the foot.


The government creates situations which then let's us allow them to reduce our freedom

In the case of the'anarchists', the use of agents provocateurs was demonstrated at Genoa 4 years ago, when an Italian MP reported seeing people clad as Black Bloc getting out of the back of a police van to join the demonstrators. Doubtless the same tactic was used at Gleneagles, leading to the whole encampment being surrounded by police.

At the same time, the London bombings took place, devised and operated on behalf of the G8, which will lead to more curtaiment of freedoms

Total curtailment of freedom is, in fact, the very aim of "our leaders" and the reason why they promulgate violence in demonstrations and bombs in the street



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
The violence used by protesters is wrong because sometimes it is not necessary. Other times when it is needed, we are too weak or frightened. When the rights of a man to truly remain free, that is when protest is needed. When his life and liberty is oppressed through violence, then violence is justified. In the book of Matthew it says:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
(5:38-41)

However there is a discrepancy. In the original Greek, the word used for strike, means a strike of rebuke, disrespect, one to cause anger not injury. When however one is struck out of violence, then violence is justified to be returned.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
heres a whatif:

what if, among the crowd of peacefull protesters, a few agents skilled in psychological warfare, mob-rule, and specifically turning peaceful protests violent, were dispersed throughout the crowd, emanating their negative energies and tactics resulting in a few violent outbursts which are then magnified by the media, justifying less freedom?

suddenly every single one of those peaceful protesters is now labeled a violent protester. because they were there.




its not a what if.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by lost]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Muaddib, during the Iraq war over 1million people protested in London. That's 1/60th of the popualtion. There were also other marches, in every major City on the same day. It was rumoured that nearly 5million people talk to the streets all over the U.K. which is roughly 1/6th of the population. Yet they did not bother to check what the country wanted. All the independent polls showed it almost 50/50 and that issue should have came down to the public not the Government. It is our army, not Blair's. That's what people seem to forget, Blair is not the "Command and Chief" we have not got such a thing in the U.K. the military is their for the people to use.

Also do you honestly think only a minority of people want to give Africa fair-wages?

Also, I would like to know another way of doing it. Since I've sat down and spoke to MPs, including Tony Benn before. I attend things like "Question Time" and I often write to MPs on certain issues. Yet the majority of them sit and lie to my face. No longer do we have a free Government so what should we do?

furthermore, the Government pushes a lot of people to the violence. I've seen the Police first hand attempt to stop the right to protest on the streets and the actions they have done to people. But we all know and in the end people will only be pushed so far and that is what we have been seeing.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh
.............
At the same time, the London bombings took place, devised and operated on behalf of the G8, which will lead to more curtaiment of freedoms
...........


Where is the evidence for this?

Claims are not evidence.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Muaddib, during the Iraq war over 1million people protested in London. That's 1/60th of the popualtion. There were also other marches, in every major City on the same day.


Protesters claimed that two million people were protesting, but the real figures showed more or less 750,000 people. We have seen many times protesters exagerate the amount of people that participate in protests.

In Venezuela the oposition of Chavez says that about two million people or more have been protesting in the largest gatherings, while the figures put the people that were involved in a little over a million.

During president Bush's inauguration last year, protesters also claimed there were hundreds of thousands, although I was there and personally only saw very small groups, some of the ones I saw were resorting to violence, breaking down fences and attacking any Republican present including old men and women. I saw another group later on which was peaceful, they were about 8 people holding a banner to return our soldiers home, while soldiers that had returned from Iraq and were invited lunch with our representatives and the president saw these banners, most of them just shaked their heads and continued walking with their spouses.


Originally posted by Odium
It was rumoured that nearly 5million people talk to the streets all over the U.K. which is roughly 1/6th of the population. Yet they did not bother to check what the country wanted.
..............


"Rumors".......... rumors are more often than not unfounded claims. Anyways, your people voted for Blair once more for a reason, and I don't buy what some are saying among these boards, that most Brittish people voted for Blair for other reasons and not for the war.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Muaddib, there were protests up and down this Nation. One of the main reasons people voted for Blair was due to his economic policy, which is a lot better than the Conservative or Liberal Democrats ideas however, it is clear how much the war damaged him with the fact he now only has a 66 majority.

Also I am waiting for your better idea. We've tried silent and peaceful protests. I've tried the "Political" way, interviewing MPs, getting them to do public speaks and take issues from the public yet very few care. They sit and vote together as "one" party. That is not democracy. That is far from democracy, because they are not reprosenting the people that voted them into power.

So what should we do? If they won't hear people when we try to do it there way, it will become violence as has been seen.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
............
But we all know and in the end people will only be pushed so far and that is what we have been seeing.


They are not being pushed to do anything. You do that yourselves claiming that you are in your right to protest even if it means using violence. You are making it posible for more laws taking effect that restrain people that think like yourself, and decide to resort to violence.

We have had another thread in these forums about the violence that is happening in the UK, many of those young people in the UK resorting to violence do not even need to do this since they belong to rich families, or middle income families and are not really poor.

I am not saying all protesters are like that, but those who think like you are giving a bad name to "peaceful protests".... which at the end are not peaceful at all.

You don't think that there are more people in the world that don't want people to die from aids? or to starve? You are wrong, there are many that don't want this to happen. But resorting to violence while claiming that the governments in the world are not doing enough is not going to solve anything.

Instead people like yourself should be puting more of your money, or asking those groups, like ANWSER INTERNATIONAL, that stage protests only against the US and the WEST for some reason..... to use their funds and whatever money you can collect to help the people in Africa or other places.

If you want to make a difference, why don't you demand those groups that waste so much money in protests, that according to you do not solve anything, instead of destroying the home, the car or other private property of another human being, or even public property?....or even if the protests do not end in violence but instead, according to you, accomplish nothing at all....

You want to make a difference? Then as the saying goes and meaning no offense "put your money where your mouth is." You never know, you will probably even get more funds to help those people that really need the money and help, from those citizens that do not want to resort to any violence or to be part of protests which at the end, according to you, don't solve anything.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Firstly, there is a difference between Yobish Culture and Protestors, the people that are a part of this yobish culture I have never seen out in any of the protests so don't assume they are one in the same.

Secondly, I have put my money where my mouth is. I've already declared my intentions to run for MP in my area in 2010. I helped work with an independent party to get 1 person into Parliament in the election just gone.

Thirdly, we have organized peaceful protests which they don't listen to nor will they ever bothere to.

Fourthly, I have interviewed many MPs and gave their views to the people in their area over radio and soon I might have T.V. appearance on a show.

Fifthly, these protests end in violence because people get pushed. As I showed before the Police attempted to stop people from using their rights during a Peaceful protest and it resulted in violence.

Sixthly, why did Blair ask people to not "Protest Vote" in the last election due to the War in Iraq if it didn't matter?

Sevently, the Government pushes people and does not listen to them. How is Party Politics democratic? I am still waiting for an answer. How are being told by the Whips to vote one way democratic?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I am not aware that people in the UK or the US are, or were, being herded into voting stations and that soldiers put a gun to their heads making them vote for Blair, president Bush, or anyone else.... If Blair made a comment you, and everyone else, at the end don't have to listen to his suggestions.... You are not obliged to do as he requests.....how exactly is it undemocratic to make a comment when at the end people can do as they wish?

And you are not responding my questions either. Why don't you demand those groups like ANWSER INTERNATIONAL to put the money they collect to better use by helping all those people that need help instead of making protests that many times end in violence and as you have said yourself at the end give no real results?....

BTW, what kind of argument is that which you are trying to make, claiming that because you are not being heard you should be allowed to "resort to violence" which normally ends up as the destruction of the property of other people or even public property, which at the end the taxpayers have to pay from their/our own pockets?


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I never said "destroy the property of the public" now did I?

I made my point on violent resistance, on the first page and am a fan of what is known as "Political" self-defence.

Also I have tried to get groups to do such things and to back political candidates who have these views. I also have got funding from one similar group for when I run.

However, I am still wanting to know how MPs being paged and told what to vote is democratic?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I never said "destroy the property of the public" now did I?

I made my point on violent resistance, on the first page and am a fan of what is known as "Political" self-defence.


"Violence resistance" ends in rioting and the destruction of public and private property.... So when you are talking about "violence resistance" you are talking about the destruction of private and public property.


Originally posted by Odium
.....................
However, I am still wanting to know how MPs being paged and told what to vote is democratic?


Really? where is the evidence that backs this claim?

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Television show known as question time, on the 30th of June Tony Benn mentioned it and prior to that George Galloway also mentioned it on an interview, ATS did an article on it (I'll try and find it) both of them have said the Labour Party use Whips (Political term, ask if you don't know it) to page MPs and tell them how to vote on legislation.

And also, you seem to think I promote going out to riot when in fact I don't. I promote standing up for yourself when they attempt to stop your right to protest. They are two very different things.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join