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.

 

Disturbing Video from Pittsburgh

page: 8
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


These anarchist protesters are just as hypocritical as the politicians and capitalists that they despise so much.

I find it rather humorous that these anarchists, now wearing hindsight glasses, are now crying foul and trying to hide behind the very constitution that they despise so much. They are even soliciting funds for their own legal defense like good little capitalists. BTW. They can get a public defender pro bono. No need to solicit funds eh?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainranger

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 



I dont think people understand that there are two sides to every story. Protest if you want to, but it only takes one radical dumbass to mess it up for everyone and the results are, well, you know.


Sorry, are you inferring that the person standing in front of that tank is a dumbass..?

"Mess it up for everyone one" what exactly are you saying?

"well, you know"....No I don't know maybe you could explain?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Koka]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


sure its fine for the law enforcers to be prepared and ready for any illiegal activity...that is a good thing..but for police officers and national guard to abuse their power and beat people or gas them when they arent being aggressive is also illegal...the only thing is when a police officer does it the courts are more likely to take their side...thats if it got to court most people wouldnt try to prosecute police for wrongful assault or abuse of power and even if a judge finds a police officer guilty of something they usually get lesser punishments than general public...this is completely wrong in my opinion. ive seen some idiot police officers in my time i dont have a criminal record but i do not like police and would not go to them for help id rather deal with things myself



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by brainranger

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 



I dont think people understand that there are two sides to every story. Protest if you want to, but it only takes one radical dumbass to mess it up for everyone and the results are, well, you know.


Sorry, are you inferring that the person standing in front of that tank is a dumbass..?

"Mess it up for everyone one" what exactly are you saying?

"well, you know"....No I don't know maybe you could explain?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Koka]


Ok I thought I was pretty clear with this post.

*Mess it up for everyone* If you are in a protest, and one yahoo decides to brandish a weapon, everyone will be taken down until said jerkoff is arrested.

*Well you know* Watch the video dude! They all got arrested!

Anything else I need to expand on boss man?

When did I state that the dude by the tank was a dumbass?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by brainranger]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Koka
 

I find it rather humorous that these anarchists, now wearing hindsight glasses, are now crying foul and trying to hide behind the very constitution that they despise so much. They are even soliciting funds for their own legal defense like good little capitalists.


You can't pay for a lawsuit with a conscience and a pocket full of buttons, they live in the same capitalist society you and I do, and until that changes they have little choice, so your point is?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Koka]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


Anarchists believe that there should be no government. That everyone should take care of themselves. This means that Anarchists believe that both people have the absolute right to free speech and no rights whatsoever.

Anarchy means that if someone didn't like what you say they can kill you for saying it. It's not a society that I would enjoy living in. This is the ideals behind the G-20 rioters. They believe that the constitution should go away. Then cry when the police crack down on them and hide behind the same constitution that they would be more than happy to get rid of.

Hypocrisy! If these were true Anarchists they would realize the right of the police to kick the ever living crap out of them as it would be freedom of the strongest. A true Anarchist wouldn't be whining to the media about getting a lung full of tear gas, they certainly wouldn't be getting any help from a public defender or a lawyer advocacy group.

Simply put, these were punk kids who thought that the G-20 was Burning Man and thought that it would be fun to try and start a riot. When they got confronted by the police even though they were in the wrong they cried like little babies about how they were oppressed.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainranger
When did I state that the dude by the tank was a dumbass?


I was confirming the context of your post, was it literal as in the physical actions in a protest or was it regarding societal repercussions, you have explained, thank you.

You posted your "dumbass" statement immediately following the image, which was why asked "are you inferring", once again confirming the context.

That image is very powerful, I hope you understand the need for me to ask about the context, boss man...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by brainranger
When did I state that the dude by the tank was a dumbass?


I was confirming the context of your post, was it literal as in the physical actions in a protest or was it regarding societal repercussions, you have explained, thank you.

You posted your "dumbass" statement immediately following the image, which was why asked "are you inferring", once again confirming the context.

That image is very powerful, I hope you understand the need for me to ask about the context, boss man...


Aha! I am so sorry! No, I am not referring to the guy infront of the tank when I used the word dumbass. Merely the radicals who find thier way into a protest and violently express themselves. Again, I apologize for not fully understanding your post and hastily replying. Have a good one!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Koka
 


Anarchists believe that there should be no government. That everyone should take care of themselves. This means that Anarchists believe that both people have the absolute right to free speech and no rights whatsoever.

Anarchy means that if someone didn't like what you say they can kill you for saying it.


Anarchy


Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"No rulership or enforced authority."

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."


Your definition seems a little subjective.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Koka]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


EXACTLY! No government, no constitution, no laws. That is Anarchy. These aren't even real anarchists, these are Burning Man rejects that wanted to start a riot. They are the true agent provocateurs. Why? Cause a peaceful protest wouldn't have solicited a police response like the one at the G-20.

By the way, guess what, next year they are having one in Canada. How much do you want to bet that there will be some sort of violence at that one?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
This is why I don't go out to rallies or meets, I would get arrested for assaulting an officer so quick. Nightstick in the back = sidekick to the helmet.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Koka
 


EXACTLY! No government, no constitution, no laws. That is Anarchy.


You missed my point, Anarchy does not mean you can go out and kill someone for disagreeing with you. Anarchy is to be without enforced rule, it does not mean that morals and ethics are non-existent. I am playing devil's advocate here as I do not want an Anarchical society myself, I just get bored of the dis-ambiguous context the term continually gets used. I want a fair and just society, one where we elect without corruption for those we feel best represent that which would benefit all without prejudice.


These aren't even real anarchists, these are Burning Man rejects that wanted to start a riot. They are the true agent provocateurs. Why? Cause a peaceful protest wouldn't have solicited a police response like the one at the G-20.


The heavy police response/presence, was there because of those attending the G-20 and what they represent, and they know full well the importance and the passion that those protesting feel toward them.


By the way, guess what, next year they are having one in Canada. How much do you want to bet that there will be some sort of violence at that one?


I wouldn't doubt it, these corrupt officials need to be outed and people need to wake up.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 




The heavy police response/presence, was there because of those attending the G-20 and what they represent, and they know full well the importance and the passion that those protesting feel toward them.


The heavy police presence was due to the fact that the anarchists already posted online what they were going to do. They were planning on smashing windows of a dozen or so business. The police knew that there was going to be a problem and acted accordingly.

Note that on the day of the scheduled protest, when the protesters had a valid permit and were in the designated area that the police did not use such heavy handed tactics? If they were just out to beat up protesters why on earth would they be marching right along side them and not interfering with them in the slightest?

Not a whole lot of people filmed it because nothing happened. The police walked right beside the protesters and did not hit anyone.

I wonder why that is? Hmmm. Maybe, it's because they were in the right place at the right time and they were then free to peaceably protest and assemble. It's when the protesters decided they could protest EVERYWHERE and smash up windows, police cars, light and overturn dumpsters that the police had a problem with it.

Again begging the police to kick your ass and then whining about the ass kicking you received is pathetic. If your going to ask for a but whooping at least be proud that you got what you asked for.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I read and read and watched and watched and I still don't know what they were protesting against. The police must have gotten some strong threats to have been so prepared. Any protest movement who's members threaten the police are going to face this. They want what now? Did they think of maybe voting instead of bitching?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I can only speak on my experience in the UK but the police now are absolutely scared to put a foot wrong, as and when they are showing themselves as a physical force they take their "numbers" off so they cannot be identified, this i have witnessed at several high profile football matches. That being said i often find the the "old bill" actively encourage the physical confrontation in this scenario (without numbers) and again i have witnessed a couple of times they have come unstuck, the reason behind this is if they want to charge you with assault (on them) then they will have to admit that they didnt have their numbers on and as such cannot be identified as being a police officer.

Sometimes they really do think they are all powerful but now and again the opportunity arises where you can redress the balance in a small way.

All the above being said any organisation there to protect and serve really should not be so aggressive with peaceful protesters, i am sure there were a few who up for a bit of trouble and they know the consequences of their actions



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Note that on the day of the scheduled protest, when the protesters had a valid permit and were in the designated area that the police did not use such heavy handed tactics? If they were just out to beat up protesters why on earth would they be marching right along side them and not interfering with them in the slightest?

Not a whole lot of people filmed it because nothing happened. The police walked right beside the protesters and did not hit anyone.

I wonder why that is? Hmmm. Maybe, it's because they were in the right place at the right time and they were then free to peaceably protest and assemble.


Protesters abiding by enforced rules who's voices do not get heard. They were not even permitted to go anywhere near the convention centre itself, and why not, you yourself said that these people were not violent, they are told where and when they can go, fully controlled, with no voice.


It's when the protesters decided they could protest EVERYWHERE and smash up windows, police cars, light and overturn dumpsters that the police had a problem with it.


Passion and frustration, as I have said previously, you are not going to get heard or make a change playing by their rules.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 


Anarchy is total lawlessness. Which basically means you can do what you want to whoever you want. If you are penalized for your actions, you will be punished by vigilantes and not law enforcement. No laws=no law enforcement.

A prime example of anarchy run wild is what we now have in Somalia. However, anarchy in Somalia has resulted in a power transfer to the gangs and warlords who enforce their authority as they see fit.

A double edged sword indeed!!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Luminaught
 


Where the protesters got arrested (Cathedral yard) and where the protesters started (Shenley) was not the same place. If the protests really wanted to leave they would not have been arrested over a block away.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 



Protesters abiding by enforced rules who's voices do not get heard. They were not even permitted to go anywhere near the convention centre itself, and why not, you yourself said that these people were not violent, they are told where and when they can go, fully controlled, with no voice.


I disagree, I think that the protesters that did abide by the rules are much more respectable than those who decided that violence and disorder was preferable.

Protests do work, if one does them correctly. The TEA party protests for example were a great success in my opinion. They got the country talking. They got people thinking. THAT is the point of a peaceful protest. I can guarantee that the TEA party protests were much more influential than you give them credit for, and it was done with no violence whatsoever.


Passion and frustration, as I have said previously, you are not going to get heard or make a change playing by their rules.


It's probably inevitable at this point that there will be another civil war in this country. It's sad to know that it's coming. The people that live in the past versus the people that are striving for tomorrow.

The beef these people have with the G-20 as one of the more enlightened protesters put it was that they disagree with global governance by the minority. What they were supposed to be protesting peaceably was the minority of the wealthiest countries in the world to dictate the economic policy for the entire planet. If they had remained peaceful I could understand their point of view, I could even agree with it.

It is after all inevitable that mankind will someday have a one world government. Which should be by the people and for the people. It's our birthright as a species. It's what we naturally strive for. I just don't want people who would rather have the dark ages destroy what could be the single greatest achievement in history. This is why it's so important to keep these protests civil. People should reject violence. They should also reject a government by the few and for the few. The world belongs to all of us.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It is said in the comments on YouTube that some of these people were throwing rocks and sticks at the cops all day. If this is true the cops were provoked into action. We are only getting one side of this story and cannot see the whole truth.


It is not at all uncommon for the NWO agents to insert themselves into peaceful protests and use violence - they often wear masks so they cannot be identified - this tactic allows them to get video footage to put on TV to make the proestors look bad - it also gives them an excuse to use excessive force.

If you want a black and white answer it is this - peaceful demonstrations will not suffice - people need to assemble in force and fully armed with automatic weapons.

That will ensure that the police will not try anything - a few hundred thousand people with guns is not something the police have any chance against - and those kind of numbers are required.

The police in this Pittsburg thing were quite possibly hired from third world regions - don't expect that these thugs are Americans.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join