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" target="_blank">
Comments
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.
Now where did that iMac and hipster pair of glasses go?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My hat is off to this brave and honorable veteran.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^This
It only takes one man to start a revolution.
Has the whole thing lost it's focus?