It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The image of resistance?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Zealott

Are you saying that the man has his hand on the woman?

Thats not the case.

The police officer has his hand on the woman, on her shoulder.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Zealott
Seems to me the arguement and context is relevant. One guy has his hand on a woman, she looks disturbed. And that same man looks surprised, off guard and with the underhand.

She looks Stoned to me mate. This looks to me like someone pointing the finger of blame at a Police Officer for something.

However anyone looks at it, we are all jacked into the system and we all contributed in some way to the system being brought about. Through silence or other means.

Unfortunately the riot police are one of the system's arm's when said supporters then oppose.

You will probably disagree, but how many protesters, at least in the UK, claim doll or other benefits or go to work and pay there Government's?

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by serbsta

It is very much in context.

It won the Pulitzer Prize in 2006.

Lone Woman - 2006

A lone Jewish settler challenges Israeli security officers during clashes that erupted as authorities cleared the West Bank settlement of Amona, east of the Palestinian town of Ramallah.

Brilliant piece of photography.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

Really? Wow, thanks for info.

Glad im wrong (for the sake of the thread ofcourse), the picture is fantastic.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:54 AM
Was he teling him he had a booger on his nose, I am not sure what that picture is saying!

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by noonebutme

So if you openly protest you're a nut job that needs to be controlled? Like Martin Luther King, or the man who stood in front of the tanks in China during the protests in 1987? If an American did that, they would be beaten to a pulp. A nut job is anyone who brings guns to a political protest. We're going to see a lot more of this, folks. We already live in a police state. Professor Gates was arrested in his own home for telling the cops what he thought. And before some "nut job" labels me here,(which happened in another thread 2 days ago ),
my father was a police officer while I was growing up, and I've spent a lot of time in the company of cops. This phenomenon of people being arrested for "contempt of cop" is unconstitutional and immoral. If a cop doesn't like what you're saying, you're getting busted. I once had a cop put his hand on his weapon and was preparing to draw down on me because of what I was saying, and I wasn't cussing or making threats. I was stating my opinion of how I was seeing a fellow citizen being treated. Get real, people. That's a great frikkin picture. It makes my heart feel warm and fuzzy.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:58 AM
Nothing wrong with protesting, but when people get hurt, or worse, it's no longer a protest, it's a crime!

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by noonebutme

You are completely missing the point.

The context is not what is being questioned here, don't immediately look for a side to take and ignore the message of the image itself!

What this image shows is a person deliberately expressing their defiance of oppression and force. They are expressing their will, their freedom and their rights.

The argument it was taken during is completely irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. The argument & context is completely relevant, otherwise you have a member of the public just sticking their finger in the face of a police officer for no apparent reason. And if there's no context to what's happening, how do you know there's "oppression and force" taking place? Does the presence of the law, to you, indicate oppression only?

If the officer is using excessive force and preventing people from legally expressing their right to protest then the image is very moving from that point of view.

However, conversely, if the people are rowdy, rioting or causing a needless distrubance and the officer is genuinely trying to keep the peace (and preventing others from getting hurt) then you have a different view - you have someone who is instigating violence while also obstructing the peace officer.

So no, context is relevant, I think.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by noonebutme]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by noonebutme

I think its more of "No I will not let you take my freedom away"

My opinion


posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:21 AM
I can't help it:

You people, "some" telling me there is a question here? Right; everythings ok! all nutjob protesters will be getting their shot and properly gassed and mutilated! It will be ok then according to the PTB!

You guys are doing a great job! Don't worry, the Georgia guidestones were put there by the good guys! There's nothing to worry about!

Great post S&F!

Thank you.

No consequencE..

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by serbsta

Out of curiousity, what should I be feeling while looking at this photo. I read the caption that it's during protests in Ireland, but on initial viewing, the law enforcement officer isn't doing anything apart from having a finger jabbed in his visor.

Is this photo meant to be a catalyst to rise up and fight the law? Are we meant to ignore the law and say, "No, I am not following your rules of society?"

If i'm to infer my own assumptions based on the implied context, then someone is suggesting "No" to being controlled by the officer. That suggests the protest is out of control or getting close. So the officer is keeping people back and someone is exerting themselves. Essentially doing what he's meant to do and what I, a citizen would hope he would do - keep nutjob protesters at bay.

Just my view...

i don't know about the rest, but I noticed the paramilitary style riot gear myself.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by george_gaz
Holy crap that made me laugh. Got the office looking at me now.

Great photo though.

Edit to add: five minutes has passed and I still find this comment funny enough to make me laugh out loud.

Call me a child. Whatever.

Was I the only one who after reading the anti booger picking shield thing instantly heard "Can't touch this" nah nah nah nah

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:07 AM
I always liked this one...

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:11 AM
I like to state that the person who in the picture who is pointing at the officer could have easily of raised a fist instead of a finger to show mroe of an aggresive stance, or better yet, stuck the middle finger out to show a rebel approach. Instead the person uses there index finger show equality in that they are both the same and both have equal rights. My view again.


posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by serbsta
Face-off, a Northern Ireland police officer clashes with Nationalist protesters in Londonderry following a loyalist parade on Aug. 8.

i wanted to find out the story behind this picture, the caption suggests there was more to it that the picture suggests.

Approximately 20 people were arrested today during the Apprentice Boys of Derry parade.

Police said while the parade passed peacefully, officers have been since been responding to sporadic incidents which included stones, missiles and a number of petrol bombs being thrown.


so the police officer is up against people throwing petrol bombs......right.

i'm afraid this is more of the same old hateful sectarian rubbish that's always been present in northern ireland. the worst aspect is that i had such trouble finding a source of detail on the incident that this picture was taken at.

if this picture represents your revolution, i want no part of it, thanks.

[edit on 18/8/09 by pieman]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Mr_XIM
Nothing wrong with protesting, but when people get hurt, or worse, it's no longer a protest, it's a crime!

What about when it's the Police doing the hurting? Is that ok?

What if, tomorrow, the US Government demanded that you succumb to imprisonment, either due to your religion, your race or your opinion?
What would you do then?


And when they line the streets with riot police to prevent you from protesting, when they throw tear gas at you and smack you with sticks. What then?

Would you still agree that they have the right to act to "protect everyone else"?

My point is that there comes a point in time when peaceful protest is no longer effective. I didn't make the rules, they did.

When a government consistently ignores public opinion in favour of a section of society, when the results of that decision affect every citizen, complaining doesn't get very far.
Threats of dragging them from office and burning it down do. This is a historical fact.

If you look through history at every major protest event, the vast majority have not been won by the people through begging and pleading. It's been won by threatening the government of the time with direct force.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by serbsta

Could we have a link to that picture? Maybe its just me but it almost looks like a setup shot in the beginning of some reverse domination in a how do I put this..."blue movie".

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by LoneGunMan

the original is an ap photo and the one that is posted for this thread is from msnbc, picture 13.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:30 PM
Flagged.. this is by far the best image I've seen this month, probably all year.

The cop is grabbing the woman, by what looks like her throat, and she is obviously distressed. And out of the blue comes the hand of defiance to whap that terrorist pig (police) right on his nose.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in