Forum Post: Terrorists vs. Occupy
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 10:08 a.m. EST by thomasmiller
(163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What is the difference between a terrorist shutting down a United States port and Occupy shutting down a United States port? Was there any justification for shutting down an entire port the day thereby negatively effecting truck drivers, workers at the port, etc?
I am willing to listen and hear why the forced stoppage of a port is not an act of terror. So if something happens in the future which Occupy Oakland feels is wrong then they are going to shutdown and terrorize a major infrastructure piece?
Shutting down commerce seems to be the goal.
Posts here accuse "wall street" and corporations of "murdering" people and "stealing" everyone's money.
Shutting down everything from the farmer exporting rice to the small business that rely on imports of electronics to stay in business all get caught up in the general tenor of bringing down the capitalist system, banking and finance system, and our republic form of government.
So what if thousands, millions tens of millions really kind of like our overall system. We have major problems right now, but wanting to do away with the United States as we know here, is not the solution.
If non-violent political protest "Terrifies" you then you need to grow some skin. You are groping for things to be against here. Terror is daily drone attacks, watching people in your neighborhood being blown to bits from a mile away, with no trial of even a charge. Do try to get some perspective. I mean damn son.
The dockworkers union supported the general strike but are contractually prohibited from striking, so Occupy Oakland gave them a hand.
The message was clear: If the city uses violence against peaceful protesters then it will suffer economically.
The port shutdown was only temporary. They shut down one shift and declared victory.
I think it was a bit irresponsible but not an act of terrorism. There were no accusations of terror that I heard. Nobody was afraid.
Now, people smashing up storefronts, that's terrorism.
The intentional financial collapse of the United States of America by Wall Street FOR THEIR PROFIT was the greatest act of terrorism committed on Americans in the past fifty years. A far more egregious act of economic class warfare and terrorism than even 9/11.
Relativity.
Stealing the accumulated home equity, savings and jobs of millions of tax paying middle-class Americans was and is an act of terrorism committed by Wall Street. Wall Street profits from the ports even though those ports are sustained by the taxes of middle-class Americans who have had their livelihoods and home security stolen from them by Wall Street.
Its all very relative.
Or, its simply a matter of turn about being fair prey.
You get what you give in this world. What is the value of one evening shift being shut down at one port versus the loss of ownership, jobs and savings by millions of Americans?
There is no difference except that one hurts millions of Americans and the other hurts thousands.
no one was killed or hurt
Dude, try being a philosopher and not a sophist.
Were you "terrified" by the action going on at the port, Thomas?
Yes I was. I am scared to think what an Occupy group might do next if they do not like something happening in politics or the business world. What if a bank makes a business decision to do something then they go shut down the airport or train station for a day? Its the same as if a terrorist doesnt like something and then finds a way to shut down the airport.
For the record I was not for that type of action and stated so on several threads, because it is obstructive , not constructive.
However, equaling this type of action to terrorism is a real stretch. Honestly I find the overuse of the word to be just as frightening.
I am reminded of that quote, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Man up buddy don't be so scaredy cat.
Terrorism is a real stretch? lol
http://www.cfr.org/port-security/targets-terrorism-ports/p10215 "Yes. Experts warn that U.S. seaports could be tempting targets for terrorists bent on killing large numbers of people, grabbing media attention, and disrupting the U.S. economy."
The reason for Occupy Oakland to shut down the port ? "Organizers say they want to stop the "flow of capital." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57316504/occupy-oakland-shuts-down-port/
They also threw paper airplanes at some of the banks' headquarters so I guess that means they have "flown airplanes into buildings" too. Mercy mercy me.
I have to agree with you. At this point , I don't see the difference between them and terrorist.
Everything and everyone is a terrorist in a culture of fear.
Nope just those that act like one.
I accuse you of being a terrorist.
Have you, or have you not instilled the fear of Occupy in the hearts and souls of all Americans with your post?
No I have not. The occupy movement has done that themselves. The Media is just reporting about it. But nice try.
I agree Thomas, next time something like this happens why don't we send all of our Military troops to occupy some small resource-abundant country for a decade or so.
The longshoremen supported the action of Occupy Oakland. Indeed, the west coast longshoremen are notorious for regularly and often shutting down the port for a variety of progressive issues well beyond their own issues of wages and health and safety on the job.
[Removed]
You can ask the same question every time the longshoremen themselves shut down the port in both wildcat and sanctioned strike actions. Is every time that happens a "terrorist" act? Nonviolent direct action is a time honored political tactic which developed particularly in the 20th century and has been employed by disenfranchised movements from India in midcentury to the American civil rights movement a decade or so later to movements all over the world today. Why is it so great when it is seen from afar in the Arab world, but a "terrorist act" when it happens here in the US?
[Removed]
Mikey, your silliness informs me why you are called Mikey and not Mike. Mikey likes it. Don't you Mikey?
[Removed]
Yes, the United States has the most complicated and restrictive set of labor laws of any industrialized democracy, largely constructed to restrict the freedom of action of the rank and file in the interest of commerce (as opposed to human rights) and the rights and power of the corporate elite.
Undoubtedly the Obama administration would agree that the Occupy movement is a terrorist operation regardless of what it says publicly about it as very clearly the Department of Homeland Security and other antiterrorist agencies of the government are very clearly being used to monitor the Occupy movement.
Unrestricted commerce is not at odds with human rights. A man has a right to do whatever productive work he chooses, and to ask for whatever he wishes in exchange for it if others are willing to trade it, so long as he does not violate the rights of others. This is a derivative of the right to life. It is derived from the fact that a human being is a specific type of being whose life requires a specific course of action. Division of labor and free trade are beneficial to men who wish to live in a society. You are correct in noting that it is the restrictive labor laws which favor some over others. But you are wrong in the assertion that these laws benefit commerce as such. They benefit the commerce of the FEW (those with government favor) at the expense of the MANY (those without it). These restrictions are made possible by the commerce clause in the constitution, the greatest single principle in conflict with human rights.
What matters is what comes first. For example, the exlicit purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to foster commerce, not to protect workers rights. The primary concern was the strike wave that was sweeping the nation at the time and figuring out how to contain it. Workiers rights developed as a kind of ancillary benefit of the NLRA, but it was not its primary or explicit purpose. Had the primary purpose of the NLRA explicitly been workers rights rather than commerce, then I suspect that workers rights would be considerably more comprehensive than is the case today. It probably also would have benefited commerce, but undoubtedly not nearly so much as is currently the case with the current arrangement.
I don't disagree with the first sentence. My point is that under laissez faire, workers' rights -all workers- are protected by the laws of the marketplace. A man is free to offer his ability at whatever price the market will bear. He then spends whatever money he is able to earn as wisely as he can in order to improve the conditions of his own life. If a factory owner is not forced to pay his workers artificially high (above the market value) wages, he can afford to keep the price of his products lower. He will have incentive to keep his prices as low as possible because if he does not, someone who can offer a more valuable good or service at the same price, or someone who can offer a good or service of the same value at a lower price will put him out of business. When a better service or good comes along and does so (assuming he can't keep up), and he loses his business, the hole in the marketplace left by the goods he used to produce will be filled by his competitor, who will be able to make them available at a lower cost to the buyer. The worker who's factory job was eliminated by the new competitor may be out of work for a while, if there is no one else hiring, but as the new competitor expands, an opportunity will be created for him. Meanwhile, the value of everyone else's time and effort is increased since they can now pay less (over time, if it is a product of greater quality, or immediately, if it was produced more cheaply) for whatever it is that the more successful competitor has made available.
The percieved benefits of 'workers' rights' and fostering of commerce are accomplished more quickly, efficiently, and successfully by a free marketplace than by any level of government control. As proof, I submit that even with the chains placed on capitalism by government regulation, America was the most successful country for over 150 years. What I mean by that is that the quality of life increased steadily and was not a result of plunder or loot or expropriation of other countries.
The history of the entire western hemisphere has been a history of plunder and exploitation by people of European origin since 1492. That's as true of the United states as it is of anywhere else.
While it's true that early European Americans did exterminate the Native Americans and enslave the Africans, these events did not lead to any lasting improvement in the overall quality of life. It was the principles of the free market that did.
Then the bankers and robber barons went on to make wage slaves out of several generations of European immigrants.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your responses seem to me to take the form of an attack on a free market society by way of denouncing the practices of those who impose restrictions on it.
[Removed]
So true. Its part of the reason obesity is one of the problems of our poor, and a first generation black man born to poverty can be president. No social mobility and oppression by the rich.
I can't make any sense out of the above which seems like a bizarre formulation to me, though the lack of understanding may be entirely my fault and a result of my own denseness.
[Removed]
It was a tongue in cheek demonstration of the obvious flaws in your previous argument.
Since it was my argument its flaws are not at all obvious to me. Please indulge my thick headedness and show me explicitly and directly without being tongue in cheek exactly what the flaws in my argument are.
[Removed]
OK, you sound like a very unhappy person who doesn't like other people very much. I think a couple of days at an Occupy site would probably cure you of that. But maybe not. It doesn't work with everyone, but I think it does work with most people.
Re American labor law, whatever its faults (which are huge) it has nothing to do with the electoral process, so the restrictive nature of American labor laws explains nothing about why Obama was elected or Cain's popularity among conservative Republicans.
[Removed]
Are you saying the people who work for the Department of Homeland Security are obese because they sit all day monitoring Occupy hippies and so haven't moved a muscle in over a month?
[Removed]
How is it racist? I haven't brought up a race at all. Furthermore, I wasn't making an argument, but asking a question. If the people in the Department of Homeland Security are watching the Occupy hippies, I assume it means they don't have much to do but sit on their chairs. Wouldn't that lead to increase weight?
Perhaps you were commenting on your own previous comment which is indeed riddled with generalizations and racist rhetoric?
[Removed]
No, of course not. It's racist to assume a black man born to poverty should not be able to become President.
Still, I'm interested in what you perceived was my racist remark. Or, were you just trolling like a child as usual?
[Removed]
Terror.
Americans are terrorist. Everybody is a terrorist
Terrorism is an 'ism.' And defining 'ism' itself is rather difficult. But I think it's fair to say that taken in totality it is an established and recognized means to an end, a practice, that involves terror as a psychological weapon. It is, in fact, a weapon of war intended to incite an intense fear, as a means of allowing the weak to challenge, deter, or vanquish the many.
Inciting intense fear as terror does not necessarily have to involve violence; only the pretense of violence. But the pre-tense cannot exist without the 'tense.'
Is terrorism an act of defense or an act of aggression; and does it matter?
The Native American was highly astute, absolutely adept, attuned, at the art of psychological warfare. On the evolutionary scale, it serves to preserve life. And why would the Native want to preserve life? Because as a communal creature his very survival depended on it; when his human resources were depleted by starvation or disease, he borrowed from his neighbors - he regularly kidnapped, allowing the captive to assimilate and be absorbed, to replace losses. These are highly documented and historical facts.
Was Oakland an act of terror? Well, now that depends on whether one is within or without; it is subjective. I think it is fair then to say, that even demonstrations are acts of terror, intended to incite intense fear. Right? Terrorism in not an act of diplomacy; we lack the leverage with which to negotiate, instead we're going to "demonstrate." What are we demonstrating, if not mob action as numbers and noise, the threat as a psychological creation, intended to impart a vision, the pretense of the tense, to alter the perception, to incite to fear? And what is fear?
What is it we say, when we say, we intend to "demon-strate"?
Is not noise itself here an act of aggression?
How can you recognize your enemy if you don't know yourself? How do you engage in war if you do not know its weapons?
Hasn't anybody been paying attention to the Middle East?
The better question is when the demonstration involves men in mask and black clothing launching missiles at police officers, setting off improvised explosives, burning buildings, wearing gas masks and using shields...is that terrorism or a legitimate protest and shielded by the 1st amendment. I guess Occupy wasnt involved since they explicitly spraypainted on the wall that the GA didnt approve of it.
People say one thing and do another.. It's not what they say, Mr. Miller, that defines them, it's what they do.
This is the same bunch of losers that vandalized and looted Seattle during the Global economic forum. The police should start shooting.
The difference is Violence and Perception.
If you're a fan of the system of corruption and horror that pervades our society, and you love FOX news, then it's Terrorism.
For everyone else it's a Movement against those things.
The boundary between labor organizing and terrorism has sometimes been ... fluid. But the labor movement knew all too well that the line between the company's position and terrorism could be even more "fluid". In the end I think that history recognizes that a work stoppage at a port is not an act of terror, no more than it is an act of terror for one of the companies involved to shut down operations and sell its assets after being purchased by a corporate raider. Think of it as "capitalism in action".
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_Waterfront_Strike
[Removed]
wanting to do away with the United States as we know here, is not the solution
Why not? That's an assertion, not an explanation.
It depends, of course, on the goal. If the goal is an increase in the general quality of life, then the principles of the American system of government should be actualized by amending the constitution such that there are no more contradictions between individual rights and the legal use of force. It is my opinion that this should begin with the abolition of the commerce clause, which is the single greatest tool that those who wish to expropriate the products of the working class and make free competition impossible have available. It is through this power that coercive monopolies can be established.
At a very fundamental level the Constitution is a reactionary document. The Constitutional Convention was called largely because of the distress of Boston Bankers at a spreading revolt among the debtor class, the most dramatic example of which was Shay's Rebellion.
The most radical elements from the Revolution refused to attend the Constitutional Convention recognizing it as a reactionary gathering. This included most prominently Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson. At the heart of the Constitution is the commerce clause. That is its central purpose. The Bill of Rights was added as something of an afterthought and is not part of the main body of the document.
It is a document which is apparently democratic in some of its elements but which by and large is constructed to serve the interests of a tiny ruling elite.
All that said, it's what we have to work with, but I most certainly don't think it was brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses along with the 10 Commandments. It's a human document by human beings and as such might not only be improved, but should circumstances warrant, replaced. It's no more sacred (for example) than is the consensus decision making model of the General Assembly.
This conversation brings to light a very important issue: When some people refer the "American way of Life", they are referring to the ideas put forth in the declaration of independence: That all humans are created with equal rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted amongst men to protect these rights.
When other people refer to the "American way of Life", they are referring to the situation created by the commerce clause, wherein those who involve themselves in government do so, not to protect individual rights, but to obliterate them; to force others to work for their own benefit.
Would I be correct in supposing that it is this second idea of the United States that you believe should be done away with? If so I would agree with you. I believe the first comment on this topic was referring to the first definition though, when he suggested that doing away with the United States was not the solution.
The courts, including the Supreme Court, have always rejected legal arguments based on the Declaration of Independence. It is not generally considered to be part of United States law. The ultimate arbiter of what is legal or not is based on what the Supreme Court collectively thinks the Constitution means with no reference to the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is a very formal document literally. That is, it is primarily concerned with the form of government and in particular the separation of powers. Enumerated rights would not even have been in the constitution at all had it not been for pressure from various state legislatures and even then they were added as amendments, not part of the main body of the document.
[Removed]
I will be honest. It should be a felony to shut down a major infrastructure item. Should it be legal to shut down the Hoover Dam or to take over an airport? I dont believe that is Freedom of Speech shutting down an item that is needed for the United States to operate.
civil disobedience
Captain, the audience fails to comply.
Even if it is illegal and doesn't represent freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily make it an act of terrorism.
The problem with such an approach, which ruling authorities understand perfectly, is that it really is impossible to charge thousands of people with a felony. The justice system simply couldn't handle it. But clearly that's what it would take to shut down a facility like the Hoover Dam nonviolently.
That's the whole point of civil disobedience. It's not just about making a statement and saving your soul. It's about using your body to force the authorities to confront issues that they are otherwise unwilling to address. True enough we live in a putatively democratic society. But how democratic is it when the law makers of our society refuse to address the issues which all the polling data show are of primary importance to the vast majority. And if the law makers refuse to address these issues what are the people to do?
e _
e o
t e o _
Is it teapot?
I'm sorry Jim. It's not teapot. Alice?
I'm guessing teapoy Pat?
Nope. Arthur?
I'll have to go with terror.
t e r r o r
Its more like civil war than terror. OWS doesn't want to destroy or overtake our country they want a fair playing field and need to shut things down just to bring attention to their plight. They have a right to civil disobedience when their own government does not govern fairly.
Then they should interrupt the mechanism of government, rather than commerce.
True.
"OWS doesn't want to destroy or overtake our country"
What ? Did you not look at the logo on this site ? the only solution is WorldRevolution
The word revolution means A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.
[Removed]