Blaming the BB'ers for the lack of media coverage? gimme a break!

I've said this before and will say it again. When we were peaceful and got the crap beat out of us public support was moving our way. People were seeing the over the top amount of police as a huge waste of taxpayer money. They were seeing a police state and they did not like the abuse leveled onto the peaceful protesters by the police. Plus we could sue for it.

When they hear of bombs, fires, windows breaking, and assault to the police and their animals, they see the protesters as the problem. They see the over the top amount of police as needed to protect them from us. They see the police violence as warranted.

People will not come to protest if they end this way. People will allow protest to be outlawed if they end this way. And people will cheer on the police brutality even when it becomes fatal if they end this way.

We must have the support of the people to continue and to grow the movement.

This asinine juvenile delinquent level of violence is threatening all of it.

Now, I do know that the police infiltrate the anarchist and in fact, historically have always infiltrated all protest groups. The difference being that they cannot get the peaceful protesters to burn things, smash things and assault things. The anarchist are easy pickens for the police who are directed by the 1% to break us up.

Notice the media is often where shit is gonna happen? Thats because the police inform them so they can get what they want shown on all of our tv screens. The infiltrators are purposely causing violence to turn the public support away from us and give the police a reason to bust heads. Many do seem to enjoy head busting.

In the anarchist, they have an un witted friend. The anarchist are often set up, but make no mistake they are hoping to cause chaos themselves. They think they would like a war zone. Apparently they are young and not too wise and never seem to fail the police efforts to get them to do stupid shit.

The occupy movement must find a way to stop their actions or isolate them in the protest or this movement will not grow. They will just outlaw the protest. Permits won't be given.

The protest in Chicago was permitted and should have ended when agreed upon. Especially at a federally sanctioned affair, it was stupid to try to take a stand. There are plenty of actions in which we can shut down this or that and some may refuse to leave and choose arrest. But if we want to ever have the right to gather and protest, the permitted ones should stick to the agreement.

Violence and juvenile window breaking should never be part of this peaceful movement. Don't let the anarchist co-op this movement.

Even attacking the officers and horses was juvenile as both were well protected. They stand little chance of injury. Quit giving them a "legal" reason to bust your head and mine.

The streets of Chicago were mostly empty except for the protesters. The media and the police had done a fine job of portraying the protests as violent. I laughed at them. But lo and behold, you managed to make them feel justified in being afraid of the protesters.

Now is not the time for violence. I don't know that it ever will be. But we don't stand a chance in hell against the police in a violent manner. They will prevail that way.

I believe there are plenty of police who have come to hate all protesters. They show the republicon traits of believing we are all dirty hippies who need both baths and jobs. Can you say 1950's? They, like santorum and most pugs, are still stuck there.

Yet not all of the police are like that. Many really do want to serve. They can't just quit their job and not do as ordered and join the movement. They have families. They won't quit the job for the movement any more than most of us would.

Anyway, stand your ground if you want but permitted protest often include children, so permitted protest should end as agreed. Non permitted protest can go as you like as long as you resist the violence they are so desperate to show the world. Don't let them win so easily by allowing them to convince you that violence is the answer. Violence will only destroy this movement.

I hope occupy with all of it's great peaceful minds can find a way through this.

and I know most feel permits aren't necessary as it is a right. I get that. I 'm just saying, if you go to the trouble of getting a permit, and especially if you have children in the crowd, that maybe this isn't the time to refuse to leave and force a stand off.



I may be wrong but I don't remember seeing children in the non permitted marches. This one was billed as family friendly if I'm not mistaken.

So either they should forget all permits or follow what they agree to on the permitted ones or it seems to me, they will just deny all permits. I don't know if that even means anything though.

The regular supporters backed off when the black bloc had their fun in Oakland, although they were probably APs. That some are defending their actions are beyond me.

In the past, violence to fight against war and oppression made the news but didn't change the world. Ideals change the world, and Occupy is showing us the best ones, the black bloc isn't. Occupy has made clear the solutions.

There is no solution that the black bloc are offering us but the ones that TPTB want us to take to give them more power. n/t

He uses terms like black bloc & anarchist carelessly.

To say the MSM didn't front-cover the medal ceremony because of the violence is too funny.

BTW, the bloodied faces of protesters were not caused by anarchist, nor by black bloc tactics.

I can ask an irrelevant question too.

Next time don't accuse in the form of a question.

--yadayadayadayada. Google COINTELPRO sometime.

There is a difference between legit black bloc tactics & the violence staged by provocateurs.

I resent it when people lump the two together. It is ignorant and dangerous to the movement.

Most anarchists that I know personally are thoroughly committed to militant non-violence, and don't think highly of the Black Bloc.

Also "black bloc" is a tactic. There are legitimate black bloc tactics used in protests.

Helping those arrested in protests to escape, administering first aid to victims of police abuse (tear gas, pepper spray, etc), and pushing through police lines are all legitimate uses of black bloc tactics.

"Black Bloc" is no way in hell a synonym for "violence"...to use your phrasing.

People carelessly use terms they don't understand.

And there's an account posted at the Occupy L.A. website that illustrates it. This story is from an OLA occupier who rode the bus to Chicago for the NATO protests:

The Occupation is Not Leaving: A Revolutionary Weekend in Chicago
http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/9687

Criticism of anonymous public protest on an internet forum of anonymous posters is wondrous.

The tactic of being publicly anonymous does allow for instigators, but it's simple enough not to be instigated.

What's happening is the police repression is being blamed on the "bloc" as a "necessary evil" when the reality is that police repression happens whether or not the bloc is there.

cynical take on the entire so-called 'black block phenomenon,' an invention of the security forces, by the security forces and for the security forces.

I'd like to see (actual, mostly nonviolent) anarchists move on to other colors, myself.

I saw someone touting a yellow flag (or yellow and black flag) at a recent Occu protest. They said it was the flag of populists and progressives, like the red flag has come to mean leftist. I don't have a problem with the notion of "color revolutions". And I'd like to see populists take back the Gadsden flag -- or something resembling it -- from the fucking Tea Partiers.

Maybe I'll do one up sometime...? Anypony object...?

Note: the author of the article in the OP is Carl Gibson, co-founder of US Uncut.

Here's the old event: http://anarchistnews.org/node/14316