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.


"Tanks" Dispel Anti-War Protest in USA

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I posted this 2-3 days ago in "Civil War Watch"
Right now, US is on a brink of a civil war. It is a dangerous place to live in, and this tank is only a tip of an iceberg. There is a lot more to come.

Here is the link again to the video:

Hi Indigo Child - sorry - your first post wasn't up when I last responded.

I first read about the 'Tanks at the US Protest' in your post - thanks, and lots of credit to you.

...The LA Times reported the story on November 12 but I only found their article today. I agree, it's an important story and that's why I submitted it to ATSNN after it was verified.

The two best stories for the military tanks being at protest are:

1) There was a Remembrance Day event the next day at that very location, and the tanks came early to set up;

2) The troops were actually going somewhere else, but they got lost and had to stop and ask the protestors for directions.

AND .... there was evidence of WMDs; OR the check's in the mail.

The discussion on your thread is just great - keep it going please!


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:10 AM
check out the pictures of marines with their helmets off point in different directions talking to folks

i don't think if they were responding to a 'threat' they would take their helmets off now would they...or be leaning over talking to people... just media that the libs love to get their hands on so they can twist...

this just makes them look worse...too bad for up for us

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:24 AM

A reader emailed me to point out that the protestors were NOT "enraged" but actually fairly cool, saying things like "Why don't you go home?" Also, some people think it's important to emphasize that the protestors did not back down from the tanks but converged on them - this resulted in the protestors blocking the tanks forward movement.

Several different stories continue to circulate explaining why US military tanks coincidentally appeared at a peaceful American protest - ALL have been verified by interview and eyewitness accounts. The current favorite is the one about getting lost by taking the wrong freeway exit. The original cover is still holding strong, claiming that the tanks came early for a scheduled Remembrance Day event (this story was later modified to say the event was planned for the next day, November 10).


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:18 AM
I swear if you take a good look at the embedded pic in the other thread, it looks like MASter Chief from HALO 2. They were releasing it at Midnight that night, was this part of a promotion??? Everyone I have shown the pic to says the same thing....

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by esdad71

I swear if you take a good look at the embedded pic in the other thread, it looks like MASter Chief from HALO 2. They were releasing it at Midnight that night, was this part of a promotion???

What other thread? What pic?

The video linked here is real and not part of a promotion.


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:59 PM

I saw the video, and the sound also doesn't seem to match either. I am not doubting the fact that our goverment would not send troops into the streets, but only after a nuclear or bio attack. This was as described above as a Nat'l Guard incident, or it was for the release of Halo 2.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:17 PM
Thankfully, this incident does appear to be a coincidence. I'm just thankful the soldiers had cool heads when people started to get nasty.

President Bush will not tolerate criticism, peaceful or otherwise.

That statement, however, is extremely evidenced by seeing soccer moms with zip wire handcuffs during many Bush appearances, being detained for nothing more than verbal protest.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Thankfully, this incident does appear to be a coincidence.

True - there are several different conflicting stories that say it was a coincidence, and at least 2 have been "verified."

Looks like a clear message to me.


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:01 PM
It totally blows my mind how loonies take such a situation and blow it our of proper size and context.

The Jarheads were LOST!! They weren't there to dispell anything.

They'd better be glad they weren't caught by LAPD for having that machine in an area designated for no trucks; they'd have been ticketed!

I'm sure there was a logical explanation, like a L-T with the map and compass.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:42 PM
IF you have dish 500 on channel 9415 there is a channel called free speech TV. They have Indymedia newsreal on from time to time which is liberal propaganda. From what I observed before i turned it off in disgust i saw nuclear weopons exploding with music in the back round but what happened next offended me greatly. They had music playing in the backround while they showed footage of U.S soldeirs getting shot at normandy while flickering pictures of George W. Bush and children.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by bushfriend
George W. Bush and children.

Speaking of being offended - check this out:

Bush Administration Poised to Legalize Human Testing
EPA Stalls Infant Pesticide Dosing Study
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

Children face higher risks from pesticide poisoning
From Food and Organization of the United Nations


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:05 PM
It does appear Indy is going toward an extremist position. That puts all their reporting as suspect. Personally, I never read the site. I may be anti-war but the whole activist thing smells of self-importance when in fact nothing is done except people chanting. If I wanted to be hypnotized by chanting I'd go to church.

There is one other coincidence I didn't see posted. The cops showed up at the exact same time as the tanks.

But I'm not leaning either way. I wouldn't put it past them to bring in tanks for a show of force. But, there is also the possibility that it was innocent.

Edit: I do have to ask though, why would the local police stations (over the past year) start receiving these APCs or whatever they got? What exactly do they need them for? And if they are going to use them to root out terror cells then publicise that fact. Show us some action of taking out a terror cell in Witchita or something. Throw us a damn bone here.

[edit on 11-15-2004 by ShadowHasNoSource]

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:08 PM
1. Quote IndyMedia

2. Quote Ramsey Clark

3. Tie George W. Bush into every story

Well done!

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:50 PM

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction.

Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change
Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Majic

How to lose credibility in 3 easy steps:

1. Quote IndyMedia

2. Quote Ramsey Clark

3. Tie George W. Bush into every story

Well done!

Thank you. 1. Indymedia broke the story and the LA Times verified it. 2. Whatever Ramsey Clark's weaknesses, his call for impeachment is valid.

3. Bush is tied into every story because - he's the Commander-in-Chief and the buck stops with him - he's turned his back on ordinary Americans - dissed three major crises - and he's about to cement the NWO under international law. This concerns me. Big time.

Three long identified “problems” escalated to crisis proportions under Bush’s watch, partly because of his actions. These crises have the potential to destroy the nation. Not one of these three real and present crises are related to terrorism:

1 – Water Security – most water available in the USA is dangerously contaminated and the nation is facing a fresh water shortage that soon will affect the food supply.

2 – Disease – the USA is rife with infectious epidemics that are mutating and spiralling out of control, causing cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease and more. Bird flu is just another opportunity to accelerate the ‘depopulation program.’

3 – Climate Change – all of the effects were and are predictable, from drought that’s speeding fresh water depletion and affecting food production to super storms that are levelling whole areas.

Instead of tackling these emergencies to benefit ordinary Americans, Bush chose to manipulate the crises as opportunities to dismantle democracy. He's establishing a multinational corporate regime in the USA, and levering a continental corporate merger for North America.

Bush policies minimize the crises and hide them from public view. He suppresses the facts and information using Nazi mass manipulation tactics and Communist mind control techniques. ...When he gets called on his games, he just denies, makes excuses and demands support in the name of the nation.

Bush analysis says that overpopulation created all these crises. In fact, multinational corporate industrial activity is responsible for the crises' origins and acceleration. But hey, a simple analysis leads to simpler solutions.

The Bush solution calls for depopulating the USA. Bush policies allow disease to spread when it could be prevented, and withholding treatment when it could be cured. The bird flu vaccine fiasco is only the tip of the iceberg. When the epidemics are so obvious they can’t be denied any longer, Bush simply will blame “the bio-terrorists.”

The true importance of the “Terrorist Threat” is that it distracts the American people’s attention from the real crises, and from Bush’s solutions and agenda.

By the end of this term, Bush will have “depopulated” the USA; dismantled the Constitution, civil rights and democracy; and brokered a Continental Corporate Merger to legally cement the New World Order under international law.

Bush is pushing the CCM as a necessary competitive response to the EU – but the legal terms being pursued for NAFTA, CAFTA and the Northern Hemispheric “Free Trade” agreements are substantially and qualitatively different, and go well beyond what anyone else is willing to accept.

Moreover, the same multinational corporate players are behind both the EU and the Bush-brokered CCM. But the big boys are getting from Bush America what they will NEVER get from European democracy.

Thankfully, South and Central America are putting up a good fight too. Only the USA, Canada and Mexico are getting suckered this time around.


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:43 AM
soficrow, I suppose I should explain myself.


Originally posted by Majic
1. Quote IndyMedia

I lived in Seattle during the WTO riots. I saw a lot of what happened firsthand, and involuntarily sniffed more than my fair share of CS gas, because I worked downtown, and work was not optional for me.

The About Indymedia webpage -- from their site -- spells out part of my history with them and why I don't trust them.

It is because they lie and publish false propaganda, most likely on behalf of some outfit that plays young people for fools and uses them as weapons for political and commercial causes, as so many people were used in Seattle.

You are, of course, free to accuse me of slandering IndyMedia's allegedly good name, but you will never get me to believe them instead of what I witnessed personally. They are agenda-driven propagandists and liars, and quoting them is no better than quoting anyone else engaged in yellow journalism.

At least, that's my opinion, based on my personal experiences.

Ramsey Clark

Originally posted by Majic
2. Quote Ramsey Clark

If you know who this guy is, and support his work, we will never see eye to eye. I did extensive research on him during the ’90s, trying to figure out what his angle is.

Ramsey Clark did some extremely cool things during the ’60s, especially with regards to the Civil Rights Movement. His record with that buys a lot of respect from me.

However, he pissed it away after that, getting more and more bizarre, holding mock trials convicting U.S. officials of war crimes in New York, hooking up with Lyndon LaRouche, and finally joining forces with the Worker’s World Party and A.N.S.W.E.R., which are purveyors of the most cynical of lies and deceit.

Knowing what I know about the man, I cannot trust Ramsey Clark at all. While he did some great things in the past, his current activities are founded on the worst forms of deception and treachery.

George W. Bush

Originally posted by Majic
3. Tie George W. Bush into every story

George W. Bush is not behind every tree, rock or... bush. He didn't cause the Great Potato Famine, nor did he crucify Jesus. He's just a politically savvy guy who got to be president, twice.

Just so we're clear about where I stand on this, I don't trust him any more than I trust any politician, which is not at all. However, I'm also pretty sure he's not the anti-Christ.

Yes, Bush has some shady connections, but guess what? There’s not a single Democrat or Republican that’s not in on the same gig, one way or another. Unless you play ball, you don’t get elected. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

People don’t get elected without campaign money. And people don’t get campaign money unless they have friends with money. That’s the political bottom line in a nutshell.

The Democrats bagging on Bush are mainly bagging on him because he’s making more money for Republicans than Democrats. Clinton made more money for Democrats than Republicans, and on it goes, stretching back to the origins of each party and the murky origins of partisan politics themselves.

In my opinion, George W. Bush is probably the most dangerous man alive, not because he’s in league with the Devil, the Omega Agency or Zeta Reticuloids, but because he is a True Believer -- an extremely rare and portentous form of politician. And in a sign of just how dangerous the times we live in are, I voted for him.

Posting lies about Bush does nothing more than conceal the truth about him in a sea of distortions. Professional perception managers do this all the time -- it’s called “jamming”. If something leaks into the public arena that they want to draw attention from or discredit, they will leak all sorts of parallel but false rumors, thus discrediting the truth along with the lies.

It’s bad enough that the professionals do it, it’s far worse when amateurs pick up on it and do their work for them. On ATS, it can be hard to tell them apart. Ironically, those who bash Bush on false charges do him a great service by obscuring those things he really deserves scrutiny for.

But I Really Am Sorry About That Nasty Post

Anyway, I am truly sorry for posting what amounted to a sarcastic, ad hominem attack on you. That post seems a lot more bitter than I intended, and I intended it to be bitter. That was wrong, and the shame for doing that is mine.

However, no apology of mine can improve your credibility with those of us who know where your opinions originate from. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.

[edit on 11/17/2004 by Majic]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:28 AM
I live right around the corner from the location. That exit and subsequent errors are easy to make, especially in heavy traffic while the sun is down. LA is bad when it comes to street signs and the exit onto Wilshire is a bitch even in light traffic as you are fighting a whole bunch of cars/vehicles trying to get off at the two exits that are connected - first one is East, second one is West.

In addition - every protest seems to want to go the Federal Building here in LA at Wilshire and Veteran and they like to do it at evening rush hour so no surprise there. Go figure - they think there are people that matter in this building - it's where you go to get a new passport or talk to the IRS - all mid level bureaucrats so there is nothing to be had by protesting here other than f*ing up my rights and traffic. These protesters infringe on my rights by f*ing up traffic in my hood and then say the Marines in Camp Pendleton sent some Strikers to be there at the exact time they are protesting. Hah - LA traffic from Camp P to LA can be a 2 to 4 hour drive depending on traffic and if the guy saying they came up early for an event the next day is correct then this is complete bunk. There is no way to time an arrival via the LA freeways as traffic is too fickle and the LAPD would be there anyway if it was ugly and we have umpteen news choppers in the air at that hour to capture anything anyway - read Rodney King or OJ and you realize that anything going down in LA is on the news live for all of us to see.

The armory is on Federal and between Ohio and Wilshire and they often have mil units coming in and out of there. Ooo - the Blackhawks that land and takeoff from there are here to take us civies out - right?? No - they buzz my apartment on occasion but they are close and have no different flight profile than any other chopper here on the Westside (yo 310'ers!!).

The Striker unit was lost and ended up at the same location as a protest as it's right around the corner from where they were supposed to be. It’s LA people – protests are not announced to keep the LAPD away and there is no way a couple of Strikers could time their arrival in LA from Camp P anyway. Nice try to link them but no no – nothing to claim here. The LAPD has major firepower including light armor and would be there in an instant if there was something going down – besides it's in their jurisdiction anyway….


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Majic

I'm sorry
soficrow, I suppose I should explain myself.

Majic - No problem, and thanks a lot for taking the time for explain your views and share your background information.

Re: Indymedia. ...I don't rely on their stuff. If I can verify it - I read between all the lines, everywhere. I found the LA Times coverage of the 'event' provocative and revealing. ...especially their headline, "Military's Presence at Antiwar Rally Is Called a Coincidence."

...So, I credited Indymedia for breaking the story, but did NOT rely on their coverage. I used their link because a) that's where the video was, and b) the LA Times is a subscription paper so their link was useless here. All journalistically responsible and appropriate.

Re: Ramsey Clark. ...Thanks for the info, will bear it in mind. ...But it was the call for impeachment I wanted to reference as an alternative to civil war and riot in the streets. There are several lawsuits against Bush on the books - that one was handy - I had just read it here on ats so I grabbed it and copied it. It was conveniently available and it illustrated my point. That's all.

Again, my point was and is - please, use the democratic process. That's why we have it.

Re: Bush

...My analysis is:

1. Bush is a puppet for several of the world's ruling financiers;

2. Bush is brokering a legal merger between the US government and select multinational corporations to benefit these financiers, and sacrificing democracy and ordinary Americans in the process;

3. The national/corporate merger will be cemented in stone under international law as a Continental Corporate Merger when they super-size NAFTA;

4. This CCM is a fallback position because nothing else played - not the global move through the WTO and GATT; not the Northern Hemisphere Free Trade ploy; and not CAFTA. Bush is pitching the CCM as a necessary competitive response to the EU - but we're actually getting a Trojan horse that no one else was stupid enough to buy;

5. I do not believe Bush is a real Christian - it looks to me like a politically profitable association, just for the votes, and he blows off Christian values for cash;

6. As I've stated before here on ats - I also believe Kerry is a puppet of the same masters, and that he would have been responsible to implement the same agenda. Granted, he might have moved more slowly and maybe with a bit more respect for the democratic process, but he would have done his part sooner or later.

Re: your statement

"those of us who know where your opinions originate from."


Majic - you have NO idea "where my opinions originate from" - because you don't who I am or where I come from. FYI - I am a truly original thinker, something corporate minions never recognize because they assume that people like me don't exist.

My opinions come from my own process - of living, thinking critically and observing. I am extremely fortunate. I have time to reflect, and to learn.

I do make mistakes - but they are my own mistakes. I am nobody's messenger. Granted, I occasionally may play the unwitting pawn, but it won't last for long. I am really smart, yet humbly arrogant - a wildcard, and a loose canon. I am absolutely NOT the kind of person ANY institution is ready to embrace. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Re: My take on the military's presence at a peaceful rally

This is for you too, UofCinLA.

My research revealed that several stories were released to "explain" the situation - a dead giveaway of un-coordinated incompetent damage control.

The first story said that the tanks were there to 'set up early' for an event scheduled for Remembrance Day, at that exact location. This story later was modified to say that the event was actually for the next day, November10. ...The story didn't play so it was dropped but it's still floating around.

The now favorite story came out later - saying the soldiers got lost. Most versions are full of exquisite detail describing the complexity of LA freeways, and come complete with 'personal testimonies' just like the first story - and like all the other explanations dancing around on the Net.

For the record - I grew up on a farm and I know horse# when I smell it.

So Majic, UofCinLa and everyone - you can buy whatever spin you want. Hold your nose, wear blinders, whatever makes you comfortable.

Me, I do my own thinking. And I think this country is in deep doodoo. Time to get out the shovels, get to work and clean up the mess.


posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:53 AM

This is one of my first articles to make ATSNN - and one of my first experiences with an all out diversionary troll attack masquerading as a "debunking critique." Quite educational.

The facts were simple - 2 tanks showed up at a peaceful protest in Los Angeles county - it was just an intimidation tactic, a show of force with no real action - but there was a public outcry anyway - the various agencies and authorities involved did not coordinate their response and cover up stories - they all released different, contradictory "explanations" of why the tanks were there. Ooops.

Then, the censorship wall went up and no one was allowed to discuss what happened. Not here or anywhere. The trolls here at ATS completely blocked discussion and further investigation - by repeatedly attacking the "credibility" of the sources, the interpretation of events, my "political motives" as a writer - in short, they used every tactic in the communications manipulation manual to prevent public scrutiny of the "tank event."

It was the usual strategy, "Incident? What incident? Nothing happened. And if it did, there was a good explanation. Move along now. Just another nutbar conspiracy theory." ...The incident was buried and no one ever had to answer the question, "Who gave the order?"

At the time, I thought it was just the Patriot Act in action, and maybe a product of NAFTA harmonization. I didn't know about NORTHCOM.

Researching NORTHCOM recently, I found the following document.

RE: NORTHCOM Military Support to Civil Authorities:

"In the area of law enforcement... On one occasion state authorities requested military assistance during civil disturbances in Los Angeles County."

So here's the update. The scoop on what's really happening, how it all works together - and why our governments don't want anyone to know what's going on behind the scenes.

In the USA, the Patriot Act works in concert with NAFTA and NORTHCOM. NAFTA and NORTHCOM are "continental" plans - and create a kind of "over-government" that applies to all of North America. The Patriot Act is the "open door" allowing the security component of these plans to be implemented in the USA.

Patriot Act II

NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement. In its original form, this agreement broke through the traditional boundaries and redefined 'trade' - for the first time, information and services were defined as trade items and controlled by trade laws created and written by international corporations. By NAFTA's terms, our governments must negotiate directly with corporations, and the corporations are calling the shots.

NAFTA is about to be expanded - the expansion was scheduled as part of the original agreement. The original NAFTA agreement demanded a "harmonization" of laws and regulation in the USA, Canada and Mexico - meaning that each country's laws had to be modified and made the same so as not to interfere with business or cut into profits. For example, immigration and security will be defined as trade items under the new NAFTA. The final harmonization deadline is coming up.

Before the "leftist takeover" of South America, NAFTA's architects were planning to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and expand NAFTA over the whole northern hemisphere. Now the focus is on North America and finalizing the last stages of all the agreements, negotiations and plans.

"Combining these two powers into one agreement will give unequalled new rights to the transnational corporations of the hemisphere to compete for and even challenge every publicly funded service of its governments, including health care, education, social security, culture and environmental protection."

NAFTA, GATTS and the Free Trade Area of the Americas

Also see: North American Security and Prosperity

Security v/s Sovereignty: The Evolution of Public Opinion After 9/11 (pdf)


A Blueprint for NAFTA (pdf)

The Tug-of-War: The Sovereignty/Security Dilemma (pdf)

NORTHCOM is the US military command for North America. In the event of any national emergency - like an epidemic or terrorist attack - NORTHCOM will assume military command over all US agencies like FEMA and the FBI, plus civil authorities and policing. Under emergency conditions, NORTHCOM's first priority likely will be to ensure NAFTA's continued smooth functioning - to protect international corporations operating in North America.

NORTHCOM. U.S. Northern Command – new combatant command assigned to defend the United States and support military assistance to civil authorities.


"On April 17, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the formation of the Northern Command, or NorthCom...

Secretary Rumsfeld stated that NorthCom will "…help the department better deal with natural disasters, attacks on U.S. soil, or other civil difficulties. It will provide for a more coordinated military support to civil authorities such as FBI, FEMA and state and local governments." "

The Patriot Act "harmonizes" US civil liberties downward to be in line with Mexico's. (Canada has her own problems.)

The public rationale for establishing a military police state in North America is "combating the terrorist threat" - and/or dealing with "natural disasters" and "other civil difficulties." Basically, they've covered all the angles.

The current scare-monerging with its focus on international terrorism is a standard diversionary tactic designed to keep America's eyes off the home front. The added benefit is that "the terrorist threat" also can serve as a publicly acceptable reason to implement military command over civil authorities, and establish a police state in the USA.

...It was ridiculously unconscionable to send tanks to this little peaceful demonstration in LAcounty. But in the words of a famous American, "You ain't seen nothin yet."

[edit on 3-3-2005 by soficrow]

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:03 AM
Debunked Already

Sorry Soficrow, this has been debunked. There was a parade the next day and they got off at the wrong exit.

And they weren't tanks they were APCs

I read the Indy media falsehoods months ago

Way Below Above Top Secret

[edit on 3-3-2005 by 00PS]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in