Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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.
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.[...] i dismiss your perspective of the "face" of far right wingers.... it's what you want to perceive, not objective reality.
West is now a Tea Party hero.[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
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.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)
the site is no longer live... you have to use the wayback machine to view it
OK. Come to the Bar, talk it over. What did you drink today?
megaprogman said:I am sure the british said the same sorts of things 200 or so years ago.
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
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:
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
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"?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. [...]
(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.
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:
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.
There are multiple videos and articles on the subject.
What officers?And you KNOW that this is not hazardous....
What about the officers that were injured by the "peaceful" protesters.
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?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....
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
Unbelievable. Who owns public land? The government?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
Public decency (indecency/nudity) concerns aside, yes.Do you think that means you can take a shower in the city fountain in the plaza anytime it strikes your fancy?
There might be some legitimate security concerns there. However, I would not necessarily view those as preeminent.Or camp out on the lawn at 1600 Pennsyvania avenue?
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.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.
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?he's right.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?