Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
Questioning the violence at Occupy Oakland demonstrations
  • JudahJudah November 2011 +1 -1 (+1 / -0 )
    After reading reports about the violence in Oakland, CA, I'm wondering if "outside agitators" (that is, agents of targeted corporations or agents of local, state or national government) might be seeking to provoke violence as a means of disrupting and discrediting the peaceful Occupy movement.

    This happened in the 1960s and 1970s to disrupt and discredit the civil rights and antiwar movements, so could it be happening again?

    If the perpetrators of violent acts in Oakland are just sincerely angry and don't know any better than to vent their rage destructively, the organizers of Occupy demonstrations locally, nationally and worldwide may need to do a better job of training protest participants in the principles and tactics of nonviolence.

    What do you say?

    Agrees: skoalbite

  • gavemehope November 2011 +1 -1
    We are discussing this same thing in a different thread .

    This one .Defamation? Agents provocateurs? There's something fishy about it

    We must stay non violent, anyone really involved in the movement knows that. Have a look in that thread, and respond either here or there, but yea I say assume it is agitators.
  • JustJimJustJim November 2011 +1 -1 (+2 / -0 )
    http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/occupy-oakland-protesters-violence

    Apparently some occupists think that violence is a viable tactic.

    Unfortunately, they are dead wrong. Violence will beget violence. Worse, it is counter productive. It gets in the way of meaningful dialog. Worse yet, it gives the arguments of our detractors and naysayers more creditability.

    So, what do we do when violence breaks out? What we don't do is confront these rouge elements. I would recommend leaving. Simply remove yourself from their immediate location. Move down the street, across the street, plaza etc.

    Create a zone of isolation around those who would engage in violence. Express your disapproval by isolating those who are engaging in these inappropriate acts and leave them to experience the inevitable retaliation.

    Thanks

    Jim
    http://justjimscorner.blogspot.com/

    Agrees: MundusVultDecipi, gavemehope

  • ZenDogZenDog November 2011 +1 -1
    I saw on the news a clip of some of the peaceful protesters standing in a human chain in opposition to the destruction of private property. I think that is a very risky, but extremely worthwhile action, in that the news media picked it up; and it clearly shows that while some protesters are ready to commit acts of violence, most are not.

    As long as the media are eager to pick up the story on the violence, they have little opportunity to avoid the clarity such images provide.

    That in turn makes it very difficult to pass the entire movement off as un-American or as a group that either can be ignored or must be put down.

    I think that it does demonstrate division within the movement but at the same time it helps to sow division among municipal organizations where the vision lacks the clarity to understand that this movement is in fact opposing policies that have adversely impacted municipal budgets around the country; ie: we aren't just a bunch of homeless panhandlers drunk and looking for a fight. We are something else entirely.

    We are the people.
  • KnaveDave December 2011 +1 -1
    I doubt it is an organized effort to sabotage the Occupy movement. That's possible, of course, but it seems far more likely that movements like this attract anarchists, and many anarchists believe NO rules apply to them. They believe they can do as they like ... so they do. If Occupy Wall Street is going to accomplish some worthwhile change, members of the movement will need to be quick to report acts of violence to the police and to assist if they can safely in organizing those around them to prevent the violence. The news clip of the line of protestors who were protecting property is a great example of the kind of bold action that needs to be taken. Non-violence is not without risks, and one of the greatest risks comes from members within the movement. The darker threads of anarchy will definitely seek to have expression here.

    --Knave Dave
    http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
Add a Comment