Occupy = Al-Qaeda According To London Police

[Greenday]

Oh, you see, we understand the goals of the Occupy groups to be quite different. I see it as an attempt to build up enough momentum to completely change how our government function. This essentially is no different from trying to get rid of it and raise a new one.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, you see, we understand the goals of the Occupy groups to be quite different. I see it as an attempt to build up enough momentum to completely change how our government function. This essentially is no different from trying to get rid of it and raise a new one.

What I listed are the actual goals of Occupy. I have no idea what you're talking about. As for getting enough momentum to change how the government functions....so what, like every single civil, social and political movement in history?

As for getting rid of the government and raising a new one. So you think they're armed revolutionaries or something? Which, by the way, revolutionary does not automatically equal terrorist either. Unless you see the entire US as a country of terrorists?

[Greenday]

What I listed are the actual goals of Occupy. I have no idea what you're talking about. As for getting enough momentum to change how the government functions....so what, like every single civil, social and political movement in history?

History favors the victors. If those seeking change win, it was later looked at as a good change. If those seeking change lost, it's looked at as a dirty rebellion. But there are always people who viewed the fights as either good or bad at the time, We just tend to only hear one version based on the results.

As for getting rid of the government and raising a new one. So you think they're armed revolutionaries or something? Which, by the way, revolutionary does not automatically equal terrorist either. Unless you see the entire US as a country of terrorists?

I think that the Occupy protests stand a good chance to be the first major stepping stone on the way to it. This kind of thing just doesn't happen peacefully.

And why would I see the US as a country of terrorists? Because to gain our independence, we used some terrorism to win? Absolutely not. I am no more a terrorist due to what people did in the 1700s than I am a slave owner due to what many white people did in the 1800s and earlier.

[Panacea]

Honestly though, I don't see the problem with this. They may not be violent like Al Qaeda or Hamas but Occupy clearly wants to rock our government. And they've already proven to be violent in some cases.

They have not be "proven" to be violent. They've been accused of violence. What "proof" I've seen have either been uncorroborated stories, or incidents taken out of context, or that just didn't prove the claims.

I have no problem with classifying them as terrorists. I said specifically that they are not like Al-Qaeda or Hamas. Yet you obviously completely ignored that comment.

You can't have it both ways. If they're terrorists, they're like al-Queda and Hamas.

Oh, you see, we understand the goals of the Occupy groups to be quite different. I see it as an attempt to build up enough momentum to completely change how our government function. This essentially is no different from trying to get rid of it and raise a new one.

That's because your making your assumptions based on your own bias towards the Occupy movement. Nothing in the Occupy movement has indicated they want to change the government. No one in the Occupy movement has ever said that.

YOU said that.

What they want is JUSTICE from the government. They want fairness under the laws, laws that are supposed to protect everyone. They basically are saying government is failing it social contract with people based on its own laws and rules that already exist.

History favors the victors. If those seeking change win, it was later looked at as a good change. If those seeking change lost, it's looked at as a dirty rebellion. But there are always people who viewed the fights as either good or bad at the time, We just tend to only hear one version based on the results.

I think that the Occupy protests stand a good chance to be the first major stepping stone on the way to it. This kind of thing just doesn't happen peacefully.

And why would I see the US as a country of terrorists? Because to gain our independence, we used some terrorism to win? Absolutely not. I am no more a terrorist due to what people did in the 1700s than I am a slave owner due to what many white people did in the 1800s and earlier.

You're missing the point by referring to the American Revolution. The previous poster meant Americans NOW, that you see the US as a country of terrorists NOW.

It's not impossible that the Occupy movement could escalate beyond the original intentions of the organizers. That's exactly what happened during the French Revolution. One little protest turned into the storming of the Bastille, and the next thing anyone knew the royal family was under arrest.

The organizers have done a good job of not allowing outside interests (like unions, and the Democratic party) to co-op their message the way the Republicans and corporate interests have largely co-opted the Tea Party. The dis-organization of the organization has made that very difficult.

When government gets serious about dealing with the problem of corporate money running our government, then the Occupy movement will go home.

[Gravekeeper]

When government gets serious about dealing with the problem of corporate money running our government, then the Occupy movement will go home.

This is the problem too. While I agree with their objective and applaud their tenacity so far, with the current corrupt mess that is US politics, I fear they'll be sitting out there for a long, long time. The fact that a police force, let alone the one in charge of London's equavilent of Wall Street, had the gall to label them terrorists though is extremely unsettling.

[Panacea]

This is the problem too. While I agree with their objective and applaud their tenacity so far, with the current corrupt mess that is US politics, I fear they'll be sitting out there for a long, long time. The fact that a police force, let alone the one in charge of London's equavilent of Wall Street, had the gall to label them terrorists though is extremely unsettling.

I read an op-ed on CNN last night that suggests the recent move of some Occupy folks into foreclosed homes may give the movement the legitimacy with the broader public that it needs, along with helping to crystallize its aims more clearly.

The piece went on to make comparisons to other movements such as labor movements sit down strikes and the sit ins of the Civil Rights movement: both of which were unpopular movements until these non-violent protests were met with extreme violence . . . much like what happened in Oakland and UC Davis.

It was an interesting read, and I plan to keep it in mind as the year progresses.

In case you're interested.

[Zod]

[QUOTE=Panacea;103033]Greenpeace and PETA don't blow up cafes full of innocent people just to try and scare governments into capitulating.

True : maybe I picked the wrong examples - though I'm pretty sure Greenpeace have been labeled terrorists at one point or another.

Animal Liberation Front perhaps? They spent much of the late 80s blowing up parts of Bristol ( including a locally owned healthfood shop, as it was dark and they threw their petrol bomb through the wrong window )

My - apparently badly phrased point - was that 'Terrorist' is afairly open phrase - and certainly means more then 'some hairy bloke living in a cave who dreams of detonating himself on a plane'. Is Nelson Mandela still on the US terrorist watchlist?

I don't condone violence on the part of those organizations, but their violence is a far cry from what al-Queda, the IRA, FARC, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other similar groups have done.
.

A question of scale?

[Panacea]

[QUOTE=Zod;103306]

Greenpeace and PETA don't blow up cafes full of innocent people just to try and scare governments into capitulating.

True : maybe I picked the wrong examples - though I'm pretty sure Greenpeace have been labeled terrorists at one point or another.

Animal Liberation Front perhaps? They spent much of the late 80s blowing up parts of Bristol ( including a locally owned healthfood shop, as it was dark and they threw their petrol bomb through the wrong window )

My - apparently badly phrased point - was that 'Terrorist' is afairly open phrase - and certainly means more then 'some hairy bloke living in a cave who dreams of detonating himself on a plane'. Is Nelson Mandela still on the US terrorist watchlist?

A question of scale?

I would agree that "terrorist" is a fairly loosely defined term, and one which is manipulated to suit the purposes of the government in question. For example, the Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be a terrorist group, even though not a single act of violence has ever been attributed to them.

Yes, Greenpeace has been labeled a terrorist group at times by opponents seeking to discredit them. They've been known to board ships, and enter nuclear power plants. But they don't blow things ups. Even Earth First has not done that so far as I know.

I'm sure the Japanese consider the Sea Shepherds a terrorist group.

However, what differentiates these groups from true terrorists is that they don't target innocent civilians. They target the industries they oppose. Their tactics are risky, but usually non-violent. The Sea Shepherds are really borderline on this because they do use "weapons" that are intended to discourage the Japanese from harvesting whales (stink bombs that ruin the meat, in particular).

ALF has been known to use deadly weapons, therefore the label is accurate.

I don't think it's a question of scale. It's a question of tactics and weapons of choice.

Terrorist use guns, bombs, and other weapons that kill, and may target victims who may not have anything do to with the object of their ire. The IRA, Hamas, PLO, FARC, the KKK all do this. Their object is to use fear and death: force, to achieve their political goals.

Most of the groups you mentioned use civil disobedience.

Nelson would fit the definition of a terrorist, though he would see it differently.

Personally, I don't care for the term. It is inflammatory and designed to discredit those to whom it is applied without regard to whatever legitimate grievances they might hold. It too often is misapplied . . . like in the case of the Occupy London folks