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.

 

2 People Arrested For Texting G20 Protesters Police Locations

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
This is almost a mirror image of what went down in Iran. I wonder if our government used the same software to track who did what during the protests. I am sure this administration is only trampling on the rights of the ones who deserve it.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Well let me throw out a hypothetical example. If you were robbing a bank, and the bank was mostly surrounded by police, and I was watching it on TV and noticed that there was one area you could slip out without being noticed, and I texted you that info. Would I not be guilty of a crime?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
In all the videos posted on ATS to do with the G20 meeting, I only saw one time when people did anything against the Police, one time only. After the Police attacked without real provocation, it would be expected that people would attack in return with whatever was available. So throwing rocks and bottles would be acceptable to me when the Police are using gases and rubber bullets on you.

I did hear the news reporters calling these rallies Riots, and those attending as Anarchists. I saw this as a means to homogenise the people's beliefs about what was happening, and so support the Police actions. Seems it has worked well then.

There is an agenda in play, like it or not. NWO or not, doesn't matter, the point is a real egenda is being purpetrated upon the masses and we are being fed disinformation through the media to cover it up and make those who can see through it look like Revolutionaries hell-bent on destroying your Lifestyle. This is the homogenization I spoke of. So see through it, clearly, and act accordingly.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jnewell33
 


Really? Can you show a video of a police in Pittsburg shooting a protestor point blank in the head? If anything, I think the Iranian protests were less destructive to Tehran, than they were to Pittsburgh. At least the Iranian protestors weren't smashing windows with hammers.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Of course you didn't. Why would someone on the side of the rioters show video of them attacking the police or damaging property? A little something called selective filming and editing.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 


I found a discussion on this exact issue and this post seems to answer your question best (if not directly, oddly enough):




It's a First Amendment issue, and it's going to get tossed -- whether immediately, or eventually.

The State has to prove that this guy was knowingly abetting certain specific individuals in a demonstrably-illegal enterprise (the bank lookout example above). Twitter -- which is a broadcast system denies the specificity. Secondly, the State has to prove that this particular demonstration was a de facto illegal activity. If the State has absolute proof that these G20 protestors were intending to firebomb a bank or the G20 meeting place, then it's potentially a "demonstrably-illegal" enterprise. But if they were just going to yell and wave signs, the fuzz can drop dead.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jnewell33
This is almost a mirror image of what went down in Iran. I wonder if our government used the same software to track who did what during the protests. I am sure this administration is only trampling on the rights of the ones who deserve it.


Hmmmm, I never even considered how they got the 2 people. Thinking about it, I expect they asked Twitter to supply the IP addresses of the users involved, then traced those to an ISP, then got the ISP to disclose the address.

I wonder how that all went down, did they need a warrant, or as these guys are 'obviously terrorists' do they just bypass that?

A great point made by a prior poster about people flashing to warn of speed cops. Someone posted that hypothetical in response to a guy saying telling people where cops are is terrorism on the DU link I added in my OP.. Good to see a case like that has gone to court and been judged the correct way, that the first amendment still has some meaning.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


There's really no difference. The unwashed at the G20 were calling themselves anarchists. Perhaps the black flags with an A in a circle they were carrying were actually CGI the nasty media superimposed.


Black flags are just one 'faction' of Anarchy (perhaps the most notorious). Let's not forget there are many other angles of anarchy (or in you case let me educate you).

As with all other circles of politics, anarchists are not a collective whole. Many factions disagree (or agree) with other factions.

Here's some examples since the 19th century


1./ anarcho-syndicalism--------------------- Industrial unionism, workers self management

2./ anarchist communism------------------- Communal organisation of economic life. Right to free consumption. Internal factionalism revolves around isolationist (pure communist/communal experimentalist) and Federalist wings

3./ eco-anarchism---------------------------- Natural environmental region. Internal factionalism between industrial and anti-industrial/primitivist wing

4./ individualist anarchism------------------ Non-capitalist market place, monetary reform. Rejects right to free consumption. Need for individual economic autonomy

5./ libertarianism or lifestylism------------ Nudism, vegetarianism, free love, Esperanto etc., movements


www.spunk.org...

Some anarchists such as en.wikipedia.org... wrote about violence being a necessary evil in the pursuit of freedom.

Whilst other anarchists are pacifists, and denounce violence.

Some groups use mixed tactics, or a 'diversity of tactics'.

Are you talking about individualists or social anarchists? Green anarchists?

Some anarchist groups are against voting, some aren't. Some anarchists are more concerned with the environment, than say anti-capitalism.

Some anarchists are lefties, some are 'post-lefties' seperating themselves from extreme left wing views such as communism.

Don't forget angst-ridden teens call themselves anarchists just to feel cool.

So please don't tar every anarchist with the same brush.


(A few links to help liberate you of ignorance)

www.geocities.com...

www.ozarkia.net...

eng.anarchopedia.org...

flag.blackened.net...

So yes... There is a BIG difference.

Regards

Mr L

[edit on 6-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Well if they were not doing something illegal, why would their friends need to send them police positions? Were they just trying to find the police so they could bring them donuts and coffee?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Well if they were not doing something illegal, why would their friends need to send them police positions? Were they just trying to find the police so they could bring them donuts and coffee?


I would want to keep away from the cops because they have a tendency to beat up, and use chemical weapons on innocent people. Just like the CNN reporter in the video.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Well if they were not doing something illegal, why would their friends need to send them police positions? Were they just trying to find the police so they could bring them donuts and coffee?


Have you thought maybe the police were illegaly denying them the right to protest?

So by avoiding the police- these people could act within the law?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Really, I have never seen the cops use force against someone unless they were resisting arrest or threatening the cops or committing a crime. I guess I could have missed something though.

I am sure maybe a few incidencts have happened over time, but your statement certainly does not characterize general police behavior.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Really, I have never seen the cops use force against someone unless they were resisting arrest or threatening the cops or committing a crime. I guess I could have missed something though.


It happened at the G20 in London. In fact the police killed a man who wasn't even protesting.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Do you have evidence that police were stopping them from legally protesting, or are you just guessing that was the case?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Really, I have never seen the cops use force against someone unless they were resisting arrest or threatening the cops or committing a crime. I guess I could have missed something though.

I am sure maybe a few incidencts have happened over time, but your statement certainly does not characterize general police behavior.


Maybe in general, these kind of incidents are isolated, but at protests, especially against G20 type groups, it's routine behaviour to use chemical weapons and batons on the citizens.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Do you have evidence that police were stopping them from legally protesting, or are you just guessing that was the case?


Nope plenty of evidence in blogs, videos, newspapers, journals and such.


To begin with, there was an oxymoronic requirement that groups get permits to march and demonstrate during the summit. Requiring citizens to obtain permission to gather, let alone speak, violates the spirit of the First Amendment. But even demonstrators who had permission faced zealous intimidation. It started during the first demonstrations of the week, before the summit commenced. Police delayed one properly credentialed march and denied another group access to a public bypass.


www.philly.com...



Protesters complained that the march had been peaceful and that police were trampling on their right to assemble.


www.latimes.com...

dprogram.net...


There is also the situation where a reporter was hit with a chemical agent. This video also shows the new sound cannon used by police (I’m surprised it doesn’t broadcast the Brown Note). Police chased down and arrested uninvolved students. “Rubber” bullets were also used.


g20pgh.ning.com...

www.videosift.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.


gipfelsoli.org...

www.strangerthanfiction.org...

www.facebook.com...

www.scam.com...

newsfeedresearcher.com...

www.allbusiness.com...

truthmovement.com...





posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The cops are just pissed because due to these two guys they didn't have more sitting duck innocent people to beat the hell out of. Don't let the police state apologists and the lowlife media trash fool you, this has nothing to do with protecting the general public. It has everything to do with falsely demonizing protesters and eliminating dissent. If they can get rid of your right to criticize them, they will be hog tying you up in no time.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


That's because the anarchists converge on such events, as if on holiday, with the intention of causing chaos and destruction. It is just a drug-fueled party for many, not a legitimate protest. I doubt any in the crowd could even name the member states, or what the meetings were about, or why the G20 exists in the 1st place.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by harpsounds
 


That's because the anarchists converge on such events, as if on holiday, with the intention of causing chaos and destruction. It is just a drug-fueled party for many, not a legitimate protest. I doubt any in the crowd could even name the member states, or what the meetings were about, or why the G20 exists in the 1st place.


Oh please... I just explained it to you. And here you are again spouting drivel.

Do me a favour and stop being so narrow-minded. You are type-casting, which is a common tactic of the immature and ignorant.

Please, go find your reading glasses (possibly on top of your head) and read what i bothered to post. Otherwise may i suggest you stop posting in threads you know absolutely nothing about.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Really, I have never seen the cops use force against someone unless they were resisting arrest or threatening the cops or committing a crime. I guess I could have missed something though.

I am sure maybe a few incidencts have happened over time, but your statement certainly does not characterize general police behavior.


Really, I wish I could live in your world for a day. I bet you see rainbows every time you look up at the sky. I bet farts smell like marshmallows and the coffee never gets cold, in your world.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join