Protester Arrested
- Thread starter Concordia
- Start date
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
But how many would be confused to what the just cause is? Hmmmm? In a nutshell, people are not sure whether or not peace or war is the answer. Hell, some people don't even know what the situation in Iraq is. Remember the wag against war, as I've heard it called, where children walked out of the classrooms to protest the war? If not, then it happen this past Wednsday in Australia and they play to have future ones here and in America. Some of these children didn't even know who Saddam was when they were asked. Which is a sad indicator to just howuneducated some people are over this whole mess.
Delance
Victory, you say?
I think it is a terrible thing when you start manipulating people, especially children, to further your agenda. So the anti-war activists get a lot of people, including children that don’t have any idea of what's at stake. Someone could do the same thing "pro-war", but it wouldn't mean anything either.
The problem you all should understand is that this has nothing to do with actual intelligent debate, but with disinformation and propaganda.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Yup. Move on when someone has to resort to these sort of tactics.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Skip school to protest war? Well, duh. How utterly inane -- students will do *anything* to get themselves out of school in the first place. What's next? Eating ice cream to protest cutting down the rain forest?
Now, if someone with *something to lose* were to protest in this manner I'd have a heck of a lot of respect for it. If, say, steel mill workers skipped work for a day, then it'd *mean* something -- they'd be sacraficing a days pay in order to prove their point.
Now, if someone with *something to lose* were to protest in this manner I'd have a heck of a lot of respect for it. If, say, steel mill workers skipped work for a day, then it'd *mean* something -- they'd be sacraficing a days pay in order to prove their point.
Here's an amusing story for you...
Apparently, during the "skip school in protest" day that was recently attempted in the US, one of the groups that specializes in organizing student protests got a call from 5 students at a school in the LA Unified School District. Apparently the five were the only ones who skipped class that day, and they were hiding in the bathroom from school adminstrators, wondering what to do.
heh heh
ace
Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
I go to this mall several times a week; I didn't even realize this was an international issue. I can't say I've ever really seen many security guards around the mall, but there is a Guilderland police station in the mall which would probably dissuade me from being an asshole.
It's a stupid story really. If someone thinks that wearing a T-shirt with anti-war statements printed in large letters is significantly less disruptive than them speaking their anti-war statements to passersby then they need to be hit in the head repeatedly.
It's a stupid story really. If someone thinks that wearing a T-shirt with anti-war statements printed in large letters is significantly less disruptive than them speaking their anti-war statements to passersby then they need to be hit in the head repeatedly.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Well, I guess this Stephen Downs felt he wasn't disrupting anyone by wearing the shirt. He was only expressing his feelings. But apparerently it was. And hey, if that shirt's a problem then how about some of the stuff you can get from T Shirt Hell?
Delance
Victory, you say?
You got it right. Back in 1992, when people wanted to rally students to go protest for the impeachment of the brazilian president, you can bet a large part of the incentive it was the simple fact that they would be allowed to skip school. I remember it well, for I was a student at the time. Perhaps the whole movement would fail if they set the manifestation for Saturday morning.
Turns out that many of the news reports may have neglected to mention something important about what Downs was up to while he was wearing the shirt in the mall. You can read the official complaint that was filed with the courts here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html
(photocopy of the original document - just a single page, easy read)
Turns out the security guard had received complaints that Downs was stopping other shoppers in the mall. So it appears that Downs may have been engaged in overtly "bothering" others present.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html
(photocopy of the original document - just a single page, easy read)
Turns out the security guard had received complaints that Downs was stopping other shoppers in the mall. So it appears that Downs may have been engaged in overtly "bothering" others present.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Well if that's the case, then I believe that they were justified to defuse a situation before possible violence broke out.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
I actually know a few people who were part of the big "skip school in protest" thing. At my unusually pro-war university, about 25 of the 50,000 people on campus were hiding behind some giant "NO WAR" sign. It was funny as hell.
Back onto the subject of people being ejected from malls.. I had a pretty nice incident tonight. Whole bunch of mall rats were loitering in front of my store, which is next to the arcade. They don't come into my store anymore, because we've ejected them quite a lot and the people who live in the mall know we're serious about mauling anyone we catch stealing. Little thieving bastard rat packs. Some of the other stores must've complained, and mall security doesn't really do much in the way of anything without the local police. So the real police and a few mall cops formed a line in front of my store and opposite the mall doors. They announced everyone between them and the doors were to be ejected from the mall as they started walking forward. About fifty of the criminals started freaking out. That wasn't really the desired effect, so the police announced that they weren't moving fast enough and anyone they reached would be arrested. A few of the stupider members of the group decided to test the cops, and several wound up getting choke slammed on the ground about five feet in front of my store. For several hours the cops used pepper spray and riot gear to round up as many of them still in the mall as possible. Good times.
Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Especially the chokeslamming. Should have invited Mark Calloway (he's the dude who's the Undertaker, and he can pick up guys who weigh 200 or 400 pounds and slam them into the ground with one hand) along.
Should have invited Mark Calloway (he's the dude who's the Undertaker, and he can pick up guys who weigh 200 or 400 pounds and slam them into the ground with one hand) along.Phillip Tanaka
Swabbie
Banned
Trouble making young punks. I wish I could have been there cause I would have done it myself. No, on second thoughts, maybe I wouldn't, but I bet it was fun. It's good to see some kicking of ass and taking of names with these sort of people. Back in my days as a youth people would get away with murder.
To war, or not to war?
*** To those who are pro-war and easily offended, I apologise, but please consider my words, I do not seek to change your minds yet I wish to give an explanation as to why I have changed my opinion ***
As the subject suggests, I have changed from a pro-war stance to an anti-war stance. Yes, now I am actually siding with the unclean, left-wing Arts students, who I loathe and despise, on this issue.
Why the great change you may ask? A considered, thoughtful, opinion. Over the last few months I have given a lot of thought to both sides of the argument, and unfortunately I have to side against my Prime Minister (I live in Australia, the true pinnacle of democracy and egalitarianism
) and therefore George Bush.
I used to think Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader. He still is, however I think a predictable foe such as him is better than the alternatives. I don't understand why Bush would want to alter the balance of power that exists in the Middle East.
The excuse that Saddam supports terror is utter nonsense. Yes, he would support terror for his own ends, but to ally himself to the likes of Osama bin Laden is suicide, and not in the sense that the US will attack him. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist. Religious fundamentalism is opposite to Saddam's aims. After all, he fought an eight year war with Iran to oppose the spread of religious fundamentalism. Incidentally, he was given the support of the United States as Iraq helped to contain Iran's newfound religious zealotry. Even Mr Rumsfeld met with Hussein in the mid 1980's.
To support religious fundamentalism would see an erosion in Hussein's power in his police state. Power would flow away from him to the various clerics that would stand up and be counted. They would be the ones swaying the people's opinion. Hussein would never allow that to happen as it is paramount to his own survival, with or without US intervention.
If not fundamentalism, what of those weapons of mass destruction? Inspector Hans Blix has found bits and pieces around Iraq, but nothing that is terribly concrete evidence of any weapons of mass destruction program. There were a few chemical weapons around, yet nothing that could reach any Western ally, with the possible exception of Israel. However that is unlikely to be a threat as Israel has employed the use of Patriot missiles previously to defend its borders. So who can Hussein attack and with what weapons? The answer is practically no one but his own people!
Would it not be better to go after North Korea, after all, they have their nuclear program up and running plus ICBM's with the possibility of hitting California. There's true mass destruction for you.
And really, from a Western perspective, why should we get rid of Saddam? What finally tilted my opinion against war was the footage I saw of an Arabian conference held recently where the Iraqi and Kuwaiti foreign ministers insulted each other. I was shocked to discover the only one wearing a suit was the Iraqi representative! The only person who was in Western 'dress' was the Iraqi!
To me it would seem that Iraq is more likely to be Westernised and thus rendered pacifist than any other Arab country. It follows that they would be more likely to embrace the freedoms that we in the West take for granted.
Is it for the people? If so, the US would have come good on its promise in 1992 that it would support a popular coup against Saddam. On a program I watched on Television once (and I believe produced by PBS or Channel 4), it was claimed 19 out of 25 Iraqi provinces revolted. However it was soon crushed as the promised American support was not forthcoming and the Iraqi Republican Guard routed the coup ringleaders.
Perhaps it is a war for oil? To all those who said that only 25% of the United States' oil comes from the Middle East may be right, but what they fail to realise is that the proportion would increase significantly if Iraq was administered by the US. Iraq has the second largest oil production capability in the world at the present time, second only to Saudi Arabia. If only Iraq's capability be opened up, oil prices would drastically fall, which would help the US economy become strong again.
We appear to be in a time similar to the stagflation of the 1970's, where the worldwide economy was in recession and no amount of easing monetary policy would help. We are nearly, if not at the lowest interest rates in over 40 years. The economy is still not improving. So, why don't we try to spend on war (the Keynesian approach) whilst reducing the cost of one of industry's predominant inputs, OIL!
Even assuming that only a quarter of the US' oil comes from the Middle East, the resulting influx of oil supply would break OPEC's stranglehold on prices. Iraq wont agree to OPEC's wishes, it would be under US administration! The cartel will be broken and they will all scramble to increase supply to make up for the shortfall in revenues, driving the oil price down further. What else could be better for the American economy.
I think this is really the United States, or more likely, the hawks in President Bush' cabinet trying to clean up their own mess. Many were around during Bush Senior's and Reagan's administrations and now wish to either cover up their involvement or support for Iraq. It should be noted that prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraqi oifficials asked for permission from the US. Surprise, surprise, tacit permission WAS given.
Many Iraqis would prefer not to go to war, just as much as everyone else in the Western world. They don't want to lose their existence, as meager as it is right now. They would like democracy too, as I remember reading in a local newspaper, an Iraqi in broken English was trying to explain to the reporter they like Americans and want 'British Parliamentary democracy". If we bomb them relentlessly, they will truly have nothing to lose and then will fight to the bitter end.
In closing, I leave you with this quote from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:
If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?
Thank you for having the patience to listen to my rant. It is not quite eloquent but I tried my best in the short space of time. Also thanks to the admins for letting us have an off topic zone.
*** To those who are pro-war and easily offended, I apologise, but please consider my words, I do not seek to change your minds yet I wish to give an explanation as to why I have changed my opinion ***
As the subject suggests, I have changed from a pro-war stance to an anti-war stance. Yes, now I am actually siding with the unclean, left-wing Arts students, who I loathe and despise, on this issue.
Why the great change you may ask? A considered, thoughtful, opinion. Over the last few months I have given a lot of thought to both sides of the argument, and unfortunately I have to side against my Prime Minister (I live in Australia, the true pinnacle of democracy and egalitarianism
) and therefore George Bush.I used to think Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader. He still is, however I think a predictable foe such as him is better than the alternatives. I don't understand why Bush would want to alter the balance of power that exists in the Middle East.
The excuse that Saddam supports terror is utter nonsense. Yes, he would support terror for his own ends, but to ally himself to the likes of Osama bin Laden is suicide, and not in the sense that the US will attack him. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist. Religious fundamentalism is opposite to Saddam's aims. After all, he fought an eight year war with Iran to oppose the spread of religious fundamentalism. Incidentally, he was given the support of the United States as Iraq helped to contain Iran's newfound religious zealotry. Even Mr Rumsfeld met with Hussein in the mid 1980's.
To support religious fundamentalism would see an erosion in Hussein's power in his police state. Power would flow away from him to the various clerics that would stand up and be counted. They would be the ones swaying the people's opinion. Hussein would never allow that to happen as it is paramount to his own survival, with or without US intervention.
If not fundamentalism, what of those weapons of mass destruction? Inspector Hans Blix has found bits and pieces around Iraq, but nothing that is terribly concrete evidence of any weapons of mass destruction program. There were a few chemical weapons around, yet nothing that could reach any Western ally, with the possible exception of Israel. However that is unlikely to be a threat as Israel has employed the use of Patriot missiles previously to defend its borders. So who can Hussein attack and with what weapons? The answer is practically no one but his own people!
Would it not be better to go after North Korea, after all, they have their nuclear program up and running plus ICBM's with the possibility of hitting California. There's true mass destruction for you.
And really, from a Western perspective, why should we get rid of Saddam? What finally tilted my opinion against war was the footage I saw of an Arabian conference held recently where the Iraqi and Kuwaiti foreign ministers insulted each other. I was shocked to discover the only one wearing a suit was the Iraqi representative! The only person who was in Western 'dress' was the Iraqi!
To me it would seem that Iraq is more likely to be Westernised and thus rendered pacifist than any other Arab country. It follows that they would be more likely to embrace the freedoms that we in the West take for granted.
Is it for the people? If so, the US would have come good on its promise in 1992 that it would support a popular coup against Saddam. On a program I watched on Television once (and I believe produced by PBS or Channel 4), it was claimed 19 out of 25 Iraqi provinces revolted. However it was soon crushed as the promised American support was not forthcoming and the Iraqi Republican Guard routed the coup ringleaders.
Perhaps it is a war for oil? To all those who said that only 25% of the United States' oil comes from the Middle East may be right, but what they fail to realise is that the proportion would increase significantly if Iraq was administered by the US. Iraq has the second largest oil production capability in the world at the present time, second only to Saudi Arabia. If only Iraq's capability be opened up, oil prices would drastically fall, which would help the US economy become strong again.
We appear to be in a time similar to the stagflation of the 1970's, where the worldwide economy was in recession and no amount of easing monetary policy would help. We are nearly, if not at the lowest interest rates in over 40 years. The economy is still not improving. So, why don't we try to spend on war (the Keynesian approach) whilst reducing the cost of one of industry's predominant inputs, OIL!
Even assuming that only a quarter of the US' oil comes from the Middle East, the resulting influx of oil supply would break OPEC's stranglehold on prices. Iraq wont agree to OPEC's wishes, it would be under US administration! The cartel will be broken and they will all scramble to increase supply to make up for the shortfall in revenues, driving the oil price down further. What else could be better for the American economy.
I think this is really the United States, or more likely, the hawks in President Bush' cabinet trying to clean up their own mess. Many were around during Bush Senior's and Reagan's administrations and now wish to either cover up their involvement or support for Iraq. It should be noted that prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraqi oifficials asked for permission from the US. Surprise, surprise, tacit permission WAS given.
Many Iraqis would prefer not to go to war, just as much as everyone else in the Western world. They don't want to lose their existence, as meager as it is right now. They would like democracy too, as I remember reading in a local newspaper, an Iraqi in broken English was trying to explain to the reporter they like Americans and want 'British Parliamentary democracy". If we bomb them relentlessly, they will truly have nothing to lose and then will fight to the bitter end.
In closing, I leave you with this quote from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:
If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?
Thank you for having the patience to listen to my rant. It is not quite eloquent but I tried my best in the short space of time. Also thanks to the admins for letting us have an off topic zone.
Aries
Vice Admiral
Re: To war, or not to war?
so we should leave him in power so he can kill thousands more of his own people and also so he can get the deadliest weapons the world has ever known just cause there's a chance the dude who replaces him will be worse than Saddam? that doesn't make sense to me
cause it's the right thing to do
your right, Bin Laden and Saddam are opposites. but just remember, The enemy of my enemy is my friend
better to get him now than when he CAN attack someone other than his own people. and the fact that he has attacked his own people is reason enough to go get him
North Korea's time will come. after all, why jump from one mess to another when the first hasn't been fixed, and has been going on longer
so the dressing habits of the iraqi government is a reason not to go to war
mabye, but remember, with Saddam in power, they won't be able to embrace the freedoms that we in the west take for granted
and that's another reason we should go in a kick saddam's ass
for that big oil argument, of course opening up Iraq's oil (under US administration) would be good for the US economy. nobody said it wouldn't be. but to say that is the reason we are gonna go to war is just plain wrong
yeah, we're trying to fix our mess. we left Saddam in power in 91 when he should have been taken out. that there is reason alone to go in and kick his ass
and they ain't gonna get democracy as long as Saddam or his buddies are in power. the only way to get them democracy is to kick out saddam and establish a democratic gov in iraq
so we should leave him in power so he can kill thousands more of his own people and also so he can get the deadliest weapons the world has ever known just cause there's a chance the dude who replaces him will be worse than Saddam? that doesn't make sense to me
cause it's the right thing to do
your right, Bin Laden and Saddam are opposites. but just remember, The enemy of my enemy is my friend
better to get him now than when he CAN attack someone other than his own people. and the fact that he has attacked his own people is reason enough to go get him
North Korea's time will come. after all, why jump from one mess to another when the first hasn't been fixed, and has been going on longer
so the dressing habits of the iraqi government is a reason not to go to war
mabye, but remember, with Saddam in power, they won't be able to embrace the freedoms that we in the west take for granted
and that's another reason we should go in a kick saddam's ass
for that big oil argument, of course opening up Iraq's oil (under US administration) would be good for the US economy. nobody said it wouldn't be. but to say that is the reason we are gonna go to war is just plain wrong
yeah, we're trying to fix our mess. we left Saddam in power in 91 when he should have been taken out. that there is reason alone to go in and kick his ass
and they ain't gonna get democracy as long as Saddam or his buddies are in power. the only way to get them democracy is to kick out saddam and establish a democratic gov in iraq