Tension escalated between Occupy Oakland and city leaders Wednesday when protesters swarmed a news conference held by five council members who were calling for the immediate dismantling of the encampment outside City Hall.
Protesters shouted, "We are the 99 percent of Oakland!" and drowned out the council members who were standing at a podium but had no sound system.
Councilwoman Desley Brooks then started her own chant, which was repeated by the two dozen members of the clergy, business owners and other council members who had gathered to speak out against the camp. Their chant was "Occupy Oakland must go!"
<snip>
Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating.
Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members
Maybe they want the change they gathered for... and possibly dont desire to bring violence of themselves in a mad conspiracy without ends?
...perhaps?
As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.
More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.
I don't know, they didn't seem to do much here. Just shout over a group of people wishing to end their right to assemble.
At the end of the article, it states:
"Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."
I think that is the problem.
At the end of the article, it states:
"Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."
I think that is the problem.
But this incident has nothing to do with that, and how can they have "resolutions" and blah if they aren't to be organized?
do they passively allow their rights to be taken from them
or do they take whatever action is necessary to assert their Constitutional rights, when those in authority attempt to unlawfully deprive them of their lawful rights
do they listen to Malcolm X
or MLK/Gandhi?
Mycroft's point (Mycroft, correct me if I am wrong) was that the OWS rallies would become violent or fail. The news artilcle clearly states that the group is making arangements in it's ranks to have uncivil/unpeaceful protests because their movement is failing. This incident has everyting to do with the OWS becoming violent. Because of this incident, they felt that weren't being heard and are now making an effort to be "violent" in order to be heard. Much like a child who doesn't get what they want.
I don't know, what would you do?
I can assure you, I would not attack my fellow citizen.
No, the article clearly states that a faction of OWS, not the whole thing, has expressed desires in keeping a violent option.
it would not be the first time that a violent faction has been planted to justify government action against their non-peaceful demonstrationsAlright, you first started saying that this article has nothing do with the group committing violence, or going in the direction of violence. Now you are saying it is just a faction. Basically you are confirming Mycroft's point. Thank you. A sect/faction (of unknown percentage) has decided that violence is the best answer for their protest.
Alright, you first started saying that this article has nothing do with the group committing violence, or going in the direction of violence. Now you are saying it is just a faction. Basically you are confirming Mycroft's point. Thank you. A sect/faction (of unknown percentage) has decided that violence is the best answer for their protest.
it would not be the first time that a violent faction has been planted to justify government action against their non-peaceful demonstrations
Mycroft's point (Mycroft, correct me if I am wrong) was that the OWS rallies would become violent or fail. The news artilcle clearly states that the group is making arangements in it's ranks to have uncivil/unpeaceful protests because their movement is failing. This incident has everyting to do with the OWS becoming violent. Because of this incident, they felt that weren't being heard and are now making an effort to be "violent" in order to be heard. Much like a child who doesn't get what they want.
The article doesn't have anything to do with them committing violence as they had committed no violent act. They had shouted down government agents and nothing more. It went on to claim that a faction desired to maintain the violent option; not the whole.
This is correcting you people who think that somehow so long as a or a few OWS members do something, that you can then generalize it to the entire group. It's a very stupid and childish way of thought.
I would LOVE to see the "Occupy" movement actually turn violent. If it were to do so, I would have more respect for them than I do for the Tea Party. I don't believe that EITHER movement is willing to do the two things necessary to actually make change....
1. Shed their own blood
2. Shed other people's blood (the more important one)
Additionally, it would give the police the excuse to go in and do what should have been done over a month ago, clean these pieces of refuse out with REAL bullets.
1. The Tea Party has been much more effective than OWS and they have managed to remain civil. I attribute this to the fact that the Tea Party actually has a core set of objectives and that they are willing to work within our political system to enact their desired change. OWS has none of that.
2. I don't want to see ANYONE shed their blood.
You don't read anything do you? You just see something against OWS and then just type. You aren't actually addressing what the point of this topic is. OWS fail = members of OWS get violent. Not a generalization.
As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.
More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.
YOU need to learn to read
The OWSer's movement (general) will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They (general) can't have that. They (general) want the authorities to bust some heads [this is no way supported by any measurement or data, BTW, it's just assumption and supposition].
More violence on the part of OWS (general) is on it's way
That's what was written. Sorry if you were blinded by your position on OWS to actually understand the words there. Please try better.
You are such a fool. You had a whole arguement with what I was saying, once you found out you were wrong, you tried to use someone else's writing against me.
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?