3 votes

IL State Troopers act like Uniformed thugs during Iraq Vet vigil. Disgusting.

The conduct of the "State" Troopers was not reported by the corporate media. It was disgusting and these clowns are going to start a war. Why would they act like this? What is the point of "trying" to intimidate a group of peaceful Americans? A group that is protesting for obvious reasons. These "troopers" have lost their honor. They have become slaves and a danger to the people they swore to protect. There are many honorable individuals in law enforcement. I beg you to distance yourself from the likes of these thugs. We need your help. You are our warriors. Here is a report from the field.
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/chicago-blog/15003505...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Eventually they will cross the line. Their attitude at this

event is very troubling. Just imagine if the boy that Oakland cop shot point blank in the head was your son. He was there legitimately protesting a corrupt system. When his friends ran up to help him, a cop casually tosses a flashbang grenade into the concerned group. Causing further brain injury and scattering the folks trying to help. What if that was your son? Decorated veteran? Has a great software job? A good kid? In my world, that could start a "WAR" and every cop out there should understand this.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Cop hit piece

Notice the way the OP and the article is structured.

They condemn the police first...call them all sorts of names...then finally, they reveal the cops' behavior to be very reserved.

They make it sound like people are getting raped and murdered, when all the cops did was enforce the law as non-violently as possible.

The only credible thing the article did was question the law.

or it's a real eye witness report and very true.

I have a close friend in Chicago, fella. The report is accurate. You may need to get your "Cop hit piece" radar checked :)

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

ecorob's picture

you need to choose better friends...

you gestapo thugs will hang together to the end, i promise

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Did I say it wasn't accurate? No.

I said the article described the cops actualy behavior as reserved enforcement of the law...however, the OP and the article tried to frame it as horrific.

Got it...fella?

Occupiers protest too much, me thinks.

No, he said their behavior was abusive.

They refused to answer any questions. They lied. They threatened the reporter. They had a complete disregard of the law. They prevented a legitimate peaceful vigil at the location for an American that was brutalized by the police in Oakland.
Update, OH now I get it! You're one of those lazy turds who is STILL making fun of the Occupy movement and the diverse group of Americans protesting corruption in the banking and political system. Now I get it. Your opinion means NOTHING and your observations are what I would expect from a coward.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

ecorob's picture

see you in the streets...

i'll recognize you by the black ops united nations gear you will be wearing and i'll be one of the americans you will encounter

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Don't be mad that I used the article against itself

And you and I definitely disagree on the terms "legitimate" and "peaceful".

Anyway, we both agree about certain problems. Only occupiers appeal to the morals of the immoral bankers (haha, good luck with that). The real problem is that the government officials choose to let banking lobbyists influence them too much...and thus selectively regulate the banking industry so the most immoral bankers win.

This usury immorality used to be regulated via religion influence, but as we moved into a secularized society, religion lost its regulatory influence. Many (and I mean many) want to re-establish religion (check out neo-Calvinism) only these religions actually *encourage* usury.

Islam is the only religion that would fight usury. But I don't want Islam, much less other religions.

So it boils down to this.

This is a fight for secular survival.

Either this secular society choses to regulate banks as religions used to, or society will slide back into some sort of government-controlled religious state.

The first step will be made by the people...by not getting into debt, by saving, etc. The government will drive up prices and such to try to make people be in debt, but eventually the people can dry up the usury foundation of banks.

Instead of squatting on other people's property, making a nuisance to city dwellers, and demand freebies, the people will become more responsible. They'll create financial institutions that will compete with big banks (e.g., credit unions), underground barter, micro-farm, etc.

In general, instead of trying to be MORE dependent on government, become LESS dependent on government.

BTW: Personal remarks are so lame.

of course you seem to forget, our country was started by

a group of individuals who could share your description of the Americans participating in the Occupy Movement. Our Founders made a royal pain of themselves to the corrupt royal ruling class. They did all sorts of things that would have really pissed YOU off. What a nuisance those pesky patriots were. Coward.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Delusions of granduer, much?

You'd better get control of the media if you expect to be remembered that way.

Occupy is a diverse movement.

It has far more potential then the Tea Party. It has already generated a global discussion on the corruption in banking and the abuse our civil liberties are enduring. The Americans particpating in Occupy should be respected, not demonized by self-proclaimed "patriots". This behavior is disgusting and typical of cowards.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Aggression Dynamics

It could be summarized that way imo.

btw, in London England the first policeman with badge number 1 only lasted 4 hours on the job and was sacked. 600 hundred out of the first 2800 were also sacked. LOL

http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/cpp/met.htm

donvino

hmmm

interesting.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

what is aggression

dynamics?

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

"Going to start a war"?

What are you talking about?

The Powers that be are so technologically superior to anything the American citizenry could ever put together, it's just grandiose bravado to think that there could ever be a real "war" between the two factions. There could be an occupation, like in Iraq, or a totalitarian regime, like Nazi Germany, or genocide...these are all realistic possibilities.

But "war"?

We shouldn't be thinking along these lines anyway, it poisons our spirit to contemplate violence. Peace begins with ourselves. If you cannot think peaceful thoughts, why do you expect the global elite to?

I think you have a sincere language problem

Day in and day out, week in week out, month after month, year after year, I have to deal with people who use the same words as other people do, BUT IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, and with sometimes dramatically different meanings.

He used the word war.

In the context it was used, I completely understood what he meant.

You need to stop playing the definitional argument game.

That was fun at 19.

Grow the hell up.

Language problems, hmm.

How do you know that you completely understood what he meant?

Did you and Armyfree have an email discussion about it? Or are you just presenting speculation as fact?

Isn't THAT a language problem?

As for my analysis of the word "war," I think what I contributed fits in this context, and at least a few people have agreed, as my comment rating has gone up and down. So it was not unanimously rejected as a mere "definitional argument game," and when it comes to clarifying what's entailed in the use of the word WAR, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

please read a history book.

There have been wars between civilians and law enforcement before. Just happened in Egypt. The tone of your post is arrogant with a touch of ignorance. No, it's not "grandiose bravado" it's a real concern, rooted in reality. Once again, review what happened to the police in Egypt after they attacked civilians. That was a war and the police lost.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

Sorry for sounding arrogant.

But what's history got to do with it? When in history, and where in the world, does any government have the war capability of the United States right now?

Egypt is not America. I'm talking about America, I'm talking about extremely sophisticated technology and an advanced surveillance state. And unlike Egypt, the US doesn't have to worry about international alliances being spoiled by other nations frowning on our human rights' abuses. They already ARE frowning, but has the US gotten any less aggressive? So why would it be different on the domestic front?

If the Powers that Be decide it's time to move to the next level of totalitarianism, they'll get their way, unless we outsmart them. Waiting until the "last minute" and expecting a glorious shoot-out is not the answer. Drastic steps have to be taken NOW to throw them off course. Like if everyone stopped watching TV, quit their bureaucratic jobs, stopped relying on FRNs, homeschooled their kids, and went AWOL. That would be revolutionary. Still talking about "war" when the line in the sand was drawn with the Patriot Act YEARS ago just shows that people aren't willing to do the hard stuff, like make the sacrifices I suggested above. They'd rather dream of getting "even" through violence. Being fixated on that non-solution really limits this movements' ability to meet the challenges we face, AND it prevents us from being an example of peace.

If I sound arrogant it's because I'm frustrated that we haven't made more progress.

Can I take a stab at it?

1) "But what's history got to do with it?" Everything. That is the answer that 90% of Americans would give to 99% of the problems in America..even when it can be proven from multiple accounts in history as to where we are heading.

2) "When in history, and where in the world, does any government have the war capability of the United States right now?" I would say very recently..perhaps in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Does 6 trillion dollars chasing an ill man in a cave make any bells go off?

Hi Dale

History can tell us a lot about where we are heading, I agree. What I meant was, this situation in America is unprecedented. Never before has the chasm between the government's capabilities and the people's been so wide.

As for your second point, the military-industrial complex profits from war. I don't analyze their actions according to the "we're fighting terrorism" myth, so their reported inability to find bin Laden when they supposedly wanted him doesn't mean anything to me. Nor do I think the Pentagon's failures on 9/11 necessarily reveal that they were incapable of detecting and shooting down wayward planes before they crashed into buildings. Rather, they didn't want to.

if the "WAR" starts. Many good law enforcement officers will

help their fellow Americans. You assume "government" is made up of entirely loyal slaves. It is not. Just imagine if the boy that cop shot point blank in the head was your son. He was there legitimately protesting a corrupt system. When his friends ran up to help him, a cop casually tosses a flashbang grenade into the concerned group. Causing further brain injury and scattering the folks trying to help. What if that was your son? Decorated veteran? Has a great software job? A good kid? In my world, that could start a "WAR" and every cop out there should understand this.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

True

Cops might turn around and fight against their fellow cops when all hell breaks loose. Or military turning against military, SWAT team against SWAT team, Xe mercenary against mercenary, Pentagon official against Pentagon official, and all possible combinations between these groups.

OK, I will consider that as the deciding factor between what might be considered a "war" versus a series of massacres. From now on I will say, unless the people get some members within the Establishment to go rogue, they will never have a chance in hell of winning any "war.""

But I hope it never comes to this, and I don't think people should bank on it either, as they think of how to deal with America's problems. I don't think any violent "solution" should be defended, as it only transfers the violence from one group to another and doesn't cure the root problem. We need to get rid of the violence in our hearts. Along those lines...peace to you.

I think you read way too

much into my post. The sad fact is, if the police continue to shoot and club civilians, including recent veterans, they will start a war with a large part of our population. These Americans are protesting legitimately. There IS massive corruption in our political and banking system and no one is being held accountable. Their actions will not be tolerated. We have a unique population. We have a well armed civilian population. The Occupy Movement includes veterans, union members, Independents, anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, etc. It is a diverse and growing movement. This situation is very dangerous and abuse by the police could set it off quickly. This is not my "fantasy" it is a sad fact.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

This just sounds unrealistic to me:

The sad fact is, if the police continue to shoot and club civilians, including recent veterans, they will start a war with a large part of our population.

Do you mean that literally? If so, I think my little speech on the word "war" and what it entails was relevant.

We'll see what happens. If armed crowds start coming to these Occupy events, and a shoot-out begins, what I envision happening is LRADs going off as A LOT of tear gas is sprayed, and then it's over. Is that really war or scattered riots going haywire for a few minutes?

As for the rest of what I was saying, indeed, I wasn't talking to you so much as I was addressing this whole mentality I encounter everywhere, with people talking about how it's going to get violent...and they seem to revel in the thought.

After the second shoot out, as above

the protesters with guns and willing to shoot will wise up, and start scragging cops and their families alone in the dead of night. Ask the cops in Mexico if you think that is not so.

Everyone must think carefully in advance on the question:

What government action would cause me to use force or flee the country?

Hard choices and surely nothing to revel in, but at least choices. Do not wait until you, your family and friends are being hearded into cattle cars.

In the above situation, I think they would use deterrent tactics

like labeling the retaliating individuals as terrorists or enemy combatants and assassinating them and their families, like they did to Awlaki. They could also deem them High Value Detainees and torture them (pardon me, use "enhanced interrogation.") Once a few Americans make their highly publicized trips to Gitmo after killing cops, and photos are strategically "leaked" of them being stripped, beaten, and hanging upside-down or whatever....the number of revenge attacks would die down.

I am NOT waiting until I'm herded into a cattle car, but VIOLENCE IS NOT AN OPTION for me, and as this is an anti-war movement, I know it's not an option for many others here as well. (Even if it IS an option for some of you, you would be a fool to go online and announce the fact!)

I'm just saying we have to fight them more strategically, and drastically, by changing the way we live. I believe we could improve our own lives in the process, by shaking our consumer addictions, snapping out of the TV dreams, taking our lives more seriously.

Why is this surprising? It's

Why is this surprising? It's Illinois; It's full of socialist dirtbags.

Its actually a Red state

With one big blue zit that forces its will on the whole.

It is very sad

and hope that young man gets better.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.