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.

 

My G20 trip, Reflection Thread: READ!

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


What's that I smell? It reeks of male bovine fecal matter.

I wonder, did they have a permit to be in that park? (yes real protests have permits) and many parks close at dusk.

So I wonder, is this spin and propaganda being shoved down our throats by Alex Jones?

[edit on 10/4/2009 by whatukno]




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I gave you snf for the posting of your journal and a flag on every entry as I think that you did a brave thing to go to the protest take pictures and now shared with us your inner feelings regardng what you went through. Once again being far away I could not attend and very grateful for your standing and delivering and of course most important recording.

Thanks again for your efforts for those of us who could not be there in person. I am only too pleased that you are home and safe.

Thanks again...



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


i started to read your response, and honestly, when i have more patience, i'll read the whole thing...

but, here's what you aren't getting:

it's a PATTERN.

wherever the G8, or, now, G20, meets, there are protests. what are these people protesting, first of all. that should be the main issue.
when someone has a wedding, and two uncles get too drunk, and start a fight in the parking lot, the uncles fighting is not the point. the point is that two people joined in holy matrimony, and there was a gathering of family and friends.

when there is a protest against a global elite meeting in private and there are a few protesters who have reached the end of their ropes, that is not the point.
the point is that a large number of people feel very strongly set against these elites meeting in private to shape the future of EVERYONE. these meetings should be open, so all the people who will be affected by the discussions, can know what was said, and by whom.

the police, should be there to WEED OUT the "overzealous" protesters, and ALLOW and PROTECT the peaceful protesters to continue their vigil.

"when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"


[edit on 4-10-2009 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Thank you for posting this thread, your reports and videos. I have question though: Is it legal that a tape recording can legally declare anything on behalf of the Cheif of Police The recording did not say I,John Doe, on behalf of the .... or I, John Doe, Sargent or Lieutenant ot whatever of the Pittsburgh Polce and Commander in Charge, on behalf of the Chief of Police.....it just said "I". Who is the "I" and did the "I" have legal authority to act on behalf of the CoP?
Or does everyone just hear it and accept it as real?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the police, should be there to WEED OUT the "overzealous" protesters, and ALLOW and PROTECT the peaceful protesters to continue their vigil.

"when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"


[edit on 4-10-2009 by billybob]


I just want to say I absolutely agree with what is written above. I hate when people say it's a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. That is a poor excuse for the behavior of the police. If some people are causing property damage then you arrest them just like you would on any other day. That doesn't give them the right to start being aggressive towards everyone. Just like what billybob said, their job should have been to keep the peace and protect the rights of the peaceful protestors.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


We have the constitutional right to peaceful assembly in this country, what your missing is the PEACEFUL part. What part of PEACEFUL don't you understand? Is it that hard of a concept? Is it that far beyond your realm of understanding? PEACEFUL?

When you have a group who you know is going to be destructive, who you know is going to be violent, what do you purpose be done about it? Let them just destroy as much as they want and clean up the mess afterward?

Freedom does not mean anarchy.


And again with the "assumption of guilt". You are stating that people who "may intend" to cause damage have no right to freedom of assembly and protest. So how exactly do you ascertain that a person is going to cause damage?
You cannot operate a democratic free nation on the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent". And you certainly cannot strip the rights of a large number of people because you "have a feeling" one or two of them might break a window.

What part of this don't you understand?

This is just another example of "Civil rights are great, as long as I agree with the opinions of those using those rights".

So, tell me, oh wise speaker of democratic rights, in several of the protest videos you can clearly see just people milling about, as they would in a shopping mall or on a street on a fri/sat night, only this time they have a megaphone and an opinion. Then the riot police turn up and start harassing, intimidating and threatening them. Where is the violence here?
Please tell me how you magically "know" that those protesters were going to cause any trouble?

And my solution? Don't have these meetings in such places! Simple really isn't it?

There are a thousand locations for these leaders to meet. They all have secluded little hideaways for when the next Nuke goes off, they all have military bases at their disposal, aircraft carriers out at sea...
Why hold such an emotive meeting like this in a populated area to begin with?
All guests and media are thoroughly cleared and vetted beforehand, and their numbers limited.
A military base would have it's own airport, limiting disruption to public transportation.
Security would already be at it's peak, no need for drafting in thousands more dressed in riot gear. No need for bomb sweeps and threat analysis... need I go on?

There is absolutely no reason I can find for why these meetings need to be held in such locations, other than to offer the leadership of each nation the opportunity to remind the people just who holds the batons and gas canisters.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Thanks for the read and the work you did in Pit. I think its time protestors get organzied in Military style tactics this way those Jack boot thugs wont have an easy time to defeating us and will make them think twice about it.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 




And again with the "assumption of guilt". You are stating that people who "may intend" to cause damage have no right to freedom of assembly and protest. So how exactly do you ascertain that a person is going to cause damage?
You cannot operate a democratic free nation on the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent". And you certainly cannot strip the rights of a large number of people because you "have a feeling" one or two of them might break a window.

What part of this don't you understand?

This is just another example of "Civil rights are great, as long as I agree with the opinions of those using those rights".


When the people make lists on the internet about what buildings they are going to vandalize, then proceed to vandalize those buildings, then afterward brag online about vandalizing buildings. It's a pretty safe assumption that they are guilty.

From the description given on the anarchists own website admitting to doing these things its quite apparent that there was more than one or two.

I don't agree with KKK members opinions, I agree with their right to express those opinions peaceably. I don't agree with Neo-Nazi opinions, but I agree with their right to express those opinions peaceably. I don't agree with the TEA party protesters opinions, but I agree with their right to express those opinions peaceably. I don't agree with the Westboro Baptist Church's opinion, but I agree with their right to express those opinions peaceably. Do you detect a pattern here?


So, tell me, oh wise speaker of democratic rights, in several of the protest videos you can clearly see just people milling about, as they would in a shopping mall or on a street on a fri/sat night, only this time they have a megaphone and an opinion. Then the riot police turn up and start harassing, intimidating and threatening them. Where is the violence here?
Please tell me how you magically "know" that those protesters were going to cause any trouble?


Don't believe me?

thedailyshow

resistg20.org...




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Thanks for all the hard work, making these videos and posting them for us. Definitely you deserve a flag for this one.

Clearly our first amendment rights were trampled up here. You show a people crowd being threatened by police with no legitimate reason to threaten these people. Clearly we are not seeing violent protests, but a peaceful march, that was reacted to violently by the local authorities, who trampled all over our constitutional right.

Here is an article I found on the subject which says that the violence was started by the police.

www.upi.com...


Police used pepper spray and smoke canisters to break up a march in downtown Pittsburgh but some of the marchers began throwing rocks and police responded by firing rubber bullets, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.

Vic Walczak, legal director for the local ACLU, said the crowd was peaceful and even moved when a police car needed to pass through.


So only after the police threatened to arrest anyone who didn't leave, and started using tear gas did some of the protesters start fighting back, and we have an eye witness with a camera showing that it was clearly the police who incited the violence. Sounds like the police started firing rubber bullets before anyone started throwing rocks, if anyone started throwing rocks.

Oh yeah, and the tea parties were held by people who support the PTB. They were protesting our government taking action for the people. This is why they were allowed their say.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Here is another article painting a clear picture.

newsjunkiepost.com...


The authorities who protect the establishment’s power have demonstrated something in the last couple weeks: they will cater to right wing protesters while trampling on the rights of left wing protesters. The difference in treatment between the 40k at Glenn Becks 912 rally in DC and the 4000 at the G20 was like day and night.

“We were barely even protesting,” said T.J. Amick, 22, of Pittsburgh. “Then all of a sudden, they come up and tell us we’re gathered illegally and start using force, start banging their shields, start telling us we’re going to be arrested and tear gassed. … We haven’t broken any laws.”

The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a loudspeaker ordering people to leave and then police in riot gear moved in to break it up. Authorities also used a crowd-control device that emits a deafening siren-like noise, making it uncomfortable for protesters to remain in the streets. Officers fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke at the protesters, set off a flash grenade and fired rubber bullets.


This completely backs up what the op has posted on this thread. Things are getting ugly.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Thanks Poet for your contributions.

people are going to think what they want to think, i was there, i saw what happened, i laid it out for everyone.

either you take it for what it is, or don't. i believe im telling the truth, and what i see on the MSM, are complete lies.

thing is who are you going to believe?
an independent report, or a report sponsored by the elites?

Also, thanks to anyone who has contributed to this thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The KEY words here...


The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly


Go a., call your local city government, find out how hard it is to get a permit for a protest. I bet you would be surprised how easy you can get one.

The main march had a permit, the protest there didn't get much media attention because it was not violent. But those darn anarchists made sure to change that tune.

The police tell you to leave and you don't? Hmm I wonder what comes next? That's right an ass whooping.

I am not saying all the protesters were causing trouble. But there sure were a few that were.

How about this good clean civil disorder fun?


A few seconds later the march took off again down Baum, now at a run. A Boston Market franchise happened to be on this corner; protesters were enraged from the police attack, and it lost ten windows to a hail of rocks. Regrettably, there were people inside the franchise, who could be seen fleeing the windows; however, there is no indication that anyone was injured.


From the mouths of idiots

These guys idea of a protest was to and ill quote:


One might interpret all this as legitimate acts of revenge for the police murder in London at last spring’s G20 summit; but it also signifies the survival of militant street resistance in the Obama era.




People have the right to Peaceably Assemble. But just like gun laws, that doesn't mean its a freaking free for all.

The key word is peaceably. When you aren't peaceful, things tend to get out of your control fast.

Your above quote frames this perfectly, these idiots think that they can just pop up a demonstration wherever they feel like it. It's akin to someone thinking they can just go buy a gun. Yes while you do have the absolute right to bear arms, there are steps that have to be taken so that you can have your gun.

The same with protests. Get a freaking permit. They will let you have one. The permit will state where you can and cant go. If you don't like the location and want another one, make a stink about it till you get the location you want. It's not about subduing your freedom of speech, its about sanity.

That is what these idiots didn't get. They went and tried to protest EVERYWHERE. When the permit that was valid described the place and the time the protest was to be held.

But they didn't even want to think that far a.. They wanted the clash with police. They wanted the violence. That is why they were there. They got what they wanted then cried "poor me look at the oppression!"



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


i have a question for you, were you there?

also, did you know the permit to protest was delayed by the city of Pittsburgh? that's why the ACLU is suing Pittsburgh.

did you also know it was delayed until that Friday morning, the day the peaceful march was escorted, and not attacked.

ill stick to my story, protesters marched peacefully, until attacked by the police.

i was there, i saw this. stop hijacking my thread.

really shows what you know



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


I so sincerely apologize for hijacking your thread, however the truth should be known. The information I am going by is from the anarchists themselves that were also at the protest.


did you also know it was delayed until that Friday morning, the day the peaceful march was escorted, and not attacked.


Do you see what you said right there? When the permit was issued the police escorted the protesters and not attacked them. I wonder why that is? Peaceful protests call for proper planning. Part of that process is getting the proper permits. Get them in time, if they are delayed, delay the protest till you have the permit. Don't go a. with the protest anyway. The "organizers" should have had lawyers working on expediting the permit process. If it was to be a legitimate protest the logistics do have to be worked out. How long before the G 20 did they know it was going to be in Pittsburgh? Cmon, really?

The truth about the G 20 anarchists is that they wanted a violent conflict with the police. Specifically so that they could say they were being oppressed. They wanted it, they did everything they could to provoke it and, they got it. all for the expressed purpose of whining about it.

I do apologize again for hijacking your thread, but the truth is the truth.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Thanks Ugie for your remarks. I posted in another of your threads about getting a parade permit. I will not go through the entire story but will state to those who do not understand the following:

1976 - 1984 I was a member in the Viet Nam's Vets Against the War. Each November we went and applied for a parade permit on the grounds that we were veterans and should be allowed to march. We paid the price some of us had disablities and all of us lost close friends. We paid the price for the right to march and or protest. We were never issued a parade permit and thus were always an illegal gathering.... Go figure....

Moral is to the people who suggest one should get a permit - You cannot fight city hall and if they say no they say no and this is not published therefore YOU DO NOT KNOW this little fact!

We were the only Veterans present trying to march the marchers were NG, Reservist, ROTC both high school and University. To the untrained eye there were no Veterans Marching. WTF was the day for?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bottom of the page is pixs posted by IceHappy on Vets Day 1977!

Sorry once again Ugie for jumping in on your thread....



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IceHappy
 


I saw those pics. i gave u a star for those.

at least it wasn't as intense as the 24th. a permit should never be denied; but it was anyway.

if a PERMIT was issued for those days, there would of been peace, but no, the city denied the permits, but we marched anyway. its our constitutional right to do so, regardless if it was a legal march or not. we cant let them regulate our freedoms, our forefathers fought and died for them, our current veterans fought and died for them, we honor their sacrifice and due vigilance by doing what we did.

they knew we were going to march anyways, and used it as an excuse to use their new toys on the American people.

i don't care what anyone else says about this. the point of the matter is, the protest was DENIED, when its guaranteed in the first amendment! i am proud that we upheld our rights. I'm proud of you for standing up for our rights back then.

keep up the good work people. we need to defend these rights. we need to stand up to our controllers, we need to show them we have a voice, we need to show them, that we wont be fooled by their propaganda machine.

once again, i think those who contributed to this thread, and i look down on anyone who supported the police response. especially the response against the Pittsburgh students. that was the worst they did that day, they had no right to hurt those kids.

[edit on 10/5/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


i am proud of every american who stood up for their rights, too, and i'm canadian.
way to go, REAL americans!




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Thanks for this new thread Ugie, I appreciate the videos and your stories. WOW

To those of you within this thread still defending the police actions, let me ask you something, why was Ugie subjected to Gas, Sonar weapons and he even kopped a rubber bullet. Was Ugie a threat ? Was he disturbing the peace ?

So if a fight breaks out between a few bad guys at a nightclub, will you be happy to see cops forcing their way in and spraying the place with gas and rubber, regardless of any innocent bystanders.
Is this the new style of policing we must all bow to. Are the bystanders just collateral damage, caught in the crossfire.

Are they telling us the USA IS A WARZONE ?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Something to pay attention to, is that this is not the federal government doing this, it is the local government.

It is the local city, country, and state governments who are writing more and more laws that violate our rights. Clearly, the local government had no right to deny the permits, but some judge, most likely, decided screw the rights of the people, and refused to sign the permit. That judge should be impeached, and then sued. All these judges who continuously trample all over the constitution need to be impeached.

Oh, and the cops are all looking for that big overtime money, that also pumps up their grossly over-generous pension plans. They have laws against drugs and vice, and now the safety laws which continuously ups the need for more cops and more judges to trample all over peoples rights.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   


A tribute to what happened that day.




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join