JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 if you dare to protest the war. http://www.truthout.org/index.htm Quote
RobBob Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 there's that wonderfully unbiased 'Truthout' news organization again... Quote
Sphinx Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 You get a jawbreaker and some lipstick? What's your point? (BTW, that chick has a VERY elastic cheek!) Quote
JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 RobBob said: there's that wonderfully unbiased 'Truthout' news organization again... Do you think it's make-up? Yeah, you're probably right. They've doctored the picture in some way. Hmmm, they make it look pretty realistic. Somebody there's got some good Photoshop skills. Quote
Attitude Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers." These antiwar protesters are certainly a violent crowd. Quote
allthumbs Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Attitude said: "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers." These antiwar protesters are certainly a violent crowd. No Way!!!!! This can't be. There's only one side to this story and the protesters got it goin on, baby! Fucking Pigs and Military jack-booted Thugs!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Supporters of a hypocritical war who disparage hypocritical peace protestors are hypocrites. Quote
lummox Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 that was a close one. another 6 inches and i woulda lost my right nut Quote
allthumbs Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Dr_Flash_Amazing said: Supporters of a hypocritical war who disparage hypocritical peace protestors are hypocrites. FDA, you're a waste of DNA Quote
Attitude Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Dr_Flash_Amazing said: Supporters of a hypocritical war who disparage hypocritical peace protestors are hypocrites. But employed hypocrites. Quote
JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 Attitude said: "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers." These antiwar protesters are certainly a violent crowd. I would suggest that this dude was probably trying to run away and got shot anyway. That violence would appear to be at the hands of the cops. Not only was he shot three times with these weapons, but he was shot in the back three times. This means, in short, that he was running away from the police. This means he was no threat whatsoever to armored cops. He was heading away from them when they fired those slugs into his retreating back. "Police moved aggressively against crowds because some people threw rocks and big iron bolts at officers," said Deputy Police Chief Patrick Haw. It is difficult to 'move aggressively' when your back is turned. Along with the protesters, a number of longshoremen working the docks were hit by errant shots coming from the Oakland Police. "I was standing as far back as I could," said longshoremen Kevin Wilson in the story below. "It was very scary. All of that force wasn't necessary." Trent Willis, a business agent for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, said, "They shot my guys. The cops had no reason to open up on them." Note the actual ammo used and the instructions on the ammo. I wonder if the cops actually bother to read things like instructions? Probably not..."Holy shit! Those fuckers are walking in unison. I've heard about these kinds of people. They're called marchers or something. Quick, shoot to kill! Aim for the head and neck of that skinny chick that weighs probably less than the dougnuts I ate this morning. She's a fesity bitch. Shoot her!!! Quick, get that fucker running away. He may come back with WMD. We can't have that!!! Liberate his fat ass." Quote
allthumbs Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Nice pictures. What f~stop and filter did you use? I doubt anyone here refutes the right of the protester to protest. I just ignore the protesters for the most part, as their message doesn't move me. I find the concept of pacifism under the current world order to be 'pie in the sky'. Saying that we will not fight under any circumstances is an open invitation to be invaded and subjugated, or slaughtered outright. I find that the protesters who are protesting just this war and not war in general much more understandable, though I still disagree with them on moral grounds. Other observations: Personally I object to the term 'civil disobedience' which is designed to put a positive spin on a negative thing. For example, 'civil disobedience' equates to 'criminal behavior'. I think that having to break the law to get your message across causes the message to diminish in value, because the focus changes to the method of delivery rather than the content. Since the law does not limit free speech, the illegal activity is pointless. If the facts don't speak for themselves, someone screaming them at me won't change my mind and will probably annoy me. I think that many people are like that to some extent. j-b comes to mind. Quote
JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 You do have a point Trask with respect to Civil Disobedience. I can't condone criminal behavior. However, with our own government flaunting the laws of the U.N. in pursuit of their own agenda as well as changing the laws domestically to suit themselves and limit our freedom, it's little wonder that people feel driven to commit criminal acts when all they're doing is following the lead set by G.W. and the like. Quote
MtnGoat Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 since their criminal behavior makes the criminal behavior of protestors OK, I guess that makes the criminal behavior of those beating up war protestors, ok. Great point! Instead of taking the high road, take the "two wrongs make a right" one. Nice. Quote
allthumbs Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 Well along that vein JGow, I guess that makes the anti-war crowd that ignores Bush, no better than Bush, who ignores the UN. Ya think? Quote
Attitude Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 When GW attacked Iraq, he expected that they would shoot back. Here you suggest that protestors should be immune to a response to their violence. Quote
iain Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 MtnGoat said: Instead of taking the high road, take the "two wrongs make a right" one. Nice. almost as nice as the "ends justify the means" approach to Iraq, and they have not up to this point. I'm sure some form of bio/chem weapons will be found, but it would take quite a handful to justify throwing our worldwide relations out the window. BTW we need a ceasefire on posting that picture. Quote
JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 MtnGoat said: since their criminal behavior makes the criminal behavior of protestors OK, I guess that makes the criminal behavior of those beating up war protestors, ok. Great point! Instead of taking the high road, take the "two wrongs make a right" one. Nice. As I noted before, I don't condone violence. So, no, 2 wrongs do not make a right. I just simply stated that it's hard to know what to do when your government is changing the rules and flaunting laws to suit themselves. Where once there were clearly defined boundaries of acceptable behavior of which free speech was one, it would now appear that the government is enforcing a policy of zero tolerance to protestations. Where's the outlet for being heard and having one's opinion respected? It wasn't enough that millions of people around the world protested before the war began and Bush derided those efforts as not worthy of taking seriously. Now, they are being taken seriously but in a different way...they're being stamped out before they can really begin. In this particular incident, even the longshoremen were shot. Maybe Bush was getting revenge on them for striking eh? Quote
Dru Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 MtnGoat said: since their criminal behavior makes the criminal behavior of protestors OK, I guess that makes the criminal behavior of those beating up war protestors, ok. Great point! Instead of taking the high road, take the "two wrongs make a right" one. Nice. two wrongs make a right, this is sort of like, lets violate international law to invade the country of a dictator we put in power and supported for 20 years, correct? damn mtn goat either you got a good case of double standards, or you are anti-war! Quote
Attitude Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 JGowans said: Where once there were clearly defined boundaries of acceptable behavior of which free speech was one, it would now appear that the government is enforcing a policy of zero tolerance to protestations. No, the police have a zero tolerance policy against throwing things at the police. Quote
Attitude Posted April 8, 2003 Posted April 8, 2003 says, "Play nice with the police, and they will play nice with you." Quote
JGowans Posted April 8, 2003 Author Posted April 8, 2003 Attitude said: JGowans said: Where once there were clearly defined boundaries of acceptable behavior of which free speech was one, it would now appear that the government is enforcing a policy of zero tolerance to protestations. No, the police have a zero tolerance policy against throwing things at the police. The Longshoremen did not throw anything at the police. I'd also hazard a guess that the dude who was shot 3 times in the back was probably not in the act of throwing objects at them either. He most likely was trying to protect himself from being shot in the face like that crazy looking chick who could probably take on the entire Oakland PD. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.