Forum Post: Peaceful disruptions or peaceful blockades are a contradiction of terms
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 3:34 p.m. EST by pedro01
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OWS is telling us that they are having peaceful disruptions or peaceful blockades. By their nature disruptions and blockades are not peaceful. The U.S. military will disrupt and enemy or form naval blockades and they aren't looking for the Nobel peace prize when they do it. The U.S. military is far superior to the OWS bottom feeders but you get my point.
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon... Going to the candidates debate... Laugh about it, shout about it.... When you've got to choose... Every way you look at it you lose....
AND HERE'S TO YOU Ante Pavelić THIS NATION TURNS IT'S LONELY EYES TO YOU....
what of
non-violent disruptions or non-violent blockades?
a good waste of your time
[Removed]
I guess your point is that you are a Horses Ass!
You probably were looking into a mirror backwards when you came up with that one.
Conservatives look back the future is OWS
please explain your OWS future? what will you replace the successful American modeln with? communism, socialism? you have no idea.
Who said anything about peaceful? Non violent civil disobedience is not peaceful. It is simply non-violent. No violence is initiated by the protesters, unless you call standing in the street violence.
The bottom feeder is YOU for trying to distort reality for the sake of the 1% that hurts so many people around the globe.
Go home to mommy and feed on her bottom, troll.
It was from a OWS head lline on this website:.......'One hundred Brooklyn community members and Occupiers peacefully disrupt foreclosure auction '
Did you see the video? Was there anything other than singing and milling around? Was anyone threatened? Was there a single incidence of anyone so much as touching anyone else? There is more violence in every day in the average playground. It was a peace protest.
That said, OWS has never characterized itself as a peaceful movement: only a non-violent one. And so far, the overwhelming majority of violence was by the police, not OWS.
Now run along and go find an insect you can pull wings off of. That should make someone like you feel very fulfilled.
iq check! the overwhelming violent occupy protest comes from the occupiers not the police. Brick throwing, stabbings, rapes, molotov cocktails are the weapons of choice for the occupiers.
Nope. There was a rape by an outsider. There have been no molotov cocktails, there was one incident of brick trowing in California by a pre-existing group called Black Bloc, and there have been no stabbings by any protesters in protest. OWS has not attacked Wall Street execs, Dock workers, or anyone else they are protesting.
The police, on the other hand have needlessly used batons, pepper spray, and even broke the windows of a cop car (he was filmed doing it) to try to lay the blame on OWS. Only the police caused a severe head injury to a war veteran.
of course all of the protesters are innocent!
I never said that. I'm sure there have been a few rogues. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that OWS is based in non-violence. ML King based his methods on non-violence as well. That didn't mean everyone who marched with him listened. And the fact that they didn't is no reflection on him. Timothy McVeigh was not representative of all supporters of the first amendment, even though he murdered people because he was protesting Waco.
That was pretty cool.......eh?
OWS bottom feeders did not come from the headline. That was your very own addition. So, don't try to backtrack.
the question from our distinguished friend epa1nter was 'who said anything about peaceful?' I showed him or her the quote from OWS news using that word 'peaceful'
OWS bottom feeders did not come from the headline. That was your very own addition. So, don't try to backtrack.
Wake up, you are not following me. The words are my own as i don't just copy / paste
Oh, I'm following you. Isn't this fun?
The words are your own because you are a douche bag. You serve no purpose other than to be a douche bag.
look you have problems, you probably are a failure in life and choose to take it out on the world. the good news that you can change if you want to.
Isn't this fun? Isn't this what you came for?
[Removed]
If you get between me and my Constitutional freedoms it is not really a question of whether you are violent, non-violent or just an idiot, does it??
If you are supporting a blockade what are you really doing. Are you preventing a business from making sales OR are you preventing an individual from making purchases.
Terminalogy is not really the cause - what is happening is the cause.
is this about economic sanctions on Iran?
Who said anything about Iran? The topic is blockades and disruptions.
I DO NOT like disruptions. I got things to do, and I do not need any disruptions.
Such actions only make me more against the blockcade or disrupting party regardless of how well they might be intended. Just do not get between me and my freedoms of movement, speech, assembly, or my right to buy, sell, be, or pretend to be, etc.
what are talking about? You make no sense at all.
Maybe it is too early in the day for you.
What I intended was this:
A blockade is a line. Do you intend that line to be the point across which a person cannot cross and thus you take away a sale from the business on the other side. Or do you intend that the line be the point across which a person cannot cross to make a purchase.
A blockade must necessiarly have an impact upon two entities.
no, its not too early, i really don't understand what you are saying
Well, I will try again.
If someone decides that medicine is too expensive and decised to blockade the local pharmacy who are they really after:
The pharmacy who is selling expensive drugs. Thus attempting to stop them from selling the drugs.
The person who needs the medication. Who is now being stopped by the blockade from getting that needed medication.
A blockade, after all, means preventing access.
OK so the blockade in this case is a form of violence as it is denying freedom of choice to go that pharmacy.
Well, you can always call it what ever you want - to me it is taking freedom away from someone in favor of one's self and one's self interest.
Then you can describe "violent" and "non-violent" and make that whatever you want too.
I'm sorry, did you have a point other than being a total jack off?
Yes of course, i had a point. Isn't it obvious? If not,... my point is that saying that a disruption or a blockade is peaceful is a contradiction or a oxymoron.
You distort the truth. Non -Violence does not have to be peaceful,It just does not use violent acts to achive it's end.Again you are a Horses Ass
OWS bottom feeders
I got it right, you are a douche bag.
I got it right tou are the dropings of a horses ass
Which would have been great. Had you replied to the person that you called a horses ass to begin with.
I did,Nobnot has no beef with you lady.
[Removed]
You serve no other purpose other than to be a douche bag.
there is nothing peaceful in a distraction or blockade. This is not how non viiolent protests are done
Awe. This is how nonviolent protests are done.
If you hinder people from going about their work, the govt has the right to take necessary action.
Just like a conservative always depending on the goverment
Oh, so now I am a conservative? Fascist, Republican, Fox news viewer what else? FYI I am none of those. People who do not agree with you do not have to be any of those types. Just as I dont think you guys are leftist. In fact, most leftist I have met are far smarter than you guys
Awwwwweeee, pobrecito. Have you been hindered? Is that why you are here?
Sorry that you feel that way :>
No, you don't. Don't lie on top of the shit. You serve no other purpose other than to be a douche bag.
There is a problem with that. This means that even if you have some point to make in the future it will be dismissed. Of course, that is your problem and not mine.
[Removed]
I think what we have here is a disagreement, that's OK. I think that disruptions aren't peaceful and you don't.
No, what we have here is not a disagreement. I think you are a douchebag. You came with the intention of starting shit. Isn't this fun? Isn't this what you came for?
i don't know, you seem to be the one arguing. I understand that you don't agree with me and that's that.
Isn't this fun?
contradiction can sometimes clarify an argument
This isn't about clarification and you know it.
I think the blockades on Iran
serve to isolate the nations from each other
so lines and good guys and bad guys can be drawn
That's nice.
I think those lines are drawn pretty damn clear. Don't you?
repeatedly
in the State of the Union address
some warned that the military industry seeks perpetual war
possible with China or Russia
both of which have not condemned Iran
They are involved in trade agreements with Iran. Always have been. Why would you expect them to condemn Iran?
I would not
I wouldn't look for it in the future either.