The Shocking Truth Behind the Crackdown on Occupy

[Axiom_Blade]

Very eye-opening article from Naomi Wolf in The Guardian UK: (emphases mine)

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them...The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the **** kicked out of them.

 

[Virus]

Very eye-opening article from Naomi Wolf in The Guardian UK: (emphases mine)

Yet they're currently hanging around department stores yelling at people not to buy things.

 

[theprestige]

Very eye-opening article from Naomi Wolf in The Guardian UK:

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes.

This is disingenuous on Ms Wolfe's part.

Saul, a fanatical Christian-hunter, traveled far and wide looking for Christians to execute. On the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of Christ Himself. The apparition chided him for his bigotry, and blinded him.

Later, a kindly Christian tended to him in his distress, and when he became enlightened, Saul's blindness was cured. Some commonly-accepted texts describe this in terms of "scales", which "fell from his eyes", restoring his sight. Thenceforward, he was known as Paul, and went on to become one of the greatest champions and apologists for the Christian faith.

So the religious metaphor is interesting. It evokes themes of religious fanaticism, extremist bigotry, enlightenment, and ultimately conversion. As if we should accept without question that Ms Wolfe was a staunch oligarchist and OWS-hater, right up until the moment she connected the dots and saw The Truth.

In short, her analysis reads not unlike the writings of a conspiracy theorist. Which makes it really hard to take seriously.

 

[Joey McGee]

Naomi Wolf’s ‘Shocking Truth’ About the ‘Occupy Crackdowns’ Offers Anything but the Truth

When you don’t “connect” wholly disparate “dots,” what you get is far less dramatic. Mayors in a handful of cities, responding to local political pressures, decided to break up their local occupations — decisions that were announced to the press well in advance — and were advised as to how best to do so.

One doesn’t have to like that fact to recognize that it’s hardly shocking, and anything but a sinister assault on local communities’ autonomy.

 

[jj]

In short, her analysis reads not unlike the writings of a conspiracy theorist. Which makes it really hard to take seriously.

Except her analysis is testable, verifiable, and accurate.

Please be more accurate in the future.

 

[000063]

Sure is weird how she asks why the police would want to disperse Occupy protests, and doesn't seem to have heard of the millions of dollars worth of damage the "harmless" protestors have done, or the fact that they assaulted up Randy Davis just for filming them, or the rapes, theft, murders, increased crime rate in areas with Occupy protests. "Militarized action" is wild hyperbole and a favored chestnut of the movement; the military doesn't generally use less-lethal rounds and tear gas.

The Guardian is heavily biased in favor of OWS. At no point does the article ask if Occupiers are actually breaking the law.

 

[jiggeryqua]

So the religious metaphor is interesting. It evokes themes of religious fanaticism, extremist bigotry, enlightenment, and ultimately conversion. As if we should accept without question that Ms Wolfe was a staunch oligarchist and OWS-hater, right up until the moment she connected the dots and saw The Truth.

In short, her analysis reads not unlike the writings of a conspiracy theorist. Which makes it really hard to take seriously.

The religious metaphor (that one and many others) is a staple of western discourse - the bible (and you can take that argument elsewhere) being the single most dominant work of literature, longer and wider and with considerably more influence than any other (Shakespeare probably comes a close second, we use and misuse lots of phrases that originated with him).

So, the occurence of more-or-less accurately employed references to biblical stories tells those of us with no particular axe to grind precious little. In this particular example, those who are aware of the origin of the phrase might well think " that Ms Wolfe was a staunch oligarchist and OWS-hater, right up until the moment she connected the dots and saw The Truth" (although not many, I suspect, would use such extremist language or the spurious capitalisation). But I fail to see why anyone, literate or not, would imagine that "we should accept without question" the casual use of a biblical idiom. Maybe you are prone to accepting without question, based on the bible. Maybe not...

In short, your analysis reads like a desperate member (or wannabe member) of an oligarchy (which necessarily does 'conspire' to retain its power, as any power group would) hoping to fool some 'skeptics' who already hate the bible and get them to hate a group of people who, it turns out, actually do have clear, practicable, sensible suggestions that will benefit everyone except oligarchs. Why did you imagine anyone would take it seriously?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Sure is weird how she asks why the police would want to disperse Occupy protests, and doesn't seem to have heard of the millions of dollars worth of damage the "harmless" protestors have done, or the fact that they assaulted up Randy Davis just for filming them, or the rapes, theft, murders, increased crime rate in areas with Occupy protests. "Militarized action" is wild hyperbole and a favored chestnut of the movement; the military doesn't generally use less-lethal rounds and tear gas.

The Guardian is heavily biased in favor of OWS. At no point does the article ask if Occupiers are actually breaking the law.

Social change has often, and will, require the breaking of laws - one would hope it would only be 'unjust' laws, but do you know, there are lawbreakers, here, there and everywhere. There are lawbreakers in the ranks of the law enforcers.

[By the way, you describe the protestors as "harmless", in quotes. I don't see that quote in the OP, though I do see the word "unarmed", which may have been what confused you. You were confused, right, not just deliberately making stuff up to suit your position?]

On 'militarised' (which is in the OP), you make the common mistake of expecting an analogy to be an identity. Of course we can find differences between militarised police and the actual military. You'll be able to observe that when militarised police action fails to halt the protest and congress calls in the military. Maybe the military will start with "less-lethal rounds" (what a ghastly euphemism)? Let's see. Meanwhile, when police officers act like the military (only with 'less-lethal rounds and tear gas'), I'll use the term 'militarised action'. Shall we start a separate thread for the semantics of this argument?

 

[BenBurch]

Interesting, I think, how the "flying monkey right" flew to attack this essay so quickly.

 

[jhunter1163]

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them...

Did she ask all of them?

I haven't seen "Item No. 3" in anything OWS has ever said. Mostly, they're yammering about "income inequality" and "student loan forgiveness" and annoying people trying to do their Christmas shopping.

OWS is rapidly losing any relevance it ever had here in the States. And the main reason for that is that they don't have any message. If they had a nice series of talking points like in the quoted article, it might be different; but they can't even agree to stop a few nitwits from drumming at 10:30 at night.

 

[Skepticemea]

Sure is weird how she asks why the police would want to disperse Occupy protests, and doesn't seem to have heard of the millions of dollars worth of damage the "harmless" protestors have done, or the fact that they assaulted up Randy Davis just for filming them, or the rapes, theft, murders, increased crime rate in areas with Occupy protests.

This is increasingly the theme relating to the Occupy protesters. I'd be interested to see some analysis to see whether any perceived increase in crime around these camps is due to inhabitants or those targetting the inhabitants (no conspiracy theory, you get an increase of pickpockets in heavily crowded areas, for example).

A robbery/rape/assualt happens in/around one of these camps and they're all robbers/rapists/thugs?

No thanks, prefer my exaggerations slightly easier to swallow.

 

[casebro]

I guess I have to agree that those three items would be a plus to our system.

Though I don't know whether the ranks of OWS is smart enough to be that particular. You know the old saw "A person is smart. People are stupid". It sounds like Wolfe talked to one of the smart ones.

Now isn't it more important to discus the three items instead of flogging the dead horse of the mass protests? ?

 

[000063]

Social change has often, and will, require the breaking of laws - one would hope it would only be 'unjust' laws, but do you know, there are lawbreakers, here, there and everywhere. There are lawbreakers in the ranks of the law enforcers.

Spare me the pointless rhetoric. If the protestors are breaking the law, they have no right to demand special treatment compared to other people who break the law.

[By the way, you describe the protestors as "harmless", in quotes. I don't see that quote in the OP, though I do see the word "unarmed", which may have been what confused you. You were confused, right, not just deliberately making stuff up to suit your position?]

"Harmless protestors", "unarmed protestors", "peaceful protestors", "non-violent protestors". Google any of 'em, and add "occupy". All of those are common descriptors of Occupiers.

On 'militarised' (which is in the OP), you make the common mistake of expecting an analogy to be an identity.

Bull. "Militarized" means

1. to give a military character to

Soldiers prefer not to use face-concealing helmets specifically because they obscure vision and they're dehumanizing. Cops use it for riots so they can intimidate the rioters.

2: to equip with military forces and defenses

Tear gas is not exactly standard military equipment, nor are barricades, nor are batons, or tasers, or...

3: to adapt for military use

Given that most police riot-control equipment was developed specifically for civilian law enforement work, nope.

Of course we can find differences between militarised police and the actual military.

Affirming the consequent. I'm arguing that these police are not militarized, yet you're still referring to them as such without any acknowledgement that it is under debate.

You'll be able to observe that when militarised police action fails to halt the protest and congress calls in the military.

Slippery slope, irrelevant scare tactics.

Maybe the military will start with "less-lethal rounds" (what a ghastly euphemism)?

It used to be "non-lethal", until someone pointed out that they do, rarely, kill people. The question is about efficiency and which is appropriate in which situation.

Let's see. Meanwhile, when police officers act like the military (only with 'less-lethal rounds and tear gas')

Now who's using quotes and arguing over semantics?

I'll use the term 'militarised action'.

Asking people to disperse is characteristic of law enforcement, not military action.

Shall we start a separate thread for the semantics of this argument?

I don't think that's necessary.

I still maintain that it is emotive and inaccurate nonsense. I also maintain that most of the people comparing the police to the military have very little or no idea what the "continuum of force" is, or are even really aware of what the military and 5-0 actually do. I believe you are one of that number, indicated by several things, such as your lack of knowledge about the term "less-lethal", which is a term itself based on semantics.

Interesting, I think, how the "flying monkey right" flew to attack this essay so quickly.

Interesting how you put everyone who disagrees with this in a little box that you can tuck away in a corner somewhere.

This is increasingly the theme relating to the Occupy protesters. I'd be interested to see some analysis to see whether any perceived increase in crime around these camps is due to inhabitants or those targetting the inhabitants (no conspiracy theory, you get an increase of pickpockets in heavily crowded areas, for example).

I don't think those are necessarily two distinct sets, and find it odd that they are assumed to be.

A robbery/rape/assualt happens in/around one of these camps and they're all robbers/rapists/thugs?

Nope. Straw man. My point was that OWS generally ignores problems their presence directly and/or indirectly causes, as well as concrete internal problems with those standing under their banner. There is nothing in the hypothetical OWS charter that says "we do not rape, assault, or steal from people", so there is little preventing someone from doing so yet still being a member.

More personally, I worry that their "internal security teams" are going to get someone killed.

No thanks, prefer my exaggerations slightly easier to swallow.

And suddenly, I regret my vow never to make a "that's what she said" joke.

 

[Bikewer]

Regardless of complaints about the "militarization" of police.. (riot police have a very tough job and as noted, have goals and tactics very different from soldiers. Soldiers have been called in to handle riot situations, usually with poor results. They are not equipped or trained for crowd control.)
I think Ms. Wolfe's comments about OWS protesters being beaten up can be read as not just referring to physical violence but to the general reaction of the "right', which has been uniformly negative.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been uniformly negative regarding OWS, even dismissive.

The goals of the OWS folks do seem to be disparate, and their lack of cohesiveness may work against them. However, the Tea Party folks likewise eschewed "leadership" and portrayed themselves (rather successfully) as a grass-roots movement with a common sentiment.

 

[000063]

And OWS lacks even that much sentiment, or anything more than the vaguest of goals. As for leadership...

The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas.

So, no national HQ, but there is leadership on the local level. OWS can't even manage that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The goals of the OWS folks do seem to be disparate, and their lack of cohesiveness may work against them. However, the Tea Party folks likewise eschewed "leadership" and portrayed themselves (rather successfully) as a grass-roots movement with a common sentiment.

It's an interesting comparison. Tea Partiers may not have a fixed agenda but it doesn't matter as all they're doing is agreeing on who to vote for and they can reach a broad consensus on that over a series of issues.

The Occupiers have rather painted themselves into a corner by comparison. They appear to be saying "we're going to stay here until we get what we want" but, as they too can't reach agreement, nobody knows what that is.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Spare me the pointless rhetoric.

Well you know the old saying...fight fire with fire

If the protestors are breaking the law, they have no right to demand special treatment compared to other people who break the law.

I don't believe I've ever met anyone so deeply conservative that they decry the entire human rights movement all the way back to the magna carta.

"Harmless protestors", "unarmed protestors", "peaceful protestors", "non-violent protestors". Google any of 'em, and add "occupy". All of those are common descriptors of Occupiers.

What I'm finding is "mostly harmless" and "seemingly harmless" and so on. I'm sure they're also commonly described as dirty lazy hippies - so what? Your use of quotes was misleading, deliberately or unapologetically. The core of the protest espouses non-violent direct action. That includes the breaking of laws, by the way, where such lawlessness is non-violent. It can be a powerful force - the video of the californian students being callously pepper-sprayed is worth watching - the crowd that could have turned into a bloodthirsty mob and ripped the campus cops apart instead chose to speak to them, to tell them the world was watching, and to invite them to leave peacefully. They opted to leave peacefully.

Bull.

No, it's easy to say that, but you sound like one of those 9/11 CTers (I'm picking up some serious debating skills on this forum ) talkin about 'explosions' or 'missiles'. The term 'militarised' in that context was a metaphor, an analogy. Nobody said they are the military, you make the mistake of imagining the two things compared must be identical, which would make any analogy a failure. So my point is not 'bull', which any intelligent reader could divine from your response to it being merely the word 'bull'.

"Militarized" means Soldiers prefer not to use face-concealing helmets specifically because they obscure vision and they're dehumanizing. Cops use it for riots so they can intimidate the rioters.
Tear gas is not exactly standard military equipment, nor are barricades, nor are batons, or tasers, or...
Given that most police riot-control equipment was developed specifically for civilian law enforement work, nope.

Oh I see, you've got a dictionary. You can beat people around the head with it, it still doesn't define words. It records usage. But since you have one, look up 'metaphor'.

Affirming the consequent. I'm arguing that these police are not militarized, yet you're still referring to them as such without any acknowledgement that it is under debate.

I'm still holding to my side of the argument, yes, and by being involved in it (against my better judgement at the moment...) I acknowledge that it is under debate. But you know, I'm right and you're wrong, so I keep using it

Slippery slope, irrelevant scare tactics.

It's more in the manner of a prediction, really, based on something I'll call, erm, let's say 'continuum of force', shall we? Maybe the oligarchy will crumble before the military are deployed (I don't think so, do you?). Maybe the protestors will give up and go home before the military are deployed (I don't think so, do you?). But I'll concede I could better have expressed it as "If, and when, the military are deployed etc".

It used to be "non-lethal", until someone pointed out that they do, rarely, kill people. The question is about efficiency and which is appropriate in which situation.

In which situations are 'occasionally-lethal' rounds appropriate when dealing with protestors you were so keen to demonstrate are harmless, unarmed, peaceful and non-violent?

Now who's using quotes and arguing over semantics?

Do you mean you're taking exception to my quoting a phrase you used in this thread, just because I took exception to you importing a 'commonly used descriptor' that had not been employed in the OP or the report it links to? Really? As for 'semantics', it's the last resort of someone with no rational defence for their ideas and opinions. It's why I suggested a separate thread, so you can't easily mire a possibly productive discussion in the mere exchange of definitions.

Asking people to disperse is characteristic of law enforcement, not military action.

'Asking' might be. What a semantic morass we find ourselves in. Is pepper spraying now a 'request'? Shields and helmets and firearms (however sporadically-lethal) are characteristic of the military, not law enforcement (in the UK* at least, where the article linked in the OP was written and largely read).

*The UK is a country outside of the US, by the way. Scientists have not yet conclusively demonstrated the inherent superiority of the US.

I don't think that's necessary. I still maintain that it is emotive and inaccurate nonsense. I also maintain that most of the people comparing the police to the military have very little or no idea what the "continuum of force" is, or are even really aware of what the military and 5-0 actually do. I believe you are one of that number, indicated by several things, such as your lack of knowledge about the term "less-lethal", which is a term itself based on semantics.

Oh, someone already nabbed 'continuum of force'. By the way, we're not here to talk about me, but I concede that it's easier to attack an individual than, say, an argument. Since you want to play that game, demonstrate the evidence for your spurious charges: I am knowledgeable about the term 'less-lethal', I still find it a "ghastly euphemism", which is all I'd said about it and not enough for you to draw your erroneous conclusion from. Also...oh...you said "several things" but only mentioned one. I can think of another - you call me ignorant because I disagree with you. I have to concede that I do disagree with you, but I can''t accept that indicates an ignorance of what the police (or "5-0", if you like, though the only people I meet who say that are the homeless youth who pretend to be 'gangstas' in the hostel I work at) actually do. I observe what our police actually do most nights, we scratch each others backs. I've observed them dealing incredibly well with difficult situations before taking a reluctant step along the continuum of force.

 

[000063]

Well you know the old saying...fight fire with fire

Ad Hom.

I don't believe I've ever met anyone so deeply conservative that they decry the entire human rights movement all the way back to the magna carta.

Brilliant. Make this a fundamental human rights issue--it's not--and sneak in a shot at me. You're ignoring what I actually said: the law should be enforced in an egalitarian manner, and anyone that demands special privileges for themselves has no right to expect they be enforced. That is what I said.

What I'm finding is "mostly harmless" and "seemingly harmless" and so on.

Did you search for what I told you?

I'm sure they're also commonly described as dirty lazy hippies - so what?

Funny thing; I have never actually seen someone describe them as dirty hippies, except those sympathetic to the movement, who were parodying the way they think non OWSers talk, and people unsympathetic using it in an sardonic and insincere manner.

My point was that Occupy itself tries to decry and downplay any damage it causes.

Your use of quotes was misleading, deliberately or unapologetically.

How so? Those are things repeatedly espoused by someone sympathetic to OWS on this very forum, without significant disagreement from others sympathetic to the movement.

The core of the protest espouses non-violent direct action.

Therefore anyone identifying as OWS who is violent is obviously not part of OWS, yes, we're all familiar with No True Scotsman.

That includes the breaking of laws, by the way, where such lawlessness is non-violent.

The assertion that people should be allowed to determine if they are or aren't above the law is disturbing. The fact that this is passed off in an aside is also disturbing.

It can be a powerful force - the video of the californian students being callously pepper-sprayed is worth watching - the crowd that could have turned into a bloodthirsty mob and ripped the campus cops apart instead chose to speak to them, to tell them the world was watching, and to invite them to leave peacefully. They opted to leave peacefully.

It's the oddest thing, but I've watched the undedited versions of the videos, and the people sitting on the ground were also given the express verbal option to leave peacefully or be removed. They were given plenty of warning by the crowd. Any crowd chanting "Cops off campus!" and "**** the police!" while surrounding the armed 5-0 can only be considered peaceful in that they are not actively committing violence.

They were attempting to intimidate the cops, not speak to them.

No, it's easy to say that, but you sound like one of those 9/11 CTers (I'm picking up some serious debating skills on this forum ) talkin about 'explosions' or 'missiles'. The term 'militarised' in that context was a metaphor, an analogy.

No, it was not. It was a term with several specific uses, none of which are correct. I've argued on the 9/11 forum a lot; they are generally reluctant to quote official sources they claim to have. I used a direct quote from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The police are not "like" a military even in an analogous sense of the word.

Nobody said they are the military, you make the mistake of imagining the two things compared must be identical, which would make any analogy a failure.

No, I do not.

So my point is not 'bull', which any intelligent reader could divine from your response to it being merely the word 'bull'.

You misunderstand. "Bull." was the thesis statement, not the entire argument.

Oh I see, you've got a dictionary. You can beat people around the head with it, it still doesn't define words. It records usage. But since you have one, look up 'metaphor'.

You mean a figure of speech suggesting a similarity of X to Y? I've already addressed that interpretation. The only significant similarities riot cops have to a military force is wearing uniforms and helmets and boots.

I'm still holding to my side of the argument, yes, and by being involved in it (against my better judgement at the moment...) I acknowledge that it is under debate. But you know, I'm right and you're wrong, so I keep using it

So you're not actually debating me. Got it.

It's more in the manner of a prediction, really, based on something I'll call, erm, let's say 'continuum of force', shall we?

How long have you been practicing this condescension act?

Maybe the oligarchy will crumble before the military are deployed (I don't think so, do you?).

False binary.

Maybe the protestors will give up and go home before the military are deployed (I don't think so, do you?).

False binary.

But I'll concede I could better have expressed it as "If, and when, the military are deployed etc".

I strongly doubt that. That would indicate the possibility of being wrong on your part.

In which situations are 'occasionally-lethal' rounds appropriate when dealing with protestors you were so keen to demonstrate are harmless, unarmed, peaceful and non-violent?

When the protestors have been issued a lawful order to disperse, and securing compliance with lesser methods have not worked or would be impractical. Don't lump them together, please. There are times to use a nightstick, and a time to use a taser.

I did not call them "harmless". My point was that OWS and sympathizers refer to said protestors as such.

What I find interesting is that many people decrying the UC Davis incident are incapable of describing a better alternative, assuming the protestors were in fact breaking the law. In fact, many of them seem incapable of even admitting there's a possibility they were breaking the law.

Do you mean you're taking exception to my quoting a phrase you used in this thread, just because I took exception to you importing a 'commonly used descriptor' that had not been employed in the OP or the report it links to? Really?

I was referring to a term commonly used in general to refer to Occupiers, not specifically in the OP.

As for 'semantics', it's the last resort of someone with no rational defence for their ideas and opinions. It's why I suggested a separate thread, so you can't easily mire a possibly productive discussion in the mere exchange of definitions.

You're the one insisting "militarized" was a mere metaphor or analogy, not me.

'Asking' might be. What a semantic morass we find ourselves in. Is pepper spraying now a 'request'? Shields and helmets and firearms (however sporadically-lethal)

Whoa! You're either equivocating or expressing ignorance. Pepper spray is not a firearm. Tear gas grenades are not a firearm, unless launched from one. You're mentioning the things cops share with the military, while ignoring all the things they don't.

are characteristic of the military, not law enforcement (in the UK* at least, where the article linked in the OP was written and largely read)

And many times, riot cops are not issued projectile firearms. Even when they are, they are often returned unfired. Cops have to account for every time they discharge a weapon.

*The UK is a country outside of the US, by the way. Scientists have not yet conclusively demonstrated the inherent superiority of the US.

Needless condescension aside, guess what nation is on my passport and I am currently resident in. It is not the United States.

Oh, someone already nabbed 'continuum of force'. By the way, we're not here to talk about me, but I concede that it's easier to attack an individual than, say, an argument.

Which is why you have been engaging in it so constantly, I assume.

Since you want to play that game, demonstrate the evidence for your spurious charges: I am knowledgeable about the term 'less-lethal', I still find it a "ghastly euphemism", which is all I'd said about it and not enough for you to draw your erroneous conclusion from.

No, no, I'll take your word that you have any idea what you're talking about.

Also...oh...you said "several things" but only mentioned one. I can think of another - you call me ignorant because I disagree with you.

Well, there is also your abuse of the terms metaphor and analogy, your beating you breast over how pepper spray is police brutality, your insistence on begging the question, and so on.

I have to concede that I do disagree with you, but I can''t accept that indicates an ignorance of what the police (or "5-0", if you like, though the only people I meet who say that are the homeless youth who pretend to be 'gangstas' in the hostel I work at) actually do.

Which is why I used it, to be sardonic about the police.

I claimed your ignorance based on your apparent lack of knowledge, not because you agree with me. There are plenty of people who agree with me on various issues but are also ignorant on them, not a single example of which is germane to this thread.

I observe what our police actually do most nights, we scratch each others backs. I've observed them dealing incredibly well with difficult situations before taking a reluctant step along the continuum of force.

And there are times when a single step is not sufficient. One can argue that a journey of a thousand miles (to police brutality) begins with a single step, but so does a quick run to the off-license on the corner.

Your experience with police does not inure you from making what I consider wild and hyperbolic statements about them, or how Times Square will soon be the scene of another Tiananmen Square incident. Nor does it prevent you from making passive-aggressive remarks about me. I try to contain any remarks about you to things that are actually relevant to the debate, not insinuations about how I don't know about anything outside of the US.

I find it odd that you assume that someone holding views like mine on this forum must be an American, and must hold certain other views. That is an indicator of prejudice and bias.

 

[Trakar]

...The goals of the OWS folks do seem to be disparate, and their lack of cohesiveness may work against them. However, the Tea Party folks likewise eschewed "leadership" and portrayed themselves (rather successfully) as a grass-roots movement with a common sentiment.

Not surprising given the actual corporate and political funding and GOP organization of the Tea Party's actual roots.

 

[000063]

All right, let me summarize and expand.

1. The original article in the Guardian does not, directly or indirectly, address the damage and harm caused to people and property by the Occupy movement when answering the rhetorical question of the need for the "crackdown". It also does not address the increased crime rates characteristic to areas where these protests are underway. It does not address the legality of actions by Occupy, or consider that this possible illegality may be what is leading to the responses.
1b. This is another example of bias in favor of OWS I believe the Guardian as a whole expresses.
2. The militarization Wolf repeatedly claims to have occurred is wild, emotive hyperbole, not based on any facts, and does not stand up to even a metaphorical interpretation. Police have been getting more and more methods of enforcement that do not involve deadly force, not less.
3. The students at UC Davis were in a configuration designed to make it hard to remove them peacefully, and ignored what may be lawful orders asking them to disperse, as well as mild physical compulsion. They were not "unresisting". They were confrontational. They weren't directly violent, but they attempted to leave the police no option to remove them between use of force and giving in.
3b. The OWS coverage of this event and others has been selectively edited. The iconic clip of the incident does not show the police issuing warnings, nor the chanting crowd that had surrounded the police and was attempting to intimidate them. The Dorli Rainey incident does not mention that the crowd had been lawfully ordered to disperse, and that she was in the middle of the crowd, not looking police in the eye.
4. The Tabir square comparison is hyperbolic and emotive.
5. Negative, uninformed, judgements about use of force and weaponry (and those wielding them) are often made by those who have little familiarity with such.
5b. I personally believe Europeans are more likely than Americans to hold such ideas, due to their lower rate of private gun ownership and thus, lower exposure to information about firearms and other weaponry. This is not exclusive to Europeans, of course, but given that Jiggy has claimed that the article was written by and to those living in the UK, the willingness to generalize about America in the comments is worrying.
6. The claims of the three points representing OWS is rather suspect, as even OWS will admit that they do not have a unified or even widespread agenda.
7. Jiggy's claims that the military will be used to respond to protests and riots with lethal force is both slippery slope argument, and entirely unsupported.
8. The ultimate conclusion, that Congress is commanding the "crackdown" to protect its own interests, is based on nothing more than taking several facts and assuming a larger conspiracy.
8b. This conclusion makes the government the bad guy, and has thus been swallowed whole by many of those sympathetic to OWS.