Anti-war protesters arrested near White House

reply to post by routerboy

Well said Benevolent Heretic. It is not really my job to find the evidence for claims someone else makes. I did a perfunctory search of a half-dozen articles. None mentioned violence. Any evidence to support YOUR claim?


reply to post by CaDreamer


I think this an issue that many people cannot wrap their mind around. The idea that violence can serve a beneficial purpose. It has been indoctrinated into us that only states can legitimately use violence. What? The state that murders thousands of innocent people, uses violence to confiscate wealth illegally, and regularly ignores all national and international law has the moral right to use violence? If I fight with a police officer dispersing a peaceful assembly with tear gas I am a criminal? Does that not strike anyone else as strange? Anyone ever wondered why we believe that only states have a legitimate use of force, and who benefits from propagating that myth?

Soon Obama will start bombing us, but it will be justified because we are all terrorist.

We're on topic.

You said the people arrested were behaving violently. I've given links for the 2 articles I read on the subject which mentioned no violence, only peaceful demonstration with a refusal to move away. Where are you getting your info re violence? 'Any decent broadsheet', doesn't really cut it - be specific please, because I want to know the truth.

if violence to protest an unjust govt or a govt that represses its people or ignores their will then we have no need for our second amendment.

our founding fathers saw the need of it, or the threat of it at least, to keep the govt doing the will of the people.
a threat never used is an empty one and has no power to convince. as the nuclear threat would have no meaning if not for the horrible events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Originally posted by routerboy
You'll find that what the OP failed to mention is that many of the protesters arrested were VIOLENT. Therefore it is null and void whether they were protesters or not, or whether this was at the Whitehouse or not - if you are violent in public you have every right to be arrested.

Ok, and what if you are violent in public and on public with, say, bombs or som'n? Is that not sort of like "violent protester times a nation?"

Note: I really doubt the protesters went out pickin a fight in front of the White House. I'm sure the charge materialized during the drag-em off part.

reply to post by stephinrazin


Your reply to CaDreamer deserves to be publicated in newspapers...

Peaceful protesters, who have a right to protest, being confronted by goons in plated armour and tear gas, being physically pushed and beaten by billy clubs... yet the protesters are in the wrong??! The regimes in the East are not too different than those in our own backyards and it's crystal clear yet nobody does anything?

What IF there was serious confrontation?! Would police shoot at protesters if there were tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of you taking to the streets calling for Obama to step down?

i completely agree with stephinrazin post as well. good to hear...

reply to post by Nastradamus


You may very well have hit the nail on the head, Nastradamus... because maybe all of this is really TPTB saying, "Nooo... no, don't take us down. We know you know we're crooked-- and we're pitifully outnumbered. But WAIT... Look what will happen. Bombs go BOOM!"

reply to post by new_here


Notice how violence begins to breakout in protesters when "police" and "officials" tell protesters to go away, and when they don't listen it's the police who make first moves to physically start moving crowds. Now tell me, if peaceful protesters are treated like this, what will happen when the time comes that the knock on the door can no longer be ignored by TPTB?

Would your own government authorize the police to fire into the crowds?! Oh wait, that's right... flashbacks to the L.A. riots... LOL

edit ---

it's my firm belief that all those troops that were called into L.A. at the time, if these riots were happening right by the white house would have been ordered to shoot at the crowd to disperse them. There's no way in hell they would allow the violence to breakout to that point so close to home, IMO of course...

i would say that in some instances the police are the reason some protests become violent. so isnt the state at fault really in those instances?
causing a bigger problem then using that as an excuse for arrests and violence of their own?!!!

Did that bloke who released the pentagon papers get arrested about a couple of months ago outside the white house as well? I can remember he was involved with some protest there. If he keeps this up he may even get enough support to run for politics. Everybody knows that government is run by crooks so he should fit in fine being arrested a few times.

Originally posted by routerboy
You'll find that what the OP failed to mention is that many of the protesters arrested were VIOLENT. Therefore it is null and void whether they were protesters or not, or whether this was at the Whitehouse or not - if you are violent in public you have every right to be arrested.

The reason the OP failed to mention that many of the protesters arrested were violent is because the OP would have been lying to make a statement like that.
The article doesn`t mention anything about protesters being arrested for violence :
"The majority were cooperative," said U.S. Park Police spokesman David Schlosser.

That`s a statement from one of the protests.
I`m sure you just read a line or two and then try to debunk threads here and there.

Originally posted by stephinrazin

reply to post by routerboy

 

Where is there any evidence they were violent? Your post sounds like pure propaganda. Maybe I am wrong. I have never used the T word in a post because it is thrown around so much, but it may be appropriate. You seem to claim that opposition protesters are violent with no proof. Using your assumption you justify the use of imprisonment, and arrest of protesters. It appears that you are only propagating the notion that all dissent is justifiably subject to the full force of the state.

Don't worry he's a disinfo agent doing his job. You know disinfo,parroting,deflection and all.

Routerboy, you arent the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

Wheres it mention "violence"? You havent even read the article have you??

SIGH

Well I know one thing our founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms not for hunting or home defence but to keep out gov. honest...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by stephinrazin


Amen
Second Line

The irony is stunning.

If this happened in iran, it would be splashed all over the news as an example of how people wanted "regime change" but in the US it's just a few nuts.

Hypocrisy much?