It is so nice to see that, not all of us want war. I am more interested in knowing how come most of the peace rallies occurred in Seattle area? or I say west coast?. Any one from Seattle here? Very good and powerful demonstration. Recently there have been some serious anti war demonstration but Seattle always seems to be the #1.

Forgot to add the link.

Peace (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/90573_vigil10.shtml)

No anti-war demonstrations around here. Not even any talk of it. I suggested it during school once and people looked at me like i was insane "Not want war..whats wrong with you? You smoking crack or something?". Oh, the brightness of my peers. I'd gladly attend a demo in my area though

I could of swore I seen a rally in SF in the papers yesterday. Maybe it was Seattle though:confused:

Being in a war strips away all illusions about one's self and others. That is why heroics and trechery abound in wars. So many people realize that they themselves are cowards, monsters, fools, or backstabbers. A few find they are better.

I fear the day we no longer have war. Mankind would become wrapped in a cocoon of self-deception and self-contentment. All the evils of the world would build up under this cloth until we sufficate.

Strife is necessary to humanity in the same way fire is necessary to a forest. Without it the forest is choked by its own debris and vermin or vanishes after a fire finally does occur.

I just love it when people at those anti-war rallies get all violent.

Originally posted by Adam
I just love it when people at those anti-war rallies get all violent.

The difference here is that they aren't heavily armed nations with (possible) nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities.

I just love their absolute hypocrisy.

Don't forget that since violence taints protest messages, law enforcement loves to start violence.

This was an economic protest, but still ... from the one place you'll hear it, the World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/ital-o10.shtml).Now, state attorneys are substantiating the criticisms raised one year ago. Although their investigations are still far from over, it has already become clear that the security forces acted in a manner usually associated with military dictatorships. Meanwhile, the public prosecutor’s office has halted numerous proceedings against demonstrators and has instead opened eight new investigations against 148 police officers.

The September 2 edition of the German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported on the state attorneys’ findings, comparing the actions of the Italian police with the methods of “thugs of a third world dictator.” The magazine reported, for example, that the security forces utilised large numbers of provocateurs and known right-wing extremists who, camouflaged as anarchists, destroyed hundreds of shop windows and set fire to automobiles.

“Mixed in with the allegedly left-wing gangs of hooligans,” Der Spiegel writes, “were dozens of right-wing extremists. The police knew everything that was to happen beforehand. In an internal document, published later in the newspapers, the security authorities describe, in advance of the G-8 summit, how members of the neo-Nazi groups Forza Nuova and Fronte Nazionale mingled with gangs of anarchists and sought to start a riot in order to discredit the ‘left’.”They did it in Seattle, too, at WTO-99. Nobody can prove the police planned with the Anarchists in that case, but they certainly did let the masked bandits run amok until they were gone, and then started the seige.

As to the greater topic at hand, what can I tell you? My first draft of ideas came out incomprehensible, so its back to the drawing board. I will, however, leave you with the gist of it: it rains half the year, there isn't much to do aside from drink, we have really good drugs, and a youth crisis that leaves the survivors more often than not among leftist dissent. But, yeah ... you're bored, you have good weed ... why not smoke some and go hang out at the protest?

I'll give it better thought later.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

So the police start it, you say?

Wouldn't it benefit the protestors to start the violence, get all bloodied up, and have images on the news of cops beating them about? They love doing that. In the big S11 rally here a couple of years ago, people threw rocks and full food cans at the cops; one idiot tried to gut a police horse, cutting along its belly and across its back leg. So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs. They love it. Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man". Protest organisers here even have seminars in how to make yourself look hurt, how to make the cops look bad, and how to start trouble with the cops.

adam what about the batton charge at that highschool cause of kennet?

and u DO realise that 5 police have been dissplined for there use of battons on the 11/9?

That "baton charge" was totally misrepresented by the press. Those protestors were breaking the law. Federal law says that protest/picket lines can not prevent people from doing their jobs, nor prevent access to any public area. Those lines were doing both. The police should have tossed them all in prison for breaking a federal law. Instead, they simply tried to move them. Now, in moving them, two matters arise:

1) Nerve pinches/holds as used. Those ranting and complaining about police practices kept saying the police were using lethal and damaing techniques. Unfortunately, the techniques used by the police are neither lethal nor damaging. They have been developed and used for a very long time specifically because they cause temporary pain and give the user control of the subject, and cause no damage.

2) The baton charge, the cops lining up and thrusting their batons ahead while stepping toward the protestors. Well, what were they supposed to do? These people were federal criminals. They were being nice and not throwign them all in jail, instead giving them the chance to simply move away. The protestors refused.

As for the S11 thing... Five police have been shafted to make people feel good. Same as in the Rodney King thing in America. They shafted one cop and let the other off, to please both sides.

So the police start it, you say? In many cases, they do.

I've never heard a reason why the Guard started shooting at Kent State. Insofar as anyone can tell, it was just poorly-trained guardsmen.

In Seattle, the police let a band of vandals run free as a pretext for laying seige to the people. Throughout the battle, the police maintained a public line that was not supported by reality. They would not be using wooden bullets--a lie ... at the moment our mayor made that declaration, city officials were in Boise loading up on rubber and wooden bullets. The police pushed the battle line up into Capitol Hill, where innocent people were not only gassed, but fired upon. In the aftermath, the police said it would have been easier to handle the situation if it wasn't for a law that prevents them from spying on anyone they want whenever they choose. Yet as our local presses pointed out, Direct Action and other protest groups had an open-door policy with their mission goals written on banners outside their buildings. Any police officer could have walked up and written those down for review, but it turns out that nobody did. Memos showed that the police were aware of the Eugene Anarchist group, and even suspected them of plotting violence. But they let the group run free anyway, and then used their vandalism as a pretext for gassing and shooting at everyone else. It was so bad that the fire department told our police chief to take a leap off a tall building when he asked that trucks be lent to hose the crowds. Anybody who remembers the WTO-99 debacle needs to know that responsibility for that mess goes squarely on the shoulders of our mayor (no longer in office) and our police chief (retired as a sacrificial lamb). Let's put it this way: the police knew violence was coming. When they dispatched their forces, the officers were in black, masked, and bore no insignia or identifying marks. (Oh, and when they are dressed as such for an event like that, they are exempted from their crimes; it's why we were all so pissed when the Sheriff was not allowed to fire an officer who was identified on videotape beating a woman while she helped an injured person out of the street, and then videotaped again at another location on the battle perimeter attacking innocent people with pepper spray. If we think of melodramatic examples--something we took a moment to think about in another topic we've been discussing--it is fair to say that if, during that period, an officer chooses to kill someone, even for no apparent reason, that crime will by law be exempted.)

The article about Italy speaks for itself.

I do have some respect for the police chief in ... I think it was Philadelphia, who dressed for combat and stood with his bicycle corp. He was even videotaped losing a battle and having bicycles thrown at him by the angry crowd. But when we stop and think of the violence in Washington, DC, and in Philadelphia shortly after WTO-Seattle, it does us well to remember that nations prefer to hold these types of conferences in the US because our law enforcement is better at suppressing dissent than in nations run by tyrants. There's some food for thought: in the land of the free, our police are more effective at shutting peoples' mouths than in dictatorships.Wouldn't it benefit the protestors to start the violence, get all bloodied up, and have images on the news of cops beating them about?You'd think so, wouldn't you?

But strangely, it doesn't work that way. People in this town still have ill words for the protesters of November, 1999. Listen to American news; if protest violence is a story, our broadcasters support the police departments to the hilt.

And why else would the Italian police hope to incite violence at a protest? Why would they want to bolster support for the protesters?

Violence at protests, regardless of who starts it, is usually pinned on the protesters.So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Well, if we look at the climate of the last five years or so, I'd say it's in preparation for the inevitable.

To the other, I'm surprised that the police had to start the violence at WTO-99. After all, they had announced weeks in advance that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would not be in effect in the city of Seattle during the protests.Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs.Actually, the police do try to hurt people there. Most American cops will admit to taking their shots when they can get them.

On the other hand, I think of the delegate to WTO-99 who chose to approach the conference from the front and pass through the thickest part of the protest immediately outside the conference just so he could have the pleasure of pulling a gun on protesters, knowing that his diplomatic immunity would forgive him the attempted assault with a deadly weapon.Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man". Some of them do. I got to laugh at a friend who joined Direct Action on the front lines in '99. I used to have a great jpeg of him getting gassed by the cops. Absolutely priceless. Protest organisers here even have seminars in how to make yourself look hurt, how to make the cops look bad, and how to start trouble with the cops.While I get what you mean, that's a little like saying cops have manuals that tell them how to get away with murder.

Oh, wait. They do.

Fair enough.

Of course, your predisposition against protesters is well-known to me. As I recall, it was one of our first ugly disputes. To the other, I take my hat off to them. I sat at home, waiting for the police to cross a certain line (killing someone), but thankfully it didn't happen. In the meantime, I salute everybody who went out and protested instead of sitting at home bitching like my brother, my girlfriend, my best friend and, consequently, me. It's one of those days I've come to regret. I should have been with the people.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs. They love it. Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man". Protest organisers here even have seminars in how to make yourself look hurt, how to make the cops look bad, and how to start trouble with the cops.

Bingo. It's the whole martyr thing. If they aren't being exploited and abused, make it look like they are.

I've never heard a reason why the Guard started shooting at Kent State. Insofar as anyone can tell, it was just poorly-trained guardsmen.

Yes, that was quite disgusting. Unfortunately it does indeed happen that way. But for the most part, I think it is the wannabe-martyrs who start it all.


In Seattle, the police let a band of vandals run free as a pretext for laying seige to the people.

Are you saying the police are responsible for those vandals? Perhaps they were being nice, thinking "Perhaps the kids will calm down and be nice", but instead the kiddies continued being pathetic criminal thugs and the police were eventually forced to act.


They would not be using wooden bullets--a lie ... at the moment our mayor made that declaration, city officials were in Boise loading up on rubber and wooden bullets.

WTF were they using guns for at all? Silly.


When they dispatched their forces, the officers were in black, masked, and bore no insignia or identifying marks.

Sounds remarkably like Brasil. Sad country you've got there.


But when we stop and think of the violence in Washington, DC, and in Philadelphia shortly after WTO-Seattle, it does us well to remember that nations prefer to hold these types of conferences in the US because our law enforcement is better at suppressing dissent than in nations run by tyrants. There's some food for thought: in the land of the free, our police are more effective at shutting peoples' mouths than in dictatorships.

Actually, I would suggest the USA is chosen as a venue so often also because they can get images of protestors being violent. Every time a television shows a protestor throwing a rock, their cause is discredited, and the WTO and such come out better.


Well, if we look at the climate of the last five years or so, I'd say it's in preparation for the inevitable.

I guess you'd better go bomb Iraq and a few other countries then, eh?


To the other, I'm surprised that the police had to start the violence at WTO-99. After all, they had announced weeks in advance that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would not be in effect in the city of Seattle during the protests.

They can do that?


While I get what you mean, that's a little like saying cops have manuals that tell them how to get away with murder.

Oh, wait. They do.

The uni groups such as the Monash Uni Anti-War Coaltion do have seminars on how to: start violence against cops; start violence against cops in front of the press; make it look like you're in heaps of pain, et cetera. The cops do not have seminars on how to do those things against the protestors. All it would take is for one cop to mention such things to a non-cop, and there would be a royal commission.

[quote]
Of course, your predisposition against protesters is well-known to me. As I recall, it was one of our first ugly disputes. To the other, I take my hat off to them. I sat at home, waiting for the police to cross a certain line (killing someone), but thankfully it didn't happen. In the meantime, I salute everybody who went out and protested instead of sitting at home bitching like my brother, my girlfriend, my best friend and, consequently, me. It's one of those days I've come to regret. I should have been with the people.
[quote]
Being part of a group of people is not a noble goal. It is irrelevent. It is only a good thing if that group has noble goal also, and noble means of achieving it. Slashing a horse's belly open does not qualify as noble. Vandalising a town doesn't either. But if you truly wish you'd been part of it, well... That's just ducky.

And by the way, the police are "the people".

But for the most part, I think it is the wannabe-martyrs who start it all. Sounds a little like a faith declaration.Are you saying the police are responsible for those vandals? Perhaps they were being nice, thinking "Perhaps the kids will calm down and be nice", but instead the kiddies continued being pathetic criminal thugs and the police were eventually forced to act. Hmm ... well, let's try this from an internalized projection:

• Wow, look at that protest. Oh, my, there's a bunch of masked people in black smashing windows. Should we do anything about it? No? Okay. Oh, look, they're gone. Now let's go smash the heads of the people who weren't breaking anything and also those who tried to stop the vandals.

Do people wonder why the police catch shite in this country?WTF were they using guns for at all? Silly. Well, they're nice policemen and they have to stop all the bad protesters ....

Too bad they didn't. They let the bad guys get away.Sounds remarkably like Brasil. Sad country you've got there. But if anyone has anything to say about it, they're just a wanna-be martyr? Should they write nice letters asking the policemen to behave?Actually, I would suggest the USA is chosen as a venue so often also because they can get images of protestors being violent. Every time a television shows a protestor throwing a rock, their cause is discredited, and the WTO and such come out better. And now we're back to why police so frequently incite violence at protests.I guess you'd better go bomb Iraq and a few other countries then, eh? Well, we as Americans have a right to lay it on the line and demand Constitutional adherence. International combat is a different thing. Maybe the peace protesters should start dropping napalm? That would be ... effective.They can do that?It's all in how you say it. The "legal protest zone" consisted of two blocks' worth of sidewalk blocks away from the conference site. The point was that if the protesters obeyed "the law", the delegates wouldn't have to see them. But yes, the First Amendment was effectively suspended on the grounds that nobody ever goes to jail for those violations, and it would be months after the conference that the details would be sorted out. So looking forward to that, it seems logical to incite violence, if you're the police. It gives another distraction from the offenses against the Cosntitution.The uni groups such as the Monash Uni Anti-War Coaltion do have seminars on how to: start violence against cops; start violence against cops in front of the press; make it look like you're in heaps of pain, et cetera. The cops do not have seminars on how to do those things against the protestors. All it would take is for one cop to mention such things to a non-cop, and there would be a royal commission. So when's the next major international conference in Australia?Being part of a group of people is not a noble goal. It is irrelevent. It is only a good thing if that group has noble goal also, and noble means of achieving itTrue.Slashing a horse's belly open does not qualify as nobleNot my protest. I had no conscience problems about not flying out to that one.Vandalising a town doesn't eitherThat's why the police should seek the vandals, not assist them (e.g. Italy) or let them go free and attack the innocent people (e.g. Seattle).But if you truly wish you'd been part of it, wellIt's my city. It's my people.And by the way, the police are "the people".Adam, that kind of hardlined idiocy in this country is reserved for beefy war-hawks and pipsqueak pundits.

The government is an institution. Authority is an institution. Each police officer that chose to dress in unmarked gear and take part in that idiocy has made a choice to stand with the institution, and not the people it represents.

Government is an instrument of and for the people, not against them.

I mean, I know it would be easier for you if the people were all dullards who accepted what their governments tell them. That's how you operate, isn't it? Government says, Adam nods, right?

No? Not right? Well, why?

Government serves people, not vice-versa.

I remember Hempfest a few years ago, when Floater's performance was cut short. When they announced that the permit was up at 8:00 pm (a bullshit standard, as other events in the same place get to run until 1:00 or 2:00 am), the crowd naturally booed. But onstage, the band looked around and said, "Yeah, but you can't see the police out behind the stage. There's a lot of them, and they're in riot gear."

Strangely, although there was as many as 40,000 people in the park at that moment, all of the stoners chose to not deal with it. We know what the police bring, and what conflict is worth.

But, given that the police were in violation of the law via the equal protection standard, we, the people, had full right to tear them all new assholes. But we didn't. Why? Because a concert wasn't worth it.

(It should be noted that the people never have the right to tear the cops a new asshole. If they want to ask for ID and then shoot you 41 times when you reach for your wallet, you're expected to be happy that they're putting in the effort. If five cops want to beat and then rape you with a toilet-plunger handle in a jail cell, you're expected to thank them for it afterward. Nonetheless, the police were in violation of the law that evening, and on many occasions since. But, since they're government, well?)

Which is it, Adam: Is government for people or are people for government?

In the US, we, the people, own the government. We just need to remind it once in a while.

A suggestion: See if you can book an interview with Lech Walesa and then run your sentiments about protesters by him. I'd be very curious to learn what he told you.

If your government is wrong, Adam, do you just follow orders?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Damn this people asking questions and such, and me being silly enough to write long posts...


Sounds a little like a faith declaration.

Nobody's perfect. *shrug*


But if anyone has anything to say about it, they're just a wanna-be martyr? Should they write nice letters asking the policemen to behave?

Didn't say that. Just commenting on your odd country.


And now we're back to why police so frequently incite violence at protests.

Possibly. Again, the police (here at elast) do not hold seminars on how to screw with protestors in front of cameras. Only the protestors hold such seminars.


I guess you'd better go bomb Iraq and a few other countries then, eh?

The point of that was marking out your willingness to arm and expect violence. Or at least condoning such behaviour from others. Nice peaceful attitude.


So when's the next major international conference in Australia?

The WTO has been meeting here now and then over the last fivfe years or so, and CHOGM now and then. Actually the last CHOGM was a couple of months back. I think something is on next Wednesday, as someone in the Monash Uni Anti-War Coalition invited me to go along with them.


Adam, that kind of hardlined idiocy in this country is reserved for beefy war-hawks and pipsqueak pundits.

Everyone is "the people". Even the bureaucrats in the Pentagon. Even the cops. You can't simply say that "the people" consists only of those out in the streets yelling about how much the government sucks.


That's how you operate, isn't it? Government says, Adam nods, right?

Where did you get that idea? If you must know, I very much dislike the institutions of government, police, and so on. I dislike borders and nations. I never believe what our government says; ours lies even more than yours does. I used to be in there, I saw a bunch of lies and the public crap that was presented instead. (And you would not believe how much of pretty much everything is pure bullshit.) But I also know those lies, and the insitutions, serve purposes. I don't like those purposes, but unfortunately some of it is necessary in our current society. And no, I do not advocate stasis.


Government serves people, not vice-versa.

Pure theory.


Which is it, Adam: Is government for people or are people for government?

In the US, we, the people, own the government. We just need to remind it once in a while.

The government doesn't serve the people. Many think it should, but that is not the case. The government serves stasis, it serves its own continuance.


If your government is wrong, Adam, do you just follow orders?

I don't follow anyone's orders any more. I question the government and protest groups equally.

Here are a couple of frames from a comic I started writing once, just an idea I had. I keep thinking that some day I will have the time to finish it. It's all about conspiracies and such. The focal character at this point is a former bureaucrat/intelligence chap.

----------------------------------------

PANEL FOUR
Character continues, "Then there are people like me, who watch and interpret, listen to the lies, make up new lies, twist and repeat old lies with new names attached, and pretend it's all for the greater good of our country and fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of us, around the world, just doing our little jobs. Listening for who spoke the lies in the first place. Altering the lies to suit our own purposes. Spreading the lies. Doing our bit for our respective employers."

PANEL FIVE
Character continues, "You want to know who the liars are? Me. Me, and people like me. There are more of us than you could ever kill or even count. And we don't even know why we lied in the first place. Nobody knows. Nobody knows the reason, the purpose. It's just a game, our lies versus theirs, seeing whose lie comes out on top, getting people to believe so we can build the future on that lie and make it a bigger lie. There's no purpose to it. No reason. And the saddest part is, I don't think any of the liars know that any more, or at least they don't give a damn."

----------------------------------------

Now, I included this sort of thing in the story because that's basically a large part of how the world around us works. It's actually quite scary, the rest of that section. Turn on the TV news at night, and a heck of a lot of the material comes from crap like that, if you could trace all the reasons and causes back far enough. Since semester ends in three weeks, then exams, I'm going to try writing a lot more over Summer, and this is one of the things I would like to spend some time on.

Governments are an odd breed.

Originally installed to serve the people, people complain about their lies and secrecy and as Adam has mentioned most of these lies and secrecy are to try and protect the people.

You could look at many examples, for instance if nuclear weapons had all the information that the scientists knew about at the time, and were working out released to the press, the public would have disallowed the use of them, which in turn would have extended a war. (Although 200,000 perished to end it and some areas are still off limits.)

In recent times the use of depleted uranium shells to pierce tanks would have caused problems, and they wouldn't have been used, so secrecy covered it up until it was found out.

In these cases you can look at the Militaries viewpoints:

Time, if something takes too much time then there is a loss in trust, a loss in backing and most noticably a loss in agreement.

Money, the world runs on capitalism (and wouldn't run without it.) Militaries receive funding budgets to do what they need to do, if they don't manage to do things within an alotted time, then it costs more budget which means cut backs in some areas.

From a government point, most of the time they have very little control over the military, purely because in a democratic world political parties change with votes, which means no singular President or Prime minister has all the information.

(there is multiple reasons for this, the easiest way is to say that a countries security is a multiheaded organism, is brains are split between multiple heads so if one should unforntunately get cut off, the organism can still think.)

This in fact means that although there are Democratic elections for government, the real people that make the decisions are behind the scenes and formulate their positioning by very un-democratic means.

(In ancient times if people wanted such positions they would knife the person that had that position in the back and take the position by force. "Et tu Bruté?")

This is why many people in these positions really don't like Saddam Hussein, because he acts a mixture of President and Military leader.

In most Democratic countries as mentioned a President or Prime Minister might speak out about what the military plans, but they are only Advised to do so, and Democracy can over-rule the military on occasion.

[Edit:]
Just looking a bit more at the UK method of Heirarchy, you could see how Peerage (Lords) and the military (Warlords) work in the same way. (I'm sure the military powers that be won't like being called Warlords though)

Didn't say that. Just commenting on your odd country.Funny, as I look through your posts, I see phrases like: They love doing that. In the big S11 rally here a couple of years ago, people threw rocks and full food cans at the cops; one idiot tried to gut a police horse, cutting along its belly and across its back leg. So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs. They love it. Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man"... and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it.

Specifically, it seems as if you were commenting on how stupid Australians are. I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting; it makes keeping track of when you're actually honest much more difficult.Possibly. Again, the police (here at elast) do not hold seminars on how to screw with protestors in front of cameras. Only the protestors hold such seminars.You know, Adam, when a cop has a peaceful protester on his face, is yanking his arms out of their sockets, is cutting open the flesh with the handcuffs, and is driving the guy's face into the concrete with his knee, and the guy is actually trying not to fight back, I think it's fair to say that a cop has been trained for it. And when they're automatically forgiven their sins, such as the criminals who laid siege to the people in Seattle in '99?The point of that was marking out your willingness to arm and expect violence. Or at least condoning such behaviour from others. Nice peaceful attitude.I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap.

In the meantime, it is the right of a citizen to protect himself. Why do police automatically dress in riot gear? They are presuming conflict.

What I want to know is why you hate the idea of the people speaking out? Oh, that's right, there is no guarantee of free speech in Australia.

(Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government.)The WTO has been meeting here now and then over the last fivfe years or so, and CHOGM now and then. Actually the last CHOGM was a couple of months back. I think something is on next Wednesday, as someone in the Monash Uni Anti-War Coalition invited me to go along with them.Get me the dates ... maybe I'll fly down.

Since you're desperate enough to try to hold me responsible for the acts of protesters in Australia, I might as well come down and give you a reason for that.Everyone is "the people".Everyone is a person, but when you actively and freely choose to support the State against the people, you are an agent of "the State".

Your brand of literalism is best left for people far less intelligent than you. That's what I find disturbing. I don't really think you're this stupid, and frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting.You can't simply say that "the people" consists only of those out in the streets yelling about how much the government sucks.No, the People consists of all people represented by a State authority. As President Abraham Lincoln said, we have a government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

If that government chooses to betray the people, it is our right and duty to resist.

If a person chooses to align themselves with the government during that period, and to support crimes against the people, well, that person has made their decision.Where did you get that idea? If you must know, I very much dislike the institutions of government, police, and so on. I dislike borders and nations.But you just seem to hate it when people gather to speak in a communal voice. Why is this?

Because your repeated justifications of governments and condemnations of citizens really does make it seem like you believe people exist for the benefit of government.I never believe what our government says; ours lies even more than yours does. I used to be in there, I saw a bunch of lies and the public crap that was presented instead.And, as a result, you wish to do nothing about the things you disagree with, and want everyone else to do nothing about what disturbs them?(And you would not believe how much of pretty much everything is pure bullshit.)I don't know, man, I'm an American. I'm used to bullshit in large quantities being staked on other people's lives. In case you hadn't noticed, its how our government does business. Of course, we should all sit at home and keep it to ourselves when our government is out of hand. That's what the internationals want, right? They want Americans to support their government or at least keep quiet about our disapproval? But I also know those lies, and the insitutions, serve purposes. I don't like those purposes, but unfortunately some of it is necessary in our current society.Lying is only necessary for liars. If the people can't handle the truth, they need to educate themselves. In the meantime, if a government can't operate forthrightly, perhaps it shouldn't be operating.Pure theory.Not really.

No government, people still exist.

No people, no government.

People endorse government--see the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Irish Constitution, heck, even the Australian Constitution.The government doesn't serve the people. Many think it should, but that is not the case. The government serves stasis, it serves its own continuance.That's right ... I forgot the Queen still ruled Australia.

How silly of me.I don't follow anyone's orders any more. I question the government and protest groups equally.Well, you usually have so much to say on behalf of governments and so much to condemnation to offer people that I do wonder.

I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst.

Don't blame American or Italian protesters for the stupidity of Australians. Alright? Easy enough? And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time.

You know, when I was in college, my roommate was from Singapore. He was amazed the first time he saw an American demonstration, and related to me that if more than five people gathered in public, they were eligible to be arrested as subversives. Obviously this did not apply to family dinners, but he also taught me how to light my cigarette in Singapore. And the story he told was that he almost got arrested the day after his tour of armed service ended because when he met some friends, one of them wasn't up on the latest criminal trends, and covered the end of his cigarette in a certain way when he lit it. There was six of them meeting and going into a bar. They were immediately detained by the police as possible subversives planning (gasp!) a demonstration of free speech. Were they given an apology, having just gotten out of the armed service, for being treated this way? No. They were told to enter the bar in groups of three in the future.

Maybe we should get some of those laws going? In the US, we can't do that because the right of assembly is protected. But in Australia, why not? And then you can all sing "God Save the Queen" from the privacy of your own homes and never have to worry about your screwy neighbors and their opinions ever again.

Take American peace rallies, Adam. Would you rather the American people hash it out in their own streets? Or should we take it to the world with our jets and bombs and rifles?

People may not like what our (U.S.) government is doing, but the force of the people in the streets is one of the things that can check a government instantly.

So what would you rather, Adam? That the government for whose benefit the people exist go forth dragging the world into an irresponsible war that will most likely cost Australian lives at some point? Or would you like the protesters to get out in the street and fight the government they endorse and try to force it to behave?

Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours. But in the end, what result do you want? Should the people demand propriety of their government, or should we let others suffer for our mistakes?

The rest of the world knows to cheer the protests in American streets, and if they do turn violent, at least the violence is Americans fighting Americans about what to do, not Americans dropping bombs at will and destabilizing dangerous political balances.

So what do you want, Adam? No, no, don't look to your Queen or your PM to tell you. Make a decision based on what you want as a person, as a human being, not as an Australian or a soldier or a white guy or an atheist but as a human being.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

But if anyone has anything to say about it, they're just a wanna-be martyr? Should they write nice letters asking the policemen to behave?

Didn't say that. Just commenting on your odd country.

Funny, as I look through your posts, I see phrases like:


They love doing that. In the big S11 rally here a couple of years ago, people threw rocks and full food cans at the cops; one idiot tried to gut a police horse, cutting along its belly and across its back leg. So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? Then we see them being marched into custody by the police, in cuffs, screaming "Ow, it hurts, they're abusing me!" just because they're in cuffs. They love it. Many of them attend specifically to get into a position in which they can make it look like they have been hurt by "the man".


... and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it.

Specifically, it seems as if you were commenting on how stupid Australians are. I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting; it makes keeping track of when you're actually honest much more difficult.

Many protestors, particularly the organisers, go to those things intending violence. Perhaps they are a small number of the total there, but then so must the violent police be a small number of the whole. If you can't deal with all this in an adult manner, just say so and wander off, rather than start your usual course of insults.


You know, Adam, when a cop has a peaceful protester on his face, is yanking his arms out of their sockets, is cutting open the flesh with the handcuffs, and is driving the guy's face into the concrete with his knee, and the guy is actually trying not to fight back, I think it's fair to say that a cop has been trained for it. And when they're automatically forgiven their sins, such as the criminals who laid siege to the people in Seattle in '99?

1) The handcuffs were probably metal. The edges are, unfortunately, rather hard and sharp-angled, and the only way to wear them without being hurt a bit is to be relaxed. That is deliberate. The police want those wearing cuffs (criminals generally, or those suspected of being criminals) to be relaxed, and to feel pain if they are tensed. A simply bit of negative reinforcement to help keep them in line. So yes, cuffs bite a little.

2) Pushing the guy's head into the ground is not intended to be cruel. It is simply a very effective method of restraining someone. I learnt this first from horses, on my family's farm. Hold the head firmly against the ground, and the body does not have the strength of leverage to get up and do things. It just happens to work on humans as well. You push the head down to hold them still, and you do it with your knee so your hands are free to do other things.

3) It sems to me that Seattle stuff you keep mentioning was a very extraordinary incident.


I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap.

In the meantime, it is the right of a citizen to protect himself. Why do police automatically dress in riot gear? They are presuming conflict.

1) So it's a good thing that so many Americans carry guns? Or have them in their homes, so kids can be shot coming in late at night and such?

2) Police deal with violent criminals far more often than any civilian does. They have very good reason to be prepared with armour and such.


What I want to know is why you hate the idea of the people speaking out?

Another assumption there.


Since you're desperate enough to try to hold me responsible for the acts of protesters in Australia, I might as well come down and give you a reason for that.

I did? Show me.


Everyone is a person, but when you actively and freely choose to support the State against the people, you are an agent of "the State".

Your brand of literalism is best left for people far less intelligent than you. That's what I find disturbing. I don't really think you're this stupid, and frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting.

Spare me the indignation. A nation, or a culture, is made up of all its members and all its groups. Even its murderers and rapists and porn shop owners. Even its presidents. The president, the bureaucracy, and all of "the state" exists at the sufferance of the people. Particularly in your country, with its stupendously huge bureaucracy, "the state" forms a sizable portion of "the people". Be upset all you want, but you can't pick and choose which segments of your nation comprise "the people". Even that cop who stuck his knee against someone's head is one of you.


If a person chooses to align themselves with the government during that period, and to support crimes against the people, well, that person has made their decision.

So you should stab his horse or throw rocks at him?


But you just seem to hate it when people gather to speak in a communal voice. Why is this?

I don't hate that at all. I hate the weasels who take over such events and deliberately cause violence, because they think it is noble to do so.


Because your repeated justifications of governments and condemnations of citizens really does make it seem like you believe people exist for the benefit of government.

Well, that would be your interpretation, not necessarily the truth of the matter.


And, as a result, you wish to do nothing about the things you disagree with, and want everyone else to do nothing about what disturbs them?

I don't think I said that either.


Of course, we should all sit at home and keep it to ourselves when our government is out of hand. That's what the internationals want, right? They want Americans to support their government or at least keep quiet about our disapproval?

Or the great and might people could do somehting a tad more civilised and clever than stab horses, smash windows, overturn cars, and throw rocks. Such as set up their own political candidate, and all those "people" get behind him/her. Perhaps even put together a serious lobby group, nation-wide.


Lying is only necessary for liars. If the people can't handle the truth, they need to educate themselves. In the meantime, if a government can't operate forthrightly, perhaps it shouldn't be operating.

If a government like yours or mine started telling the complete truth about everything today, it would cause one hell of a mess. Trade deals with other countries might fall apart, killing thousands of people due to lack of grain shipments and such, for an example.

The "pure theory" bit was that governments serve their people. It is a nice idea, but they don't. Yes, if the government falls, the people still exist. But as it stands, governments do not serve the people.


That's right ... I forgot the Queen still ruled Australia.

Actually she doesn't. This has been covered before. The Queen is paid respect as the figurehead of the nation which created Australia. Our PM is elected by the people. The PM appoints the Governor General, wh has the power to sack the PM. The PM also has the power to sack the GG. As a matter of tradition, after being appointed, the GG goes off to meet the Queen. The Queen doesn't actually have any say in Australia. Note that in 1901, Australia was Federated; this means Australia became a sovereign nation.


Well, you usually have so much to say on behalf of governments and so much to condemnation to offer people that I do wonder.

You have not been paying attention then. The majority of my political posts for the past few months have been bagging the crap out of the American government.


I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst.

1) You tend to base your thoughts and responses on things you imagine in my posts, rather than on what I actually post.

2) If you don't like it, don't post replies.


And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time.

Wow, you certainly are in an insulting and entirely off-topic mood today. And - so unsual - ignoring what I actually posted. I did happen to mention my own government. Look again, perhaps you can find it.


So what would you rather, Adam? That the government for whose benefit the people exist go forth dragging the world into an irresponsible war that will most likely cost Australian lives at some point? Or would you like the protesters to get out in the street and fight the government they endorse and try to force it to behave?

1) "The government for whose benefit the people exist"? So now you say the people exist for the government?

2) I have already covered this. Again, I would prefer no thrown rocks, no horses stabbed, no cars overturned, et cetera...


Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours.

Such as:
- "and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it."
- "I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting"
- "I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap."
- "Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government."
- "frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting."
- "I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst."
- "And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time."
- "Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours."

Glass houses and all that, Tiassa. You spend a lot of time and effort typing insults, ignoring what is actually posted, and creating this lists of verbal sewerage. Try examining what is actually there, then responding on topic.


So what do you want, Adam? No, no, don't look to your Queen or your PM to tell you. Make a decision based on what you want as a person, as a human being, not as an Australian or a soldier or a white guy or an atheist but as a human being.

Again, I ask where you get this idea that I serve my government or England's Queen?

Many protestors, particularly the organisers, go to those things intending violence. Perhaps they are a small number of the total there, but then so must the violent police be a small number of the whole. If you can't deal with all this in an adult manner, just say so and wander off, rather than start your usual course of insults.Well, when that much of your police department is choosing to follow orders and handle the situation inappropriately, I'd say that speaks volumes about them. In Seattle, it was other protesters who were trying to stop the vandals.

But don't be trying to write off Australian protesters on my odd little country.

Something about an adult manner? You've always had trouble keeping track of what you were saying. It's one of the reasons I get so tired of your bullshit. If your positions were more coherent, I would find them challenging and intriguing instead of annoying.1) The handcuffs were probably metal. The edges are, unfortunately, rather hard and sharp-angled, and the only way to wear them without being hurt a bit is to be relaxed. That is deliberate.I've been arrested before. But since it was just me and the cop at the time, he was rather pleasant about it. In my case, he was also aware that the charge wouldn't stick. And since we both knew it, he knew damn well to be nice about it.The police want those wearing cuffs (criminals generally, or those suspected of being criminals) to be relaxed, and to feel pain if they are tensedIn other circumstances we call this method of behavior control "torture".A simply bit of negative reinforcement to help keep them in line. So yes, cuffs bite a little.So a cop should punish someone not for resisting but for failing to assist in their own arrest?

So the people exist to obey the authority?Pushing the guy's head into the ground is not intended to be cruel. It is simply a very effective method of restraining someone. Well, since you know so much about the horrible protester provocateur manuals, you probably know that the protesters aren't resisting. What is the point of restraining someone like that if they're not fighting you? I learnt this first from horses, on my family's farm. Hold the head firmly against the ground, and the body does not have the strength of leverage to get up and do things.When you do that to a horse, do you put your full body weight into it until the horse is in pain and bleeding from abrasions caused by the flesh against the ground?

Those are some nice farmers you've got in Australia.It just happens to work on humans as well. You push the head down to hold them still, and you do it with your knee so your hands are free to do other things.So because you're a police officer you suddenly earn the right to inflict pain for no reason?3) It sems to me that Seattle stuff you keep mentioning was a very extraordinary incident.As the Italian incident shows, Seattle was a fairly minor incident. There was a protest in DC a couple of weeks ago; the police set up a perimeter along the march line and once the protest was in the corridor, they arrested everyone, not just protesters. And the protesters had not broken any laws insofar as I've heard. They just arrested them because they didn't want them to be heard by the international dignitaries in town for a conference.1) So it's a good thing that so many Americans carry guns? Or have them in their homes, so kids can be shot coming in late at night and such?Why assume a gun is the only way to protect yourself?

I don't.2) Police deal with violent criminals far more often than any civilian does. They have very good reason to be prepared with armour and such.Especially if the plan is to attack innocent people.Another assumption there.Well, you demonstrably have a problem with it. Perhaps "hate" is a strong word.

Perhaps the people should just wait until they're too pissed off to be reasonable, and then take to the streets with guns and Molotov cocktails? Is that a better option? Until the conflagration comes, there would be no more protests. It's a fair trade: one big civic explosion instead of a bunch of minor flare-ups. Heck, it might be fifty years, then, before anyone takes to the streets, but the longer they wait, the worse it will be.

I'd rather they use their voices, and not weapons.[font=times]quote:


Since you're desperate enough to try to hold me responsible for the acts of protesters in Australia, I might as well come down and give you a reason for that.


I did? Show me.With pleasure:

• Being part of a group of people is not a noble goal. It is irrelevent. It is only a good thing if that group has noble goal also, and noble means of achieving it. Slashing a horse's belly open does not qualify as noble. Vandalising a town doesn't either. But if you truly wish you'd been part of it, well... That's just ducky. (10.11.2002)

Sounds to me like your problem is with Australian protesters:

• In the big S11 rally here a couple of years ago, people threw rocks and full food cans at the cops; one idiot tried to gut a police horse, cutting along its belly and across its back leg. So, if the protestors don't start the violence, why do those people bring knives, rocks, and so on? (10.11.2002)Spare me the indignation.Spare me the bullshit!A nation, or a culture, is made up of all its members and all its groups. Even its murderers and rapists and porn shop owners. Even its presidents. The president, the bureaucracy, and all of "the state" exists at the sufferance of the people. Particularly in your country, with its stupendously huge bureaucracy, "the state" forms a sizable portion of "the people". "The people" are sometimes employed by "the State".

The State is an entity which serves the people.

If a person chooses to align oneself with the entity of "the State" against "the People", then that is how they choose to be aligned during the conflict.Be upset all you want, but you can't pick and choose which segments of your nation comprise "the people". Even that cop who stuck his knee against someone's head is one of you.Like I said, your brand of literalism.

"The People" is an entity in relation to "The State". This is as opposed to the word "people", which is the plural of "person". Stop trying to mix the two. Cops are people, too. That's part of what disturbs me when a cop forsakes his responsibilities to his neighbors and chooses instead to act as an agent of the State in violation of the law.

That kind of nitpicking is really annoying. Without sarcasm, I generally think of you as smarter than that. How long should I hold that on faith?So you should stab his horse or throw rocks at him?If the horse is used as a tool of aggression ... see, I like horses, but them's the breaks. As to throwing rocks at the officer, it depends. You'll notice a good deal of restraint among the Seattle protesters when they did not swarm and kill the Seattle Police Department and its cohorts. It was the Seattle Police department that knowingly aided and abetted the anarchist vandals by allowing their acts to go without official response. It was the Seattle Police Department that knowingly chose to lay siege to the people after knowingly aiding and abetting the anarchist vandals. It was the Seattle Police Department that was attacking people outside its own established perimeter. It was the Seattle Police Department that chose to fire its weapons indiscriminately. It was the Seattle Police Department, and not the protesters, who laid siege to innocent civilians at the close of the battle, and it was the Seattle Police Department that chose to push the battle up the hill into the residential neighborhoods. The People showed tremendous restraint in merely being defiant. In other places such a situation would have resulted in mortal combat between the citizens and the government agents.

On the other hand we have our Fire Department. Our Fire Marshall made the decision to not employ his resources on behalf of the State against the People. That's why the cops weren't hosing the crowds. The fire department wouldn't cough up the gear.I don't hate that at all. I hate the weasels who take over such events and deliberately cause violence, because they think it is noble to do so.You let them be your focus, and it's so important to you that you're endorsing other crimes by your defense of state agencies. I find that a dilly of a noodle-scratcher.Well, that would be your interpretation, not necessarily the truth of the matter.Well?

Why do you excuse vast police abuses while harping on the relatively sparse abuses by protesters?

Why do you bend over backward to excuse the state and justify police brutality?I don't think I said that either.Well, if the people shouldn't be in the streets ...?Or the great and might people could do somehting a tad more civilised and clever than stab horses, smash windows, overturn cars, and throw rocks.Well, if we look at the Seattle protest, many of them did, and when they tried to stop vandalism, they were attacked by police for their efforts instead of assisted. In the meantime, it sounds like Australians need a few lessons in civil disobedience.Such as set up their own political candidate, and all those "people" get behind him/her. Ah ... I see. Well, you see, when it's a big protest like a WTO or G-8 protest, there are various ideologies among protesters. Perhaps if they were all as focused on a single goal as a police department is when it quashes a protest, they could manage to pull that off.Perhaps even put together a serious lobby group, nation-wide.Someone please tell me why a Virginia televangelist's lobby money should incite my elected representative to defy the will of the constituency that elected him or her?

Someone who claims to question government recommending yet another degree of separation 'twixt people and their government?If a government like yours or mine started telling the complete truth about everything today, it would cause one hell of a mess. Trade deals with other countries might fall apart, killing thousands of people due to lack of grain shipments and such, for an example.Are you telling me it's impossible to be honest and feed people?

Sure, political stupidity is a fact of life, but shouldn't the people be working to fix that? Or should they just accept it and be happy?The "pure theory" bit was that governments serve their people. It is a nice idea, but they don't. Yes, if the government falls, the people still exist. But as it stands, governments do not serve the people.Well, since most constitutions of relatively-free nations, as well as revolutionary declarations, look to the people for endorsement ....?Actually she doesn't. This has been covered before. The Queen is paid respect as the figurehead of the nation which created Australia.That's OK ... I heard the queen referred to as Queen of Canada in the press last week. Technically, I know. But monarchies do not exist for the people. People exist for monarchs. It was a great paradigm shift that took place over the last thousand years. I'd try explaining the history of it to you, but since much of it has to do with religious thought and its effects on people, I'll spare us both the annoyance of you complaining about God.You have not been paying attention then. The majority of my political posts for the past few months have been bagging the crap out of the American government.And yet wars are necessary and protests are somehow wrong?

While I'm thankful for your giving the American government some crap, it doesn't hide what I see as an odd prioritization.1) You tend to base your thoughts and responses on things you imagine in my posts, rather than on what I actually post.You mean like that time I cited your ass up and down about gender and the military and all you could do was run for cover and contradict yourself? You can't hide what you've written without erasing it. And even that doesn't work sometimes.2) If you don't like it, don't post replies.I could say the same to your whining ass.Wow, you certainly are in an insulting and entirely off-topic mood today.Don't like it? Don't post.And - so unsual - ignoring what I actually posted. I did happen to mention my own government.I see you posting defenses of police department abuses while criticizing the whole of protests because of some stupid Aussie who doesn't like horses.1) "The government for whose benefit the people exist"? So now you say the people exist for the government?Good call. In the words of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, "Wait ... strike that ... reverse it ... okay."Again, I would prefer no thrown rocks, no horses stabbed, no cars overturned, et cetera...Well, maybe if police departments conduct themselves better, they'll see less of it.

After all, I would like to see no tear gas, no shooting, no bombs, no lying ... I would rather people everywhere just talk it out.Such as:
- "and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it."
- "I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting"
- "I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap."
- "Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government."
- "frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting."
- "I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst."
- "And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time."
- "Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours."Can't fault me for being honest, can you?Glass houses and all that, Tiassa. You spend a lot of time and effort typing insults, ignoring what is actually posted, and creating this lists of verbal sewerage. Try examining what is actually there, then responding on topic.This from a petulant brat who slandered me? As I demonstrated?

Just because you have a problem with the idiocy of Australians doesn't mean you need to transfer that aggression onto everyone else in the world.

In the meantime, here's some benevolent police in action (http://aztlan.net/snatched.htm). I don't see any violence except for the police. And that's an 11 year-old girl they're handling.
Be proud. It's righteous punishment for horse-killing protesters, isn't it? I kept trying to find out what the hell she did wrong, but the story vanished into the paroxysm of the press. There is something wrong when you need armed guards to cover your back while you manhandle an 11 year-old girl, isn't there?Again, I ask where you get this idea that I serve my government or England's Queen?Why dont you answer the question?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Something about an adult manner? You've always had trouble keeping track of what you were saying. It's one of the reasons I get so tired of your bullshit. If your positions were more coherent, I would find them challenging and intriguing instead of annoying.

Now for a little excursion into hypocrisy...


I've been arrested before. But since it was just me and the cop at the time, he was rather pleasant about it. In my case, he was also aware that the charge wouldn't stick. And since we both knew it, he knew damn well to be nice about it.

- "and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it."
- "I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting"
- "I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap."
- "Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government."
- "frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting."
- "I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst."
- "And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time."
- "Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours."


I'm sure I'll find more of this "fluff" as I read further...


So the people exist to obey the authority?

Did I say that? Or are you grandstanding again?


What is the point of restraining someone like that if they're not fighting you?

Exactly the same point as drawing a revolver while performing a traffic stop. Police get shot doing traffic stops. They gets stabbed with needles and such by suspects who don't lay still. In traffic stops, many draw their guns. In situations like that mentioned, they try to keep the person immobile until bound.


When you do that to a horse, do you put your full body weight into it until the horse is in pain and bleeding from abrasions caused by the flesh against the ground?

You do indeed put a lot of weight onto the horse's neck and head. Horses are very large, strong creatures. No, we don't press their heads to the ground on asphalt or concrete. Usually on grass.


Those are some nice farmers you've got in Australia.

Such snide comments based in a complete lack of knowledge serve no purpose.


So because you're a police officer you suddenly earn the right to inflict pain for no reason?

The reason was stated above. The bit about traffic stops and immobility.


Why assume a gun is the only way to protect yourself?

Way to miss a point and avoid a question.


Especially if the plan is to attack innocent people.

And way to avoid the reality of police work.


Well, you demonstrably have a problem with it.

So demonstrate it.


I'd rather they use their voices, and not weapons.

And be prepared to cause physical injury, right? That is what you advocated earlier, yes?


Being part of a group of people is not a noble goal. It is irrelevent. It is only a good thing if that group has noble goal also, and noble means of achieving it. Slashing a horse's belly open does not qualify as noble. Vandalising a town doesn't either. But if you truly wish you'd been part of it, well... That's just ducky.

Looks to me like that was clearly in response to your:

Of course, your predisposition against protesters is well-known to me. As I recall, it was one of our first ugly disputes. To the other, I take my hat off to them. I sat at home, waiting for the police to cross a certain line (killing someone), but thankfully it didn't happen. In the meantime, I salute everybody who went out and protested instead of sitting at home bitching like my brother, my girlfriend, my best friend and, consequently, me. It's one of those days I've come to regret. I should have been with the people.

You salute the vandals?


"The People" is an entity in relation to "The State". This is as opposed to the word "people", which is the plural of "person". Stop trying to mix the two.

I don't think you can have one without the other. There is no separation between an institution called "the people", and all the many individuals who comprise that entity. Even in "the state" entity, it's all just individual people, and they are the same as you and me and anyone else. Trying to declare some separation is basically a tool of sophistry to score points, which only becomes valid if you think you can turn all those individuals into faceless cogs in some social machine for the purpose of argument.


Without sarcasm, I generally think of you as smarter than that. How long should I hold that on faith?

I don't really care. Everyone has their own opinions, and I long ago gave up thinking people would form their opinions based on reality or rational thought. Imagination and fear plays a larger part in opinion than rational thought does. So feel free to think what you like.


If the horse is used as a tool of aggression ... see, I like horses, but them's the breaks.

I see. It doens't speak English, it has four legs, it must be a less valuable lifeform than you. Certainly its life is less valuable than your political opinions. Thems the breaks. What was that about "Western" attitudes?


You let them be your focus, and it's so important to you that you're endorsing other crimes by your defense of state agencies.

I defended state agencies???


Why do you excuse vast police abuses while harping on the relatively sparse abuses by protesters? Why do you bend over backward to excuse the state and justify police brutality?

I did??? I was under the impression I had asked questions about Seattle, and described why police employ certain methods.


Well, if the people shouldn't be in the streets ...?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say the people shouldn't be in the streets.


In the meantime, it sounds like Australians need a few lessons in civil disobedience.

Australia is a special case.


Ah ... I see. Well, you see, when it's a big protest like a WTO or G-8 protest, there are various ideologies among protesters. Perhaps if they were all as focused on a single goal as a police department is when it quashes a protest, they could manage to pull that off.

The funny thing is, all the supporters of the various politicians also have different agendas. And they work together for some common goals, or to put in power a politician who can satisfy all their agendas. Why can't the protestors do the same?


Someone who claims to question government recommending yet another degree of separation 'twixt people and their government?

Nope. I recommend a closer association between "the state" and "the people", by the people putting their own people in power through plain old politics and lobby groups and such.


Are you telling me it's impossible to be honest and feed people? Sure, political stupidity is a fact of life, but shouldn't the people be working to fix that? Or should they just accept it and be happy?

To feed everyone and solve all the other problems while disposing of all the lies would require:
- Absolutely eradicating capitalist competition.
- Eradicating borders, military forces, and all weapon production capability worldwide.
- Eradicating the idea of nations.
- Eradicating greed and the hunger for power.

Can you do that?


Well, since most constitutions of relatively-free nations, as well as revolutionary declarations, look to the people for endorsement ....?

Well, if you wish to say that, you could say that every government throughout history has been a democracy. After all, they only rule because the people let them rule. If the people didn't want them to rule, they would have had a revolution every time. So they were all democracies, right?


But monarchies do not exist for the people. People exist for monarchs. It was a great paradigm shift that took place over the last thousand years. I'd try explaining the history of it to you, but since much of it has to do with religious thought and its effects on people, I'll spare us both the annoyance of you complaining about God.

Wow. I wish I knew something about history.

Anyway, I actually prefer a monarchy to the current governments in Australia, the USA, Britain, and others. A monarchy, if set up well with a decent consitution, would be less of a drain on the state. Best of all would be a benevolent dictatorship. Minimise management overheads, reduce decision-making time, make it all more efficient.


And yet wars are necessary and protests are somehow wrong? While I'm thankful for your giving the American government some crap, it doesn't hide what I see as an odd prioritization.

You haven't been paying attention then. Currently, both wars and protests are occasionally necessary. I wish otherwise, but that is the situation today. And did I say wars were not wrong?


You mean like that time I cited your ass up and down about gender and the military and all you could do was run for cover and contradict yourself?

That would be the time I advocated a single standard throughout the thread, and you had some weird-arse problem with it...


Don't like it? Don't post.

I'm really friggin bored.


I see you posting defenses of police department abuses while criticizing the whole of protests because of some stupid Aussie who doesn't like horses.

Fluff.


Well, maybe if police departments conduct themselves better, they'll see less of it. After all, I would like to see no tear gas, no shooting, no bombs, no lying ... I would rather people everywhere just talk it out.

So you're saying "If they put down their sticks first, we'll put down ours"?


Can't fault me for being honest, can you?

I can fault you for being childish and uncivilised.


This from a petulant brat who slandered me?

Don't feel bad, I slander everyone.


Just because you have a problem with the idiocy of Australians doesn't mean you need to transfer that aggression onto everyone else in the world.

No, you've got me all wrong. I have a problem with the idiocy of everyone in the world, not just Australians.

The kid in the pictures, comments by photo order:
1 - 4) A girl being carried by her upper arms.
5 - 6) Girl tries a simple move, raising her arms to slide out of their grip.
7) It works.
8) She is struggling about.
9 - 11) Cop trying to grab her arms as she continues to try running away.
12 - 14) Caught. Two cops escorting her by the arms.
15) Lowering her to the grass to be cuffed.
16 - 19) Cuffing the girl.

Not one sign of any pucnhing, kneeling on heads, pepper spray, et cetera. What's the point? Are you saying her age alone means she was doing nothing wrong? (http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/nwsVenaThom.html)


Why dont you answer the question?

Gladly. Which question are you referring to? And then please answer mine.

Which question are you referring to? And then please answer mine.Like I said before, I like the way you wait a couple of posts to start your bullshitting. If you'd answered the question when I'd asked it instead of bitching like a petulant yuppie, you would know which question you're referring to.I'm sure I'll find more of this "fluff" as I read further... Well, I'm just trying to speak to you in the manner you seem to best understand.

What, don't you ever stop complaining?

In the meantime, since I'm hanging at my mother's tonight, I haven't the time to address the full offense of your post, except to say that if you cannot figure out the difference between a protest, vandalism, and acts of assault, you really ought not be engaging this debate.

Oh, and one other thing:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't like it? Don't post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm really friggin bored. Is this the reason your posts are so spiteful and ill-constructed?

I'll get back to you when I return to Seattle.

In the meantime, if Australians are a special case, please stop projecting their special aspects onto others. If it's a problem to deal with at home, deal with it at home.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa

... bitching like a petulant yuppie...

What, don't you ever stop complaining?

... your posts are so spiteful and ill-constructed?


Originally posted by tiassa

- "and I wonder why the hell you continue to argue points when you're that full of it."
- "I love the way you wait two or three posts to start bullshitting"
- "I'm sure that if you had a substantive argument, you wouldn't be resorting to that kind of crap."
- "Silly me. I forgot how you all live to serve your government."
- "frankly I find the infantile nature of your arguments to be more than a little insulting."
- "I find your posts to be duplicitous at best, and calculated to offend at worst."
- "And while you're at it, why don't you kiss your government's ass a little harder. I don't think you got your tongue far enough in last time."
- "Rhetoric is nice, Adam, and it's even funny when its as ill-writ as yours."


I don't make the news, I just report the news.

Now you two kiss and make up, and ignore that webcam broadcasting the scene onto pr0n sites.....

Xev, you're such a porn queen. :p

Adam, you're such a tool of the imperio-capitalistic-athiests who don't brush their teeth before bedtime. :p

*Adam brushes his teeth to prove Xev wrong. :p *

Adam

Don't complain just because I'm honest. If, for some reason, you expect me not to point out your foibles, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean, what merit should I give your complaints, you who has stooped so far as to accuse me of supporting stupidity in Australia? It seems, after all, that you're transferring your aggression toward Australians onto people all around the world, including me directly.

I'm still waiting for your apology.

--Tiassa :cool: