Forum Post: Blockading Thoroughfares is an Act of Violence
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 9:54 p.m. EST by KirkVanHouten
(123)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to the laws of war, a blockade is an act of war. Similarly, any blockade of a street, square, building, subway station, or other facility is an act of violence. I hope the police deal accordingly with any criminals who try to implement a blockade.
Laws of war? Oh you mean the Geneva Conventions that we broke when we decided it expedient to detain enemy combatants in Guantanamo indefinitely, denying their right to a fair and regular trial? And that we pretty much took a big dump on when we decided to re-brand torture as enhanced interrogation? Wow, since you are so concerned we deal with criminals who break the treaties governing war, you can link me to the online arenas where you call for the War criminals Bush / Cheney and Co. to be accorded the same violent detention and justice as you call for here for your fellow citizens, right? No? Oh, never mind, I keep forgetting the boundless capacity for hypocrisy held by those law and order types who hold a lenient stance toward every crime perpetrated by the elites but become hard asses on crime as soon as they feel they can justify pinning one on anyone they don't like.
Well, I've actually read the Geneva Conventions. They have absolutely nothing to do with the way we treat detainees at Gitmo because the conventions provide exactly zero protection to unlawful combatants. The reason for this is that the drafters of the Geneva Conventions wanted to create a strong incentive for combatants not to commit the war crime of hiding among civilians. The Gitmo detainees are unlawful combatants, among other obvious reasons, because they jeopardized the lives of civilians by hiding among them. The Geneva Conventions provide them no protection whatsoever.
So you are an advocate of torture?
No, although I do think Justin Bieber's music should remain legal, based on my deep commitment to free speech.
Excellent reply.
Try explaining that to Gandhi, Martin Luther King and other revered heroes of non-violent resistance.
NATURALLY if they'd had the awesome priviledge of talking with you, "KirkVanHouten", I'm sure they would have decided to just plop down on a couch and watch TV for the rest of their lives.....
Oh please. Martin Luther King didn't blockade thoroughfares; he led marches and boycotts. He also had a righteous and specific agenda, which he accomplished by compelling white moderates to stop ignoring the grave injustice all around them. OWS, by contrast, has no identifiable point or endgame.
READ and LEARN, my friend. BOTH Gandhi and King regularly blocked thoroughfares, staged sit-ins in all kinds of venues, etc., etc. You sound OBSESSIVELY ANTI-OWS.
King didn't blockade thoroughfares. I don't know that much about Gandhi, but if he blockaded thoroughfares he wasn't really nonviolent.
I'm not obsessively anti-OWS, just a big believer in free speech, free markets, and our liberal democratic system. I think OWS is self-indulgent, pointless, and increasingly violent.
What about the violence of the ESTABLISHMENT??? Could we finally hear your thoughts about THAT violence?
That's awfully vague. To what violence are you referring?
WHERE have you been over the past decade? Dwelling in a cave?
Anyway, I have no time for this NON-CONVERSATION. GOOD NIGHT!!!
Are you for real? You have no idea what you are talking about. You're a propagandist's dream! I could get you to believe anything.
When you read about OWS in a text book 20 years from now, you will believe it was righteous and that when people marched in the street it didn't actually block the street.
There won't be anything about OWS in textbooks 20 years from now, unless Noam Chomsky is still publishing.
Wrong.
So we have war.
If OWS occupies subway stations (which not a single person of the 1% every really sets foot in), it will loose a ton of public support. People in NYC, and elsewhere, do not want to see the subways shut down. Once public support is lost, mayors across the country will just have the Occupy sites shut down because they don't need to worry about backlash. Not to mention the amount of bean bags and tear gas that will be deployed on the protesters in the stations. This time they will not have the public's sympathy though.
You think shutting down the Occupy sites is going to stop the protests in this country from escalating? You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?
Well I mean if it looses all public support it really isn't the "99%" anymore is it? It just makes it look like a far left version of the tea party.
And the mask comes off.
Tiocfaidh ar la, sweetie....
Not surprising to see the leftist IRA joining the OWS cause.
According to the strategies of baseball, the rules allow a catcher to block the plate as the opposing baserunner heads for home which may well prevent his team from losing the game. Similarly, any blockade of a square, building, subway station, or other facility is a legitimate strategy for an aspiring political movement to express it's concerns to fellow voters in an alleged democracy. I hope the police act professionally and humanely to find a way for the protesters to congregate freely and also to make sure pedestrians have room on the sidewalk to go about their business.
Polarity1
a) Blockading This Forum Is An Act Of TROLLING !
b) Pretty Soon, Any Protesting May NOT Be Protected Under The 1st Amendment and 'Bill Of Rights' IF Occupiers Can Be Considered "Illegal Protestants" (sic) !!
c) At That Point It Will Become Crystal Clear That The U$A Is NOT a Republic Based On Laws OR Even A demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy BUT A Fascist Corporatocracy !!!
d) GANDHI said : "Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress" & "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Re His Ideas : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha .
e) Say NO To The GOVERNMENT OF THE 99%, BY A 1%, FOR THE 0.01% ! Wall $t.'s Greed CONSUMES Those In Need and Hold This TRUTH To Be Self-Evident : "CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE" !!!
iYA BASTA! !VIVA LOS INDIGNADOS!
respice ; adspice ; prospice ...
Hahahahaha. Good one!
And according to the laws of war, pepper spray and tear gas are illegal as they are considered chemical weapons. But countries using them on their own citizens is not an act of war. So, since a BOYCOTT or STRIKE is not an war but of disobedience, your legal argument about a convention that governs international affairs is a mute point.
no, it is not
Have you been reading the Patriot Act again?
What about the violence of the ESTABLISHMENT - criminal Wall Street and the blood-spattered White House???
How serious can blocking a thoroughfare be COMPARED TO THAT????
Blocking a street isn't as bad as lots of other kinds of violence, but that doesn't make it right.
Pardon me, but you sound like a rules-and-regulations-fixated kind of guy.... the kind of guy who wouldn't jaywalk even to save a life!!!
QUESTION : Was Jesus wrong to raise a whip in the Temple to chase out the greedy money changers? Should he instead have asked "NICELY"???
Real men have balls : they can take a PRINCIPLED stand, even at the risk of their own lives.
THAT is the stuff that men of courage and honor are made of.
I never said violence wasn't justified. The Syrians would be perfectly justified in violently overthrowing Assad to establish a free republic. Americans, by contrast, are despicable if they use violence in a revolt AGAINST our free republic.
"FREE"???????
Um, yes. Did your favorite professor tell you that our freedom is a fraud? He's a loon. America is one of the freest societies in human history. Our government has some terrible flaws (it's the nature of governments), but we can correct them through free speech and free elections.
"...we can correct them through free speech and free elections..." AND the infamous "Patriot Act", RIIIGHT?
[Removed]
Israel is blocking the Gaza strip which are Palestine ports
I bet it's hard to get things in Palestine
Van Houten? Your surname sounds very familiar. I'm thinking the 60's. Hmmm?
Perhaps you're familiar with my son Milhouse.
[Removed]