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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Well, we also have seen as some US representatives have made wild claims in threads in these forums, are all these claims true?

If this was true why haven't more of these MPs come out and say this?

BTW, didn't Tony Benn retire in 2001?

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
If these claims were not true the Governments would have said something, would they not?

"Galloway : We've got a parliament of poodles, and pagers and follow-the-leader politics. Where they actually, and I'm not joking, they reach into their pockets for an electronic pager which tells them what to say about the issues of the day if any journalist or any person should ask them. Is that what we have a parliament for? That's the kind of parliament they had in Baghdad !"

rinf.com...

Tony Benn also said while he was a member of the Labour Party, he was also told how to vote and said Britain is becoming a Police State last week and yes he did quit (not retire) as he realised he could do more by speaking to the people and getting them to realise what is happening in Parliament. On issues such as the pagers being used to tell them what to say and how to vote and Iraq.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
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.


Odium, explain this to me so I can understand it. The Labour Party whip pages all of the MP's in that party and tells them how the party wants them to vote. Yes? O.K., so, is there some blackmail or extortion going on that forces these same MP's to not vote their own concsience or their constituents wishes?

In America as well, the congress employ party whips for the same basic function: to try and get his fellow congressmen and women to vote along party lines. However, they are not obligated to vote the party line, indeed, they are expected to vote their concsience and as their constituency desires. Does it always work out that way? Of course not; sometimes they make deals with other legislators to vote for their bill or amendment in return for the other's help with their own legislation or project. That's politics!. It still doesn't negate the power of large groups of people marching and protesting what they believe to be unjust laws or actions, in a peaceful and non-violent way.

Do you automatically commit yourself to any activity or action just because you are told to? I seriously doubt it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Well for a lot of MPs it costs money to run. This money comes from the "Party". These people like their jobs, it comes with a lot of privlages, book deals, £170K+ a year, and really they don't do all that much - not as much as we would expect.

But, I'll give you a good example:

My local MP, Tony Baldry (just before the election) voted against the Conservative Party in a Bill. The next day the Times of London ran a story on him, claiming he owned a company which through a proxy company was using Slave Labour in diamond mines. He then voted in line with the Party, story vanished.

A fair few MPs get up to stuff in their "Private" and "Business" life that they do not wish the public to find out about, hookers, stuff like that. So a lot of them do as they're told. Also why would you fund someone who will go against what you want?

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Damn double post

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Odium, is not anything against you, but those are claims you are making. We do know in politics all sorts of things happen, and more so if some of those politicians are corrupt, but we also know that false claims are often made for political reasons also. At the end, people in general have a choice on who and what they vote for, how is that undemocratic?

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost
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]


Until you have proof that these government agents exist and that it is because of them that these protests become violent and not human nature this is a whatif. Please back up with evidence, we don't need another Alabama Mama running around making speculative statements.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Democracy: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

It is un-democratic, due to the fact the reprosentatives have time and time again reprosented themselves. They tend not to live in their constituency nor visit it. My MP lives in London, nearly 90minutes away. He has no house here nor in the constituency. He visits here at best 2/3times a year. He does not reply to e-mails and has stated before he votes on what he thinks is best. Not on what we think is best. Many of the elections, we don't have that much of a choice because only two parties get "massive" backing, so only two parties get National Coverage, get the Newspapers, Television stations, etc, behind them so the third and fourth party candidates never really get their say. MPs will not go into debates against each others in their constituency - they point blank refuse to in this area. So how do we know what they stand for?

Also on certain issues such as say War the majority might agree with one MP and on Immigration they might agree with another, so we have to make a choice on which we would rather agree with instead of the constituency getting their say in all issues.

Really good example of my MP was on the Fox Hunting, I asked him in an interview for a radio show what he voted against it and he refused to tell us why. He then went on to say "dislike my choices, vote against me" now that's not democracy. We have a right to know why they vote certain ways on certain issues, especially when the majority of people in this area were pro the hunting ban.

There are so many problems with Party Politics right now. The PArties are controlled by un-elected officials, who decide who gets the funding and where they stand. We never get to hear from these other groups, who have a good say. I'm not sure if you have ever ran for office or attempted to get someone into office? But when people tell you their views on issues and you see none of the MPs hold their views in that area there is a problem. One which can only be sorted once people have more of a say on key isues (moral not technical ones).



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Until you have proof that these government agents exist and that it is because of them that these protests become violent and not human nature this is a whatif. Please back up with evidence, we don't need another Alabama Mama running around making speculative statements.


Watch the movie "Panther" it goes into detail about the involvement of the F.B.I. in attempting to get the Black Panthers to start riots and to attack Police Officers, as well as going over and over documents which show they did this.

"The Party was targeted by the FBI's CO
INTELPRO program, which systematically attempted to disrupt their activities and dissolve the party. COINTELPRO achieved this through a combination of infiltration, public propaganda, and the exacerbation of interfactional rivalries, mostly through the mailing of anonymous or forged letters. The police tied the group up in endless prosecutions, shoot-outs, assassinations, investigations, surveillance, and dirty tricks.

In one of the most notorious of such actions, the FBI and Chicago Police raided the home of talented and charismatic Panther organizer Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969. The people inside the home had been drugged by an FBI informant, William O'Neal, and were all asleep at the time of the raid. Hampton was shot and killed, as was the guard, Mark Clark. The others in the home were then dragged into the street and beaten and subsequently charged with assault. These charges were later dropped.

In another incident, Panthers Bunchy Carter and John Huggins were killed at UCLA campus in 1969. Although the two were killed by a rival Black Power group called US created by Maulana Karenga, the local director of COINTELPRO took credit for the killings in internal FBI memos, claiming that a series of forged documents from his office led directly to the shootings."

en.wikipedia.org...

"THE FBI'S COVERT ACTION PROGRAM TO DESTROY THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY "

www.icdc.com...

That's the best example I can think of, off of the top of my head. They also ahve done similar things in Germany (not the F.B.I.) as well as the U.K. I'll try and hunt out the books on it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
All i see are once again claims made from a website we do not know if is reliable. If they were able to get all that information, that information would be available through original urls online, and not just obscure supposed passages we do not know if they exist. The black panthers were a violent group, quite a few of the black panthers that killed police officers in the US fled and are still living in Cuba, and their stance was quite different from that of Martin Luther King. The movement rejected Dr. King's integrationist, non-violent stance which further shows that link you gave is not giving the facts straight.


FoundationThe party was founded by classmates (Click link for more info and facts about Huey P. Newton) Huey P. Newton and (Click link for more info and facts about Bobby Seale) Bobby Seale in 1966 in the city of (Click link for more info and facts about Oakland, California) Oakland, California. The party was created to further the movement for black liberation, which had been growing steadily throughout the sixties thanks to the prominent (Movement in the United States beginning in the 1960s and led primarily by Blacks in an effort to establish the civil rights of individual Black citizens) civil rights movement and the work of people like (Militant civil rights leader (1925-1965)) Malcolm X and (United States charismatic civil rights leader and Baptist minister who campaigned against the segregation of Blacks (1929-1968)) Martin Luther King. The party rejected the integrationist, nonviolent stance of Martin Luther King, and made it clear from the beginning that it sought no compromise with the "white (The organization of people at different ranks in an administrative body) power structure". The party similarly rejected (Peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate) nonviolence as a creed and specifically chose to organize around a platform of " (The act of defending yourself) self-defense" (which became part of the party's original name, "Black Panther Party for Self-Defense").


Excerpted from.
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

There is a lot more to admire about people like Martin Luther King, than organizations which wanted/want to use violence to be heard.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.

Right at the bottom of the link you give.

So err, why are my links not valid? Yet your link which uses Wikipedia is?

Also Huey P. Newton during the rally with California's Peace and Freedom Party spoke out against Black People who went out to riot on the streets. He spoke out against violent action and said they needed to learn their Constitution rights to protest and if the Police tried to stop them or if the Police broke the law they would fight back.

As I said, watch the movie Panther it shows those speeches.

Edit:

Also the term "All power to the people". They reprosented every and any minority group, be it black, hispanic, Native America, etc, and white people were allowed to protest along side them.

Edit two:

"One result was not only the flowering of the Party itself but a rapid proliferation of other, like minded organizations. Chicanos, or Mexican Americans, in Southern California formed the Brown Berets. Whites in Chicago and environs formed the White Patriot Party. Chinese in the San Francisco Bay Area formed the Red Guard. Puerto Ricans in New York created the Young Lords. Eventually, a group of so called senior citizens organized the Gray Panthers to address the human and civil rights abuses of the elderly in society. The Party expanded from a small Oakland based organization to a national organization, as black youth in 48 states formed chapters of the Party. In addition, Black Panther coalition and support groups began to spring up internationally, in Japan, China, France, England, Germany, Sweden, in Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uruguay and elsewhere, including, even, in Israel.

At the street level, the Party began to develop a series of social programs to provide needed services to black and poor people, promoting thereby, at the same time, a model for an alternative, more humane social scheme. These programs, of which there came to be more than 35, were eventually referred to as Survival Programs, and were operated by Party members under the slogan "survival pending revolution.""
www.blackpanther.org...

Edit Three: Fred Hampton's family were paid compensation in the court case which followed and in 1990 the Chicago City Council passed a resolution declaring "Fred Hampton Day" in honor of him.

Edit Four: www.icdc.com...
If you bother to read the footnotes on that or even look it up, you'd find that is a text copy of one part of the Church Report.

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
These protesters ought to start their own political party if they feel so strong about something, let the people vote on weather they agree with them , thats democratic. What they do is start a march then start smashing everything in sight, no wonder the public has no sympathy for them. This is the beginnings of terrorism, thank the Lord we have a Police force to stop them.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
These protesters ought to start their own political party if they feel so strong about something, let the people vote on weather they agree with them , thats democratic. What they do is start a march then start smashing everything in sight, no wonder the public has no sympathy for them. This is the beginnings of terrorism, thank the Lord we have a Police force to stop them.


What are you going on about now?

It is not terrorism at all. They want change, they do not want the "masses" to fear them. They are two very different things or I guess the L.A. Race Riots were terrorism as well? Right?

Next May, you're more then welcome to come with me? See how the Police treat people? People who protest peacefully? Also yet again you assume these people do not have a political voice which is yet again where you are wrong. If they didn't, why do Politicions speak at the protests?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
..................
So err, why are my links not valid? Yet your link which uses Wikipedia is?
...............


This is part of the information according to the second link you gave.


In August 1967, the FBI initiated a covert action program -- COINTELPRO -- to disrupt and "neutralize" organizations which the Bureau characterized as "Black Nationalist Hate Groups." 1 The FBI memorandum expanding the program described its goals as:

1. Prevent a coalition of militant black nationalist groups....

2. Prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify the militant nationalist movement ... Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position....

3. Prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups....

4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting them....

5. . . . prevent the long-range growth of militant black nationalist organizations, especially among youth. 2


Excerpted from.
www.icdc.com...

Martin Luther King did not condone violence, and he wasn't a militant either. So i doubt anyone would try to stop him from "trying to unify militant groups."

Anyways, we are getting off topic. Let's stick to the G8 meeting and the demonstrators....

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
.................
It is not terrorism at all. They want change, they do not want the "masses" to fear them. They are two very different things or I guess the L.A. Race Riots were terrorism as well? Right?


Yes it is, people were being pulled out from their cars forcefully, their property was destroyed and stolen, and people were badly beaten by the rioters in the L.A Riots. When people resort to this behavior they become criminals. When protesters resort to violence they also become criminals.

People have a right to "peacefully protest".... throwing things at police officers, yelling insults and getting on the face of police officers while yelling at them and pushing them is not part of "peaceful demonstrations." Police officers are trained to asses a situation and if they see protesters start getting violent they make sure, or try, that the violence doesn't escalate. It is part of their jobs.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
These protesters ought to start their own political party if they feel so strong about something, let the people vote on weather they agree with them , thats democratic. What they do is start a march then start smashing everything in sight, no wonder the public has no sympathy for them. This is the beginnings of terrorism, thank the Lord we have a Police force to stop them.


What are you going on about now?

It is not terrorism at all. They want change, they do not want the "masses" to fear them. They are two very different things or I guess the L.A. Race Riots were terrorism as well? Right?

Next May, you're more then welcome to come with me? See how the Police treat people? People who protest peacefully? Also yet again you assume these people do not have a political voice which is yet again where you are wrong. If they didn't, why do Politicions speak at the protests?


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Bulldog 52]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Muaddib, once more you miss the point.

By unify, they mean bring them all together. If Martin Luther King could have got every "equal op" group working with him, it would have been possible to change American politics - remember it took till the 1970's to get rid of segregation. They don't mean get them all to revolt and become violent.

"Most of the damage was confined to businesses that had caused resentment in the neighborhood due to the perception of unfairness. Homes were not attacked, although some caught fire due to proximity to other fires." Cohen, Jerry and William S. Murphy, Burn, Baby, Burn! The Los Angeles Race Riot, August, 1965, New York: Dutton, 1966.

I think you'll find, they actually went against those who segregated them after Ronald Frye and his family got arrested and the way the Police treated them - including beating an old woman.

And then the 1992 riot again was started due to 4 Police officers getting acquitted for their beatings of Rodney King even though it was videod. And also if you look up things like the Crips and Bloods actually becoming a Political voice during the mid-1990's, list goes on.

Yet again, people getting pushed to far and yet they're in the wrong? Why? What did the Government or the Justice Department do for them?



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
You don't understand the point Odium, let's stick to the topic in this thread please. This thread has nothing to do with black panthers or Martin Luther King.

I apologize if i helped get the topic off tangent. It is a habit of mine responding to what people say in a thread, but let's get back on track.


When people decide to resort to violence they break the law. "Peaceful" demonstrations and "violence" don't go together.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Odium
.................
It is not terrorism at all. They want change, they do not want the "masses" to fear them. They are two very different things or I guess the L.A. Race Riots were terrorism as well? Right?


Yes it is, people were being pulled out from their cars forcefully, their property was destroyed and stolen, and people were badly beaten by the rioters in the L.A Riots. When people resort to this behavior they become criminals. When protesters resort to violence they also become criminals.

People have a right to "peacefully protest".... throwing things at police officers, yelling insults and getting on the face of police officers while yelling at them and pushing them is not part of "peaceful demonstrations." Police officers are trained to asses a situation and if they see protesters start getting violent they make sure, or try, that the violence doesn't escalate. It is part of their jobs.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Muaddib]



The point is that protests even violent ones can be justified. The point that decides is why they are violent. Tienamen Square anyone? Did that guy deserve to be run over? Was he just a nut job that smashed windows because he wanted a free tv or because he wanted the end of an oppressive regime?

BTW, elections can be rigged and politics can be controlled. Sometimes you have to either be given liberty or death, and if it gets down to it, then Annie get your gun, praise the lord and pass the ammunition!



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
......................
The point is that protests even violent ones can be justified. The point that decides is why they are violent. Tienamen Square anyone? Did that guy deserve to be run over? Was he just a nut job that smashed windows because he wanted a free tv or because he wanted the end of an oppressive regime?

BTW, elections can be rigged and politics can be controlled. Sometimes you have to either be given liberty or death, and if it gets down to it, then Annie get your gun, praise the lord and pass the ammunition!


We are not in a communist regime, and what happened in Tiannanmen Square is completly different to what is happening in the US and in the UK. It is completly preposterous to even imply that what is happening in the UK or the US has any similarity to what happened in Tiananmen Square....or even what is happening currently in China.

In the US people have a right "to peacefully protest", nowhere does it say they can resort to violent protests by destroying private or public property, attacking police officers or even other civilians. We saw in the L.A. riots what "violent protests" can do to other civilians, and to a city.

People have a right to protest peacefully, once you resort to violence you are breaking the law.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join