Occupy Wall Street Protests Spread To Europe, Asia

juggjugg Regular
edited October 2011 in Spurious Generalities
Maybe something is stating after all...


ROME -- Italian riot police fired tear gas and water cannons Saturday in Rome as violent protesters hijacked a peaceful demonstration against corporate greed, smashing bank windows, torching cars and hurling bottles.
Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands nicknamed "the indignant" marched without incident in cities across Europe, as the "Occupy Wall Street" protests linked up with long-running demonstrations against European governments' austerity measures.

SOURCE


<a href="
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-protests-europe-asia_n_1012336.html&quot; target="_blank">

Comments

  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    If this keeps growing it could get real ugly real fast. I am talking about martial law and that will be the end of the republic.
  • LSA KingLSA King Regular
    edited October 2011
    Until those protesters starting rioting in America, it will go nowhere fast here at least.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    Let's pray they stay peaceful...
  • StephenPBarrettStephenPBarrett Adviser
    edited October 2011
    I am anxious and waiting with based breath for the shit to hit the fan. This is an exciting time to be living in. It may become a dangerous time for free thinkers. It we going to happen eventually, why not push it along a little so we can go aheqd and get it over with? Don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the nwo but the sooner we deal with It the better.
  • LSA KingLSA King Regular
    edited October 2011
    Let's pray they stay peaceful...


    Peace isn't going to fix those problems though, both of us and even the establishment knows that. Violence will ultimately come, it's the only logical conclusion when dealing with such massive corruption. We can bury our heads in the sand while we can and send out a "peaceful" message, but it's criminal for us to pretend the inevitable.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited October 2011
    Looking round my room I have enough stuff to last a good few weeks. Apocalypse now! But Europeans (especially Greeks and French) have no problem sticking it to The Man. I'm glad America has so far stayed largely peaceful as, although you all can have access to weapons, you made the right decision to not use them.

    Now where did that iMac and hipster pair of glasses go? :p
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    LSA King wrote: »
    Peace isn't going to fix those problems though, both of us and even the establishment knows that. Violence will ultimately come, it's the only logical conclusion when dealing with such massive corruption. We can bury our heads in the sand while we can and send out a "peaceful" message, but it's criminal for us to pretend the inevitable.

    Do you really think that a mob of even 100,000 people stand a chance against shit like;

    or

    or






    No, of course not. If it gets violent thousands will die, martial law will be declared, and whatever freedom we have left will be squelched. If you want to change things vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and again in November 2012.
  • jehsiboijehsiboi Kanga Rump Ranga
    edited October 2011
    Peaceful protests are popping up all over Australia ... The NSW police tried to stop the Sydney one ... Haven't looked into the reports much but I believe they are standing strong ... Bag out the guys on wall St all you want but they have started something ... Which is more than you can say about most people ... Maybe they needed to be ridiculed to gain so much media attention ... If it was serious and organized from the start do you really think they wouldn't of shut it down straight away before it got so big
  • (nameless one)(nameless one) Regular
    edited October 2011
    I can't take them seriously. In the Toronto one, half of the crowd is on their iPhones and Blackberries Twittering how they're done giving in to the big corporations. Some of them even walking in and out of fast food places for food.

    I think all these occupy protests aren't really helpful if they're already defeating their own cause.

    I say the best way to beat these corporations is to be self sufficient like the Amish. I mean they don't need these corporations and the corporations don't gain anything from them.
  • SlartibartfastSlartibartfast Global Moderator -__-
    edited October 2011
    Our occupy Sydney fell flat on its ass.
    After a full day of champagne socialists trying their best to trick people into thinking the protests have attracted a large crowd - with carefully planned out photos (with the most flattering angles) - They finally admitted that they probably won't continue as "we don't have it as bad here".

    One of them had a sign saying "YOU CANT EAT MONEY". :facepalm: :facepalm:

    It's a damn shame the left has been reduced to this kind of crap, the left has a lot to offer but it's been bogged down by brain-dead morons, with no pragmatic sense.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    I am curious Slarti, what do you see the left having to offer?
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited October 2011
    The Canon of St Pauls Cathedral is pretty chill with the protesters as can be seen here.


    Well, until it gets bigger (assuming it does). Also got to love the "Anonymous UK" members which amount to about...5 in one of the videos. Bloody V for Fendetta masks. I really do hope Ron Paul gets elected, and if he doesn't then I fear I may turn into a shadow of Hunter S Thompson when Nixon was elected.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited October 2011
    Damn, son!
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    ^Fucking A, this is the problem that the powers that be are going to face with increasing frequency should they continue to trample on the Constitutional right of the people to peaceably assemble. The average U.S. soldier is not going to stand for it and if they give the military orders to trample these rights they could very well face a reverse military coup that restores this nation to it's foundation as a Constitutional Republic and away from the Social Democracy they have unlawfully crafted it into.

    My hat is off to this brave and honorable veteran.
  • RemadERemadE Global Moderator
    edited October 2011
    It has to be said, the tipping point of any, and I'm not jumping the gun here, but "revolution" is when the Military get involved. He's a one man army in the way of going public but I am sure there are many hundreds if not thousands of Veterans who feel the same. Even here in the UK where thousands are being made redundant, I have a feeling things will begin to brew up.
  • chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
    edited October 2011
    OK here's a point of view I've not seen talked about on forums. It's my own so I fully expect to be shot down in flames for it, I will stand corrected if anyone can reasonably debate against it.

    Any sort of public gathering will attract people with extreme points of view. And always a few hot heads who will cause trouble. This we know. The whole point of the occupy wall st movement is to deliver a message to the government. There are mixed views as to what this message is, but at the end of the day, they are all messages to the government. Now this is where I diverge from what I've seen and heard discussed before. The police are there to do a job. That job is to serve and protect the public. We've all seen what happens when a demonstration is out of the control of the police in the recent riots on London. That started off as a peaceful demonstration. It grew exponentially, out of control and chaos ensued. The demonstrations around the USA have on the whole been peaceful. The only examples of any trouble I have seen are where demonstrators occupy places they should not be ie in the middle of the street, and the police, for the safety of the public move them back onto the sidewalk. Instead of complying, the demonstrators start venting their anger against the police. Now bear in mind their beef is with the government, and not the officers that are there to prevent the escalation of the demonstration into a riot.
    I'm not trying to paint the police lilly white, far from it. There are examples of extreme behaviour that need addressing. But the fact remains that if as is claimed, this is meant to be a peaceful protest, then the police should not be alienated as the bad guys in this for doing their job in making sure it stays peaceful and safe for the people taking part. I've not seen any mass charges by the police on demonstrators, no mass arrests, no water cannons, no rubber bullets. Just the odd single arrest of the occasional hot head that overstepped the mark. I watch these video's of police brutality, but without the context of the preceding minutes you have no idea what provocation or warnings were given. Given the number of protesters taking part over the weeks this has been going on, I think the number of violent incidents is quite low taking into account the number of hot heads these things attract.

    OK that's my two penneth worth.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    Chippy I would point to the video posted by remade in this post as just cause to be angry with the police. Now granted there was no violence filmed by any parties in this clip. But, the very fact that the police were ordering people on the sidewalk to move elsewhere is just cause in this nation for righteous anger.
    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


    The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" in the First Amendment. None of these folks in this video are being anything but peaceful. Even the veteran who is venting at the police for alleged earlier atrocities on their part is doing so in a peaceful albeit passionate fashion. And yet the police are ordering people to move along effectively violating the peoples right to peacefully assemble and petition for a governmental redress of grievances.

    As a veteran who swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic I can tell you my blood boiled when I saw that police captain/lieutenant barking orders through his bullhorn at the people to move along who were doing nothing other than standing on a public sidewalk filming the events. The very fact that they were filming also violated another tenant of our first amendment which guarantees freedom of the press. The press is not defined by the constitution as some huge corporate concern with cameras and massive release channels. Much like back when the constitution was framed when the press was anyone with a quill or a hand-pulled press today the press is, thanks to technology, anyone with a cellphone camera or digital camcorder. The internet has become the new grassroots for reporting information observed by those with the desire to share that information and their opinion surrounding a given event with all who would listen. So clearly in the example I am citing the police violated at least tow major tenants of the 1st amendment.

    By ordering, under the color of law, the veteran who was so outspoken in this clip to move along they violated a third tenant of the 1st amendment, they abridged his right to freedom of speech. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He just served 14 months in a foreign war zone in an action which he viewed as protecting the people of the Untied States. Now you and I both know that is not the true reason NATO troops are in Iraq but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of my argument. The fact is this man, this veteran, swore an oath to uphold and defend his constitution, a document which is sacred to most veterans and active duty personnel, a document which they are willing or have been willing to lay down their lives on foreign soil to protect, only to return home to find it being shat upon by the police (who swear a very similar oath in this nation) in his own home town.

    I am 50 years old and a veteran and even though I served in a time of peace had I been standing in the crowd during the filming of that event I would stood right beside that young man in righteous anger against those who had sworn to protect something which they were shitting all over. The police mentality exhibited in this video is what causes more problems at protests like this than the mindset of the crowd. If the peoples rights are attacked by the very power that has sworn to serve and protect the rights of the people the people will eventually be left with no recourse other than to overthrow those powers by any and means at their disposal and justly so according to the mindset of the men who framed the constitution as evidenced by the following excerpt from our Declaration of Independence.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

    Now clearly, taken in the context of the current events at the time of the penning and signing of this document this was a reference to the treatment of the colonists by the crown of England at that time. But when viewed in the context of the limitations placed upon the federal government of the Untied States of America when the final draft of the U.S. Constitution was penned on 17SEP1787 and ratified by the last state on 29MAY1790 it was clearly with the same mind set that wished to institute a new guard for their future security. In this nation we have the right to to throw off the government should it evidence itself through a long train of abuses to be unjust and untrue to the highest law in the land, the U.S. Constitution.

    I hold forth that were the police powers true to their oath of office in situations like this the frustration of the people who rights have been usurped by a long train of abuses by the powers that be for nigh on 100 years or longer would not give them just cause to express righteous anger in public. If the average "man in blue" were to stop fearing for his job and therefore blindly following the orders of superiors who are doing the same but rather thought for themselves and stayed true to their oath of office there were be little or no violence at protests such as this.
  • chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
    edited October 2011
    At last, after several hours of sometimes quite intense discussion on team speak, we find something we can disagree on. Well actually I say disagree, but in actuality, as you know I agree with the majority of your above post. But the point I was wanting to bring to the discussion was, that although the constitution gives 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' no where in the constitution does it say they have the right to do it at the risk of their lives and the lives of others. Already several protesters have been knocked down by traffic. And what about the rights of the individuals who live in the area and run businesses there. The area the vet decided to make a stand was if you notice in an area where the sidewalk was quite narrow. He was obviously gathering quite a crowd. If you notice he was allowed to rant at the police for quite a while before they asked him to move along. In fact it was more the crowd gathering that they were trying to move along.
    Whilst I have no beef at all with your view of the constitutional right to say what you like in public. I do think common sense should dictate an appropriate place to do it, and if individuals are prepared to put public safety at risk by taking a stand in an inappropriate place, then they should expect to be moved along. And if they refuse to cooperate in this then they should not be surprised if they get arrested.

    And on a side note, that vet was big enough and loud enough to get a message across. Unfortunately I think he was giving the wrong message. He should be directing that anger toward the way wall st is shafting him.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited October 2011
    I will give you that the protesters need to stay off the street out of respect for the rights of others to safely use the public thoroughfares. They also need to do it in order to prevent painting themselves with a brush that will damage the silent majority's support for their cause.

    That being said in response to your side not I took it that he had witnesses earlier physical abuse by the police to protesters who had offered no violence to anyone. We can not know for sure that this occurred but that was certainly his claim. If this was in fact true then I feel he was directing his anger in the correct direction.
  • chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
    edited October 2011
    Yeah don't get me wrong. Undoubtedly there have been instances of un called for brutality, we've seen the vids of mace and baton use that were over the top. As I said I'm not painting the police as whiter than white. But it's so easy to lose sight of the goal when things like this crop up.
  • juggjugg Regular
    edited October 2011
    RemadE wrote: »
    Damn, son!

    ^This

    It only takes one man to start a revolution.
  • chippychippy <b style="color:pink;">Global Moderator</b>
    edited October 2011
    The trouble is he's starting a revolution against the police instead of wall street.

    Has the whole thing lost it's focus?
Sign In or Register to comment.