Is the Occupy Movement Winning by Losing?

[G10]

It is a difficult one and from what I have been watching.

On one side, you have a group of people, some fighring for a good cause, be it by nuisance etc, and mixed in with them, you have the idiots just there for trouble. Granted, some of these are idiots and have no idea what day of the week it is, nevermind what they are fighting for.

On the other side, you have an extremely well oiled machine that is more than experienced at using whatever tactic it needs to win over hearts and minds and make the other group look like weekend bandits. This group will hardly ever say a wrong word as they are briefed on what to say.

The first group are almost always going to put their foot in their mouth as they just spout out the first thing that comes to their mind at that moment.

The government is always going to come off looking shocked, holding their hand to their mouth and saying "Oh my goodness, isn't it just terrible what those voilent troublemakers are doing, we must stop this as it is just troublemakers".

Truth is, I don't believe what the gevernment says on tv, and I also think that the way the protestors are protesting, is wrong.

If you want to see the Blue Chip Corps tremble and start to listen to the people, then take them out one by one. Start off with one bank and as many people as possible should take their money out of it and place it in another bank. The shares will plummet, the bank will struggle to function as it does and then they will do whatever it takes to get your business back.

Ok, this sounds a little unfair to pick on just one, but the thing is, do it to one, and the rest will listen also as when they see the damage caused to one, they too will be afraid of it happening to them.

[webcrafters]

This is not meant to impose my supported opinion, start a heehaw debate, or cause any ill feelings, putting this up simply to show what an opinion from the other side is, some words from Newt Gingrich, so you know it is not in support...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...th_609253.html

[DNN]

I'll tell you…that occupy movement on Wall Street in New York City is something else. Glad I'm nowhere near it…

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Zap

And, Jake...
To the point about the tents not being in the video...
There were police on all sides of the protesters. The protesters were surrounded.
And, since their tents were clearly not there, then the pepper spray was just for "fun".
The tents, which were so obviously located elsewhere, could have been taken down by police without the use of pepper spray on those people, nowhere near the tents.
Intimidation Tactics 101.

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

Actually look at the video I posted later in the thread. It shows the 15 minutes leading up to the pepper spray. It shows the police giving ample warning. It shows some protesters charging police. It shows anger in the crowd. It shows the protesters falling back to encircle the tents...which is the position they were in when pepper sprayed. It even shows the police offering them an alternate assembly site...presumably to address the university concerns for which the police were called in.

And actually it was the protesters who encircled the police as they came to enforce the law. That's shown in any number of longer videos.

@Jake: You can pretty it up however you want. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
But the fact will always remain that there were no tents under those sitting protesters. So, the pepper spray assault was unnecessary.
If the police wanted to remove tents, then they should have been removing tents, or removing protesters from on top of tents that needed to be removed.
And even if the protesters were sitting directly on top of the tents, you use 2 or 3 officers to pick up one protester, hand cuff them and take them away from the area. And you keep doing that until every protester standing in the way of tent removal is removed from the scene. Nobody gets assaulted unless they assault a police officer. Tents are gone.

Seriously, Jake? You are so blindly against OWS that you're really going to advocate that police use violence and assault people without cause?

Originally Posted by robjones

Yeah Chris, cause I'm so easily swayed.

The poor impression I have of the OWS crew is largely attributed to the stuff they say on their websites, and not just the stray comment... Im talking the ones that have the backing of the rest on the site. That and the videos that are paraded before me by proponents of OWS which they take pride in while I watch the same video and am appalled at the collective stupidity. The mainstream media didn't put the words in their mouth, the deeds in their hands, nor select the videos I observed.

Aside from that, sure, I'm just a helpless puppet of media giants.
[and I promise red rep to the moron that takes the line above and pretends it is anything but a facetious statement... Fair warning given.]

Originally Posted by Zap

The Internet is pretty attractive to anarchists and socialists too, but it bears no reflection on the Internet.
It would seem the mainstream media's attempts to discredit the movement are working on some.
The message is what's important.

@Rob: My first point was simply to illustrate that it doesn't matter if anarchists are attracted to the OWS movement. That bears no reflection on the OWS movement or their message. Anarchists may be attracted to guns, too, or farming, etc. So what?
And don't take my second sentence as a knock at you. It wasn't.
I was just pointing out that the media is doing all it can to discredit the OWS movement because the media is owned by the 1% and comments like yours that Anarchists are attracted to OWS that really mean zilch with regards to legitimacy of the movement really are not helping much.
It wasn't an attack on you. I know you're not a zombie and can think for yourself.
I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that your comment contributes to that line of thinking and it's not really indicative of anything substantial, although it sounds like it to those who don't have independent thought capability.

[Zap]

It appears as though the 2 pepper sprayers are suspended with pay for now.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...spray-incident

[paulnixon]

IN the life there is not important to that you are winning or lose. the important is the fun that you have been found in the task. It gives you faith that another time you are not going to be the failure.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by paulnixon

IN the life there is not important to that you are winning or lose. the important is the fun that you have been found in the task. It gives you faith that another time you are not going to be the failure.

Huh? What part of the Occupy movement would be considered fun?

[JakeMoore]

Originally Posted by Zap

@Jake: You can pretty it up however you want. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
But the fact will always remain that there were no tents under those sitting protesters. So, the pepper spray assault was unnecessary.
If the police wanted to remove tents, then they should have been removing tents, or removing protesters from on top of tents that needed to be removed.
And even if the protesters were sitting directly on top of the tents, you use 2 or 3 officers to pick up one protester, hand cuff them and take them away from the area. And you keep doing that until every protester standing in the way of tent removal is removed from the scene. Nobody gets assaulted unless they assault a police officer. Tents are gone.

Seriously, Jake? You are so blindly against OWS that you're really going to advocate that police use violence and assault people without cause?

1. I am not blindly against OWS. I am eyes wide open against them.

2. Assaulted? For real? Did we watch the same video? They were pepper sprayed...and pepper sprayed very ineffectively...it didn't even break their human blockade. No one was even sprayed in the eyes unless they were looking into the spray can after having been given numerous warnings.

3. OWS intentionally fell back to create a human blockade to interfere with police work. You can make the police the bad guys any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that OWS thinks it is entitled to any number of things, including special treatment when it breaks the law.

[Zap]

Yes. Assaulted.
If you were to do the same to a police officer, what would you be charged with? Assault.

[bbcsite]

the occupy movement has just reached denmark where i am living, i am pretty amazed to saw them sitting in damn cold whether

[JakeMoore]

Originally Posted by Zap

Yes. Assaulted.
If you were to do the same to a police officer, what would you be charged with? Assault.

Broken analogy. A more appropriate one is what would I be charged with if I pepper sprayed a criminal trespasser on my property. The answer is nothing. I am allowed to use reasonable force to protect my property. Similarly, the police are allowed to use reasonable force in the furtherance of their duties.

You fail to recognize that pepper spray is used to prevent an escalation of events.

[Brave7]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

You fail to recognize that pepper spray is used to prevent an escalation of events.

Perhaps pepper spray to prevent an escalation of events or rubber bullet to a Marine head in San Francisco could do it...Then when getting help another grenade to crowd finish the job. What a radical statement, the principal is just the same Jake!

+ YouTube Video

[Zap]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

You fail to recognize that pepper spray is used to prevent an escalation of events.

Your opinion differs from mine.
When a police office pepper sprays a sitting protester, they ARE escalating events.
It IS an assault.
A more measured response would be to simply stand the protester up, handcuff them and take them away, as I stated earlier.
THAT'S how you prevent events from escalating.

[rabble]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

3. OWS intentionally fell back to create a human blockade to interfere with police work. You can make the police the bad guys any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that OWS thinks it is entitled to any number of things, including special treatment when it breaks the law.

Yes. they did create a human shield. The Human Shield is an historically effective non-violent means of social protest.

Pepper spray is intended for use only on targets acting in violent or aggressive fashion.
That was not the case in this situation and the two officers either failed to follow generally accepted guidelines or, as I suspect,
they used the spray either to inflict punishment or as an intimidation technique.

[Brave7]

+ YouTube Video

David Icke - The One Party State (Essential Knowledge For A Wall Street Protestor - Part Two)

[rabble]

Thought I might as well put a link to Part 1 of David Icke's comments.
His message one can found from many speakers.

I find an address by Noam Chomsky to the Occupy crowd in Boston
even more instructive, especially from an American historical perspective.

+ YouTube Video

To get back to the main point of this thread though
I asked if the wave of evictions from occupied spaces
across this country (and now Canada) could in some way
be viewed as a win.

I am currently discouraged but hopeful.
The message has broken through and become a meme.
The movement, though scattered, is likely easily and spontaneously reconstituted at will.

Mic check.

[Brave7]

Originally Posted by rabble

I am currently discouraged but hopeful.

I am also discouraged to learn more and more about what they did, but like you, I am hopeful.

After more than 200 years when thinkers and philosophers, you know the founding fathers who builded our western societies made some clear warning statements about giving the power to create money to private bankers.

I really believe that we have to rethink the way our societies work and reduce the inequalities that are increasing these days.

Remember the quote:

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.
Plutarch

[rabble]

The movement is at severe disadvantage when it comes to
maintaining non-violent occupied spaces.

It would appear no rational course of action exists
when faced with over-whelming numbers of militarized police
who are willing to employ violent though (so far) non-lethal
dispersal techniques other than to vacate.

[JakeMoore]

Originally Posted by rabble

It would appear no rational course of action exists
when faced with over-whelming numbers of militarized police
who are willing to employ violent though (so far) non-lethal
dispersal techniques other than to vacate.

With all due respect that is ridiculous. No one is trying to shut down their message no matter how much they disagree with it. They can:

1. Get permits and pay insurance and their costs like every other group in America does.

2. They can accept the special treatment that they are routinely given and protest day after day after day after day without permits or paying their way as long as they go home at night.

It is only their spoiled, entitled to do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want mentality and actions that causes occasional police enforcement of the laws that everyone else must live by from the get go.

[rabble]

I get your perspective, Jake.
The rich get to make the rules and everyone else must obey them
That is the way all manner of social injustice is maintained around the world.

One of the principals of the occupy movement
is the movement will not play the rigged game by rigged rules.
Complain all you want. It is a fact.

Two things are now proven.

1. The elite are who the occupiers say they are and the elite have revealed their
violent nature for all to see.
2. The occupiers are who they say they are and have revealed they are
in fact non-violent.

You remind me of the British elite who complained the American patriots
would not wear red coats and line up in straight lines.