• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Injured Iraq veteran is face of Occupy movement

You're aware this guy started the "ihatetheMarinecorps.com" site, and is quoted as saying some sharply critical things about Israel as well? He may not be such a great "face" for the movement after all.

it's not uncommon for young marines to "hate" the Corps... it's a time honored institution.
in fact, I hated it a fair amount as a junior Marine myself.... life in the Corps , as a Private or Lance Corporal, really really sucks.

there is an off-the-books-regulation that basically says " don't worry about your Marines b*tchin' about the Corps... start worrying when they stop b*tchin'." :lol:
 
You're aware this guy started the "ihatetheMarinecorps.com" site, and is quoted as saying some sharply critical things about Israel as well? He may not be such a great "face" for the movement after all.

Well OWS isn't about foreign policy matters, so I am not sure the Israel thing is important. Besides, I am sharply critical of both Israel and Palestine for both country's pigheadedness since the 60s.

I can't bring up the website so I don't know what is in it.
 
Well OWS isn't about foreign policy matters, so I am not sure the Israel thing is important. Besides, I am sharply critical of both Israel and Palestine for both country's pigheadedness since the 60s.

I can't bring up the website so I don't know what is in it.

the site is no longer live... you have to use the wayback machine to view it
 
[...] i dismiss your perspective of the "face" of far right wingers.... it's what you want to perceive, not objective reality.
The perspective is based upon reality, as I list several examples thereof in my prior post (#72). The right is the first to propose violence, and the last to defend it. That is simply not subject to dispute.


image15.png

This man died during interrogation at Abu Ghraib​


[Former Lt. Col., now Republican Congressman Allen] West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi's head,[10] after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as "meaningless information induced by fear and pain."[10] At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found.[10]

Allen West (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
West is now a Tea Party hero.

Cpwill's perspective is one of combat operations... and he is generally correct in that perspective.
if he was conducting primarily civil disturbance operations, he would have a differing perspective .. primarily because of the inherent difference in tactics and methods employed.

he is correct in that ,during combat operations, the military utilization of force is much more liberal ( not in the political way).. a throw rock can and does result in disproportional force employment ( that's a nice way of saying a round fired will be the response to a rock thrown)
Normally I would suggest you reread his post, but since I've already reposted the pertinent part (again, post #72) I'll have to fall back on the 'lead a horse to water' adage and say that we're done.
 
the site is no longer live... you have to use the wayback machine to view it

Ahh good idea, I had forgotten about that site.

This website doesn't seem to be all that bad, just people complaining, everyone complains.
 
OK. Come to the Bar, talk it over. What did you drink today?

:D Rum. Always Rum. damn you, rum - i love you. :D

turns out the bar downstairs is free from from 1830-2000..... :mrgreen::beer::mrgreen:

however, the point remains. these people add nothing to society, they only subsist by draining from it. at least the vikings had the stones to sail across the atlantic and kill people, these guys just drum circle and complain about how nothing is fair.

megaprogman said:
I am sure the british said the same sorts of things 200 or so years ago.

when these people are denied access to representative government, you let me know.

And its the rubber bullets that I am worried about, the smoke grenade thing is unfortunate and non lethal, I agree, however, it should only only been smoke grenades and nothing more lethal

1. and yet here everyone is freaking out about the smoke grenade
2. smoke grenades solo is insufficient. you have to actually give an aggressive crowd a reason that is desperate enough to break through the heightened group think and emotions they are experiencing. rubber bullets are a great way to do that with minimal damage.
 
it's not uncommon for young marines to "hate" the Corps... it's a time honored institution.
in fact, I hated it a fair amount as a junior Marine myself.... life in the Corps , as a Private or Lance Corporal, really really sucks.

there is an off-the-books-regulation that basically says " don't worry about your Marines b*tchin' about the Corps... start worrying when they stop b*tchin'." :lol:

on a side note, it's worth pointing out - this is true. Marines that have ceased bitching have begun planning to mutiny.
 
I disagree, the fact is that this method has been shown to be harmful and to a degree that it is over and above any danger that the police were facing and thats all there is to it.

Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

the level of force necessary to stop a violent, pitched fever crowd that is willing to charge a police line is always going to be sufficient enough that enough usage will cause serious injury or death. we could arm our police with pillows and someone would get knocked to the ground hard enough to crack their skull.



again, your natural sympathy (I have no idea why - up until now we've disagreed, but you've always shown good judgement) with this crowd is causing you to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
 
Last edited:
the level of force necessary to stop a violent, pitched fever crowd that is willing to charge a police line is always going to be sufficient enough that enough usage will cause serious injury or death. [...]
With respect to the protesters under discussion, can you give us an example of a "violent, pitched fever crowd that is willing to charge a police line"?

My understanding of the Oakland events, at least the precipitating event, is that the police charged the protesters encampment in a violent, pitched manner (tear gas, flash bangs, rubber bullets, bean bag guns, clubs, etc). Essentially an unprovoked attack.

Feel free to correct me, with cited facts, if I'm wrong.

From the OP's link:
(CNN) -- The chaotic scene unfolded with flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets and clouds of smoke. Canisters whizzed through the air amid deafening booms.

Marine Lance Cpl. Scott Olsen went down.
 
There are multiple videos and articles on the subject.

And you KNOW that this is not hazardous....

What about the officers that were injured by the "peaceful" protesters.
 
With respect to the protesters under discussion, can you give us an example of a "violent, pitched fever crowd that is willing to charge a police line"?

My understanding of the Oakland events, at least the precipitating event, is that the police charged the protesters encampment in a violent, pitched manner (tear gas, flash bangs, rubber bullets, bean bag guns, clubs, etc). Essentially an unprovoked attack.

Feel free to correct me, with cited facts, if I'm wrong.

From the OP's link:

All the violence reported on the Oakland scenario, as I pointed out in another thread with my list of three TIMELINED links began in the attempt to RE-OCCUPY the park later that night.

Police moved them out in the morning hours, by 7pm a group tried to come back and RE-TAKE the park.....

They staged a ****ing invasion, and you and others somehow believe this should be allowed and is a part of "non-violent" "Peaceful" protesting....
 
What happened in Oakland is abhorrent and completely unacceptable.

It's not just people loitering, they are exercising their First Amendment right to protest. They're not simply squatters in public space, they're there with a purpose and a message.

Police brutality in this country must come to an end. The mayor had no business disbanding a protest. Requiring permits for protests is a violation of the First Amendment. We should all be able to exercise our rights without infringement, and if that shuts down cities, then so be it.

Incidentally, the police brutality will only strengthen the movement further.
 
What happened in Oakland is abhorrent and completely unacceptable.

It's not just people loitering, they are exercising their First Amendment right to protest. They're not simply squatters in public space, they're there with a purpose and a message.

Police brutality in this country must come to an end. The mayor had no business disbanding a protest. Requiring permits for protests is a violation of the First Amendment. We should all be able to exercise our rights without infringement, and if that shuts down cities, then so be it.

Incidentally, the police brutality will only strengthen the movement further.

You don't have the right to live on public lands.

Period.

You can assemble, protest, and go home, come back the next day.... protest, go home, etc.



When you show me that someone has the right to live on land they don't pay for, I will back down.
 
There are multiple videos and articles on the subject.

I agree with the Iraq and Afghanistan Vets, there should be a full investigation of this.
 
And you KNOW that this is not hazardous....

What about the officers that were injured by the "peaceful" protesters.
What officers?
 
All the violence reported on the Oakland scenario, as I pointed out in another thread with my list of three TIMELINED links began in the attempt to RE-OCCUPY the park later that night.

Police moved them out in the morning hours, by 7pm a group tried to come back and RE-TAKE the park.....

They staged a ****ing invasion, and you and others somehow believe this should be allowed and is a part of "non-violent" "Peaceful" protesting....
Yes, after the police invaded the original encampment, violently throwing the protesters out, critically hospitalizing at least one, the protesters came back to re-take the park. Does not one (police) invasion beget another?

Would not John Rambo say (of the police): "They drew first blood!"

Would not the audience nod approvingly?


With his long hair [damn liberal] and military-style coat, he is quickly spotted by the town's overzealous and paranoid [redneck] sheriff, Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy) who quickly drives Rambo out of town, noting his strong distaste for "drifters." Rambo heads back toward town immediately, causing Teasle to get suspicious and arrest him.

Rambo stands his ground against the officers at the station and is brutalized and harassed by Art Galt (Jack Starrett), the sheriff's cruel head deputy [...]

First Blood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You don't have the right to live on public lands. Period. You can assemble, protest, and go home, come back the next day.... protest, go home, etc. When you show me that someone has the right to live on land they don't pay for, I will back down.
Unbelievable. Who owns public land? The government?

Or... wait for it... the public? :thinking
 
Unbelievable. Who owns public land? The government?

Or... wait for it... the public? :thinking

Do you think that means you can take a shower in the city fountain in the plaza anytime it strikes your fancy? Or camp out on the lawn at 1600 Pennsyvania avenue?

Some places are designated for certain uses. You want to camp out, you can camp where you like in most National Forests and they won't say a thing.

City parks aren't designated for this purpose. Preventing people from camping =/= preventing them from protesting.
 
Do you think that means you can take a shower in the city fountain in the plaza anytime it strikes your fancy?
Public decency (indecency/nudity) concerns aside, yes.

Or camp out on the lawn at 1600 Pennsyvania avenue?
There might be some legitimate security concerns there. However, I would not necessarily view those as preeminent.

Some places are designated for certain uses. You want to camp out, you can camp where you like in most National Forests and they won't say a thing.
If I'm protesting the government, or a public injustice, I can camp out (on public property) wherever I damn well please. So sayeth the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Courts of the United States of America, and any Patriot worthy of the name.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils. -- General John Stark, New Hampshire native, major general in the
Continental Army during the American Revolution, 1728-1882.
 
he's right.
Okay, let's get this on record then: the public has no right to public land... or at the very best, a limited right, as determined by the government. Correct?
 
Unbelievable. Who owns public land? The government?

Or... wait for it... the public? :thinking

You would be ok with me cutting down trees as I pleased on U.S. Forest Service land? Say, if I needed some fire wood, I could go drop a couple of oak trees at random and use them for fuel? I mean, it's my property, yes?
 
You would be ok with me cutting down trees as I pleased on U.S. Forest Service land? Say, if I needed some fire wood, I could go drop a couple of oak trees at random and use them for fuel? I mean, it's my property, yes?

I must have missed where the protesters were cutting down trees for firewood. Got a link?
 
Do you think that means you can take a shower in the city fountain in the plaza anytime it strikes your fancy? Or camp out on the lawn at 1600 Pennsyvania avenue?

Some places are designated for certain uses. You want to camp out, you can camp where you like in most National Forests and they won't say a thing.

City parks aren't designated for this purpose. Preventing people from camping =/= preventing them from protesting.

They're not camping out as you would in a national park. What a disingenuous remark.

They're camping out in protest. Would it make a difference if they were there in person instead of in tents overnight? It doesn't seem like it. Other cities with non-camping protests are still getting jackbooted by police. Chicago, Oakland... what next?

The protests are being closed down due to permit violations, but what sickens me the most is that apologists such as yourself will defend the brutal actions of police that are in turn a result of the unconstitutional permit system. You don't need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights, yet most major cities in America now have permit requirements for protesting, which in turn direct protesters to go to "special protest zones" where they will have the least amount of obstruction. Do you realize the permit system is new, as of the 1970's when protesting stopped the Vietnam war?

The point of protest is to obstruct and spread awareness. The action of police and city hall are unconstitutional. I wish people would see this for what it is already. Police are committing acts of violence against the innocent, and you sit here berating the protesters.

There is no hope for America when Americans deride one another for exercising their civil obligation to protest and keep the powers in check.

Disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom