• 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!

G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets

Scorpion89

Scorpion89

Banned
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets | National News | Comcast.net


PITTSBURGH — Police threw canisters of pepper spray and smoke at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing rocks.

The march turned chaotic at just about the same time that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with leaders of the world's major economies.

The clashes began after hundreds of protesters, many advocating against capitalism, tried to march from an outlying neighborhood toward the convention center where the summit is being held.

Police in riot gear stood guard near the protesters, who banged on drums and chanted "Ain't no power like the power of the people, 'cause the power of the people don't stop."

The hundreds of marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles.

Some held a banner that read, "No borders, no thanks." Another banner read, "No hope in capitalism." A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading "NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM" with an encircled "A," a recognized sign of anarchists.

And so it beggins, While I'm all for 1st Adm Rights, why must these morons go out of there way to A)Destroy private and public property B) Challage the Police to Fights by throwing Rocks, Bottle and rolling Trash Cans at them.

Also why is it when a bunch of so-called Extreme Right Wing Folks have a March in Washington DC not a single act of violance or any arrest happens but when the idiots on the Left be it these morons or the Anti-Bush Crowd hold a March there is always Arrest and Violance. So who is the side that should be watched allot closer????
 
As soon as I saw this thread I thought, wow left wing lunatic violence. I wonder if the same folks who want to tar and feather the ring wing for the actions of a few nutjobs will come here and do the same to the left. Somehow I doubt it.

I eagerly await the hypocritical displays of blind partisan hackery that are destined to come to this thread.
 
Anarchists (And other crazy left-wing parties) =/= Democrats. Same can be said for the far far far right and Republicans.

I thought I would get that out of the way early in this thread.

I actually listened to it while it was happening here.
 
Sweet, looks like I beat the real partisanry...

This G-20 meeting will be seen as the beginning of the end of fhe first ammendment in America.

So far, here are the facts :

There are 2000 national guard at the event, armed. They are also using the sound weapon mounted on armoured vehicles. That's on top of the cops... seriously?? What's the justifcation to have trained soldiers for 'security'?? Seriously, why does government move the millitary?? Most of the time is to kill people and blow stuff up.

Seriously, there have been G-8 (and growing) meetings across north america for years and in all that time police have been more then capable in their policing of these events.

From the videos I've seen the mood of the millitary is that as though they were under attack... then most of the people that are there seem to be the 'anarchists'... historically at these meetings the anarchists role has been to throw rocks, molotovs, and other weapons at police, then retreating into the crowd so that the police would retaliate against the legitimate protestors... this has been proven and admitted several times, I could cite 5 examples of this being the case, and could link them all, so, if you don't believe me do a search for yourself it'll be more credible.

I haven't seen enough of the actual protest to get a good feel for the general mood of the protestors.

Regardless, there's also checkpoints going up across Pittsburgh, and the national guard is in combat gear... that's a dangerous precedent... especially when police could be guarding the g-20 without the need for the army. The g-20 is less widely protested, since fewer are aware of much more then it's existance, then say being overtaxed.

The scary part is, what happens if the army doesn't leave??
 
ScottD said:
Anarchists (And other crazy left-wing parties) =/= Democrats. Same can be said for the far far far right and Republicans.

I thought I would get that out of the way early in this thread.

I actually listened to it while it was happening here.
Click to expand...

while they are calling them all 'anarchists' most of the people that show up to protest the 'group' are just those that are against globalization, which is essentially a corporate takeover of the world ... (consider that the out of the top 100 economies in the world, half are private companies and not countries at this point).

The main reason that protests end up violent (probably 9 times out of 10) is because of 'agents provocateurs'.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Sweet, looks like I beat the real partisanry...

This G-20 meeting will be seen as the beginning of the end of fhe first ammendment in America.

So far, here are the facts :

There are 2000 national guard at the event, armed. They are also using the sound weapon mounted on armoured vehicles. That's on top of the cops... seriously?? What's the justifcation to have trained soldiers for 'security'?? Seriously, why does government move the millitary?? Most of the time is to kill people and blow stuff up.

Seriously, there have been G-8 (and growing) meetings across north america for years and in all that time police have been more then capable in their policing of these events.

From the videos I've seen the mood of the millitary is that as though they were under attack... then most of the people that are there seem to be the 'anarchists'... historically at these meetings the anarchists role has been to throw rocks, molotovs, and other weapons at police, then retreating into the crowd so that the police would retaliate against the legitimate protestors... this has been proven and admitted several times, I could cite 5 examples of this being the case, and could link them all, so, if you don't believe me do a search for yourself it'll be more credible.

I haven't seen enough of the actual protest to get a good feel for the general mood of the protestors.

Regardless, there's also checkpoints going up across Pittsburgh, and the national guard is in combat gear... that's a dangerous precedent... especially when police could be guarding the g-20 without the need for the army. The g-20 is less widely protested, since fewer are aware of much more then it's existance, then say being overtaxed.

The scary part is, what happens if the army doesn't leave??
Click to expand...

Wow talk about not have a clue, First it's the Penn. Army national Guard that is out ion Force which is part of there Job I suggest you go and read up on State Militia'/Guard Units starting with the US Consitution and then the formin gof Militia Units after the end of the Revolution War.

Next on to this topic, hmm let see these folks over the past decade have made it quite clear that they could give a rats arse about other folks 1st Adm rights or do you think it's alright to smash windows and burn stores down. Also were does it say in the 1st Adm that a crowd has the right ot throw Bottles,Rocks ect. ect. at Police Officers and Guards Folks.
 
First off, I assume that some of the foriegn leaders asked for the heightened security. Remember, not just Obama was there. Many powerful World Leaders also attended. Big need for security.

The protesters were blocking traffic without a permit (knowledge obtained from listening to an online stream of a radio scanner). That's what started this whole thing. That is why the police asked them to disperse. The protesters met them with violence, and the security forces responded with non-lethal weapons. All-in-all, sounds like a classic textbook break-up of a group of angry (and violent) protesters.
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
Police threw canisters of pepper spray and smoke at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing rocks.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the crowd(or a portion thereof) is in the wrong, and the police in the right. Protesting is fine, rioting not so much.
 
So far I don't here much of a peep from the Left besides a few.
 
It is worth pointing out it is usually only a minority who are violent in these things, the usual rent-a-mob crowd who would protest just about anything if they thought they'd be able to smash windows. The rest are usually relatively peaceful.

Anarchists is a bit of a misused term, the rent-a-mob portion may or may not contain many that call themselves anarchists but I don't think they're particularly motivated by the ideology nor particularly representative of classical anarchism.
 
Yes most are peaceful. However, I recall a huge uproar from the Left over "teabaggers" carrying guns to protests among other things, but not actually breaking any serious laws. When Lefties protest, and many do act violently, not many complaints from the Left here. However, if the roles where reversed, I don't think that things would be much differant
 
Wessexman said:
It is worth pointing out it is usually only a minority who are violent in these things, the usual rent-a-mob crowd who would protest just about anything if they thought they'd be able to smash windows. The rest are usually relatively peaceful.
Click to expand...

Which is why non-lethal methods are used.

Like I said, these protesters were clogging traffic without a permit. They didn't have the right to protest right there at that time. They were given a fair warning to disperse, and rocks were thrown. The police replied appropriately given the circumstances.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Yes most are peaceful. However, I recall a huge uproar from the Left over "teabaggers" carrying guns to protests among other things, but not actually breaking any serious laws. When Lefties protest, and many do act violently, not many complaints from the Left here. However, if the roles where reversed, I don't think that things would be much differant
Click to expand...
Who says they're all lefties? I despise globalisation as much as anyone.
 
Last edited:
ScottD said:
Which is why non-lethal methods are used.

Like I said, these protesters were clogging traffic without a permit. They didn't have the right to protest right there at that time. They were given a fair warning to disperse, and rocks were thrown. The police replied appropriately given the circumstances.
Click to expand...
It is civil disobedience, and though I don't know what happened, from what you describe it was handled appropriately.
 
Wessexman said:
Who says they're all lefties? I despise globalisation as much as anyone.
Click to expand...

Yea, but the specific hatred of capitalism suggests that they are socialist anarchists.

I don't think many of these folks have the kind of nuanced political views that you do as it concerns socialism or anarchism.

In other words, I doubt there were many Wessexmans in that crowd, although I'm sure there was no shortage of Che Guevara shirts...;)
 
Ethereal said:
Yea, but the specific hatred of capitalism suggests that they are socialist anarchists.

I don't think many of these folks have the kind of nuanced political views that you do as it concerns socialism or anarchism.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the violent element actually remember what they are protesting this week.

In other words, I doubt there were many Wessexmans in that crowd, although I'm sure there was no shortage of Che Guevara shirts...;)
Click to expand...
[Westcountry joke]Well maybe there are a few from Bristol.[/Westcountry joke]
 
Last edited:
I would have to think a number of them simply get off on smashing stuff.
 
It doesn't end with college.
 
ScottD said:
Which is why non-lethal methods are used.

Like I said, these protesters were clogging traffic without a permit. They didn't have the right to protest right there at that time. They were given a fair warning to disperse, and rocks were thrown. The police replied appropriately given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain about this case, but permits can and have been denied...

I can pretty well promise to you that the people throwing rocks were cops... It's been the case on so many other tmes that it's pretty much standard routine for cops to be sent to the protest dressed as anarchists (in some cases they were wearing police issue boots) to instigate violence, and then to retreat into the crowds and back behind police lines so that the legitimate protestors can then be 'non-lethally' dispersed... though there have been more then a few snuff videos come out of G-8 (or higher) protests...

For the general public this serves a 2-prong purpose :
a) protestors get demonized as being violent and so the message is lost
b) they get to practise using the weapons that would otherwise be gathering dust.

(On a side note, I've once seen video of a 70 yr old woman that offered a cop a rose and then when she was about 2 ft away the cop shot a tear gas cannister into her chest... I mean the woman was with a walker... anyway)

Finally... The police response is appropriate, using the armmy / national guard in such a way is illegal, given that a political meeting hardly constitutes an 'emergency', and seriously, if the leaders insisted on an increased security, then it could have been done legally by bringing in a bigger number of police...
 
ScottD said:
First off, I assume that some of the foriegn leaders asked for the heightened security. Remember, not just Obama was there. Many powerful World Leaders also attended. Big need for security.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Prime Minister of New Zealand is there... John Key. ;)
 
BmanMcfly said:
I'm not certain about this case, but permits can and have been denied...

I can pretty well promise to you that the people throwing rocks were cops... It's been the case on so many other tmes that it's pretty much standard routine for cops to be sent to the protest dressed as anarchists (in some cases they were wearing police issue boots) to instigate violence, and then to retreat into the crowds and back behind police lines so that the legitimate protestors can then be 'non-lethally' dispersed... though there have been more then a few snuff videos come out of G-8 (or higher) protests...

For the general public this serves a 2-prong purpose :
a) protestors get demonized as being violent and so the message is lost
b) they get to practise using the weapons that would otherwise be gathering dust.

(On a side note, I've once seen video of a 70 yr old woman that offered a cop a rose and then when she was about 2 ft away the cop shot a tear gas cannister into her chest... I mean the woman was with a walker... anyway)

Finally... The police response is appropriate, using the armmy / national guard in such a way is illegal, given that a political meeting hardly constitutes an 'emergency', and seriously, if the leaders insisted on an increased security, then it could have been done legally by bringing in a bigger number of police...
Click to expand...

How many protests and riots have you been to? I have been in or around more than a few, and I have never once seen anybody that I would consider an undercover cop starting or doing anything. It has always been clearly a kid or punk or protestor. Clearly.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I'm not certain about this case, but permits can and have been denied...

I can pretty well promise to you that the people throwing rocks were cops... It's been the case on so many other tmes that it's pretty much standard routine for cops to be sent to the protest dressed as anarchists (in some cases they were wearing police issue boots) to instigate violence, and then to retreat into the crowds and back behind police lines so that the legitimate protestors can then be 'non-lethally' dispersed... though there have been more then a few snuff videos come out of G-8 (or higher) protests...

For the general public this serves a 2-prong purpose :
a) protestors get demonized as being violent and so the message is lost
b) they get to practise using the weapons that would otherwise be gathering dust.

(On a side note, I've once seen video of a 70 yr old woman that offered a cop a rose and then when she was about 2 ft away the cop shot a tear gas cannister into her chest... I mean the woman was with a walker... anyway)

Finally... The police response is appropriate, using the armmy / national guard in such a way is illegal, given that a political meeting hardly constitutes an 'emergency', and seriously, if the leaders insisted on an increased security, then it could have been done legally by bringing in a bigger number of police...
Click to expand...

So do you have actual proof that it was Pitts. Police that were the ones throwing the rocks, and Rolling the Trash Cans, if so then let see the proof or better yet send it to one of the Drive by Media I'm sure they would love such a story. Also let see the proof from Seattle show all of us who the Cops were who started the Fire's and Destruction. You open this can of worms Sir now it's time for you to answer the call if you can.

Also I suggest you might want to go and read the Us Constitution as I suggest about how and when the Guard/Militia Units can be used. Also I suggest you go and read up on the fact it was the Visiting World Leaders who requested tighter Security do to what happne in Seattle,Brussel,London to just name a few Cities that have hosted the G-20 Summit.

We will all be waiting for you proof and links :2wave::shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom