I think if we end up in a draft (conscription here) war we will see mass protests and 'defections'. I may volunteer to shoot the deserters myself, on the grounds I'm not hearing their voices now! It's now clear in the UK that inconvenient CCTV and other camera evidence is not sought by cops, other than to destroy it (I think this must have happened at Stockwell when the Brazilian guy was murdered). The idiot who runs our police complaints body actually said on TV there would be no footage of another police murder on London streets where any fool would have known there would be (hardly saying much about the keen investigation). Plod has a lot to be ashamed of on this, as well as not locking up the thugs in its own ranks committing offences in front of senior officers' eyes. All the footage from reporters embedded with our soldiers I've seen has been staged. I begin to wonder what might be on the soldiers' own cameras. What the non-official footage is showing is that our officials lie almost automatically. Slightly off this general line, the public enquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972) has now lasted 11 years and cost £200 million. I tend to think its conclusion will be that it wasted 11 years and £200 million. I really do think that the presence of CCTV and digital cameras in the hands of the public would have made a difference there. 14 unarmed civilians were killed by our Paras and I suspect the real truth of it is that they were told not to hold back and it is this fact our establishment wants to hold back. Elsewhere in NI we have scape- goated soldiers and I'm sure these guys would have been thrown to the wolves if doing so would not have forced them to talk about 'orders'. A few more cameras and sound recordings and we would know for sure whether there was ever any 'incoming'.
On 16 Oct, 02:11, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, while the media cannot suppress video surveillance, often the > police do. Here I assume we are talking about personal video devices. > When it comes to the cameras already in place on every street corner > and in every parking lot, it is another thing entirely. > > As to the conscious non-reporting of events, even very large events, > such questions as to ‘why’ do it should mostly be directed to those > such as Murdock. And, such things were happening a lot over the last > handful of years. > > Recent:http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/28/nearly_200_arrested_as_police_u... > > Infiltration:http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassifie... > > Hundreds of thousands not covered by > NBC:http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/28/hundreds_of_thousands_protest_... > > Four hundred thousand in > Britain:http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/1/400_000_protestors_demonstrate_... > > Being shot at by the > establishment:http://www.democracynow.org/2003/4/8/police_fire_rubber_bullets_woode... > > Millions protest worldwide, hundreds of thousands in > NYC:http://www.democracynow.org/2003/3/24/millions_protest_around_the_wor... > > http://www.democracynow.org/2003/3/20/hundreds_of_thousands_take_to_the > > Hundreds of > thousands:http://www.democracynow.org/2003/1/20/from_washington_d_c_to_san > > My point is that most of the above was not reported by the US > corporate owned TV franchises. And, what little may have been reported > elsewhere is all too often forgotten, perhaps the next day unless one > is informed and involved. > > “…The breaking windows comment (don't you read back before > responding?) > is in response to Pol Kid's Post…” - SD > > Yes, I had read what he said and reread it before my post. What I > posted was directed to what you posted. > > As to a “POP” site, I think they already exist. However, most of them > originate in other countries. > > “… Radicals usually don't think things through, they are too > irrational and driven by their personal abhorrence of the issue. He > was a fool who should have figured out the "potential reality" of his > actions…” – SD > > While such people surely exist, what I find are those who thoughtfully > respond to situations in ways that for many might appear to be > irrational. And, of course, most of the motivation IS abhorrence to > situations that one feels are intolerable. > > As to ‘fools’ who ‘should’ (magic word again! ;-) ), be responsible > for their actions, countless were when they fled to Canada during Nam. > A few went AWOL during Iraq. And, for those who were brave enough to > actually DO something actively against a perceived oppressor, one of > the best examples I can come up with is Nathan Hale. I empathize with > his view. Of course, he was involved with a very well organized > resistance to the ruling powers. > Perhaps Archy is correct in this respect. > > On Oct 15, 3:58 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Agreed upon wholly with the exception that media cannot censorship > > video surveillance, even they know that others are going to be taping > > the event and why risk trying to manipulate a reality event such as a > > march on Washington. Again it's the mass that makes the difference. > > Small protests are the equivalent of a small military skirmish, it's > > doesn't really do anything. k > > > The breaking windows comment (don't you read back before responding?) > > is in response to Pol Kid's Post. > > > Finally, I do think that someone (not me) should start up a POP site, > > People Of Power dot Com in order to organize the populace against this > > outlandish behavior of government officials who lately resemble the > > likes of historical street thugs. > > > Lastly, your link to the arrest of Elliot Madison is in my opinion > > irrelevant. Madison was usurping police protection in the case of > > some unfortunate riot spurned from some protesters protesting the > > protesters. What would have happened if there was a riot and people > > were killed on account that Madison, through his manipulations, warded > > off the protection of the police during protests? I'll give him a set > > of balls but really not much in the brain area. Radicals usually > > don't think things through, they are too irrational and driven by > > their personal abhorrence of the issue. He was a fool who should have > > figured out the "potential reality" of his actions. > > > On Oct 15, 5:03 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…Believe me, when you have over 150,000 people parading for an issue, > > > when there are so many people around that the area becomes grid lock, > > > people are going to listen, people who aren't there are going to pay > > > attention, the news media is going to have a field day and the whole > > > world will be watching and as a result millions of people start to > > > voice there opinion…” – SD > > > > Again, when this happens, it happens. On the other hand, in most > > > countries, the US included, often media censorship cripples such > > > movements by simply ignoring and/or imputing irrational motivations to > > > such activities. Anyone remember the last 8 years? I participated in > > > very large marches. I was able to see other marches of hundreds of > > > thousands of people worldwide. However, this was ONLY by watching > > > Democracy Now!, and using the internet. Corporate media here was > > > silent overall. > > > > “…Breaking windows only hurts the people who have to call their > > > insurance company and pay higher premiums, and aside from that it's > > > vandalism. You can't get a point across by vandalizing someone's > > > property. …” – SD > > > > Slip, while I do know what you are saying here and personally agree on > > > the whole, I would suggest that often such ‘vandalism’ is the only way > > > to gain people’s attention. Simple example: Boston Tea Party. Yes, > > > there was underlying organization etc. And, I could present countless > > > hypothetical ways to be ‘successful’ in a social movement using > > > destruction of property. For the obvious reason(s), I hesitate to do > > > so openly. > > > > “…Fact is that in this day and age of computer networking it is easier > > > than ever to get together a few thousand people and organize a march. > > > …” - SD > > > > Yes, most people now have new tools for networking. This includes and > > > is dominated by those who do not need to go to the streets. For those > > > who do use the net to coordinate marches etc., there is a very real > > > threat of incarceration for doing so. Countless examples exist. Here > > > is only a recent example. Do note that it was not carried on corporate > > > TV. > > > >http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/6/twitter_crackdown_nyc_activist_... > > > > Personal social commentary: > > > >http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpqut_the-revolution-will-not-be-tel... > > > > “…In the sixties it wasn't so easy but it worked with combined effort. > > > Remember that in government there is always an authority of the > > > authority. Do you think that when Martin Luther King organized a > > > march on Washington he only had a few hundred people with him? What > > > do you think would have happened if he showed up with 50 people, think > > > about it….” – SD > > > > Absolutely Slip! The civil rights movement was very carefully > > > organized from Rosa Parks who didn’t just decide unilaterally that day > > > to ride in the front of the bus. It was only after years of activist > > > organization and training that this historic event occurred. This is > > > often tacitly ignored by many. Also, from a different view, those > > > ‘brought to justice’ like James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald deny > > > their involvement. Yes, this is common, to deny. And, the circumstance > > > and historical events do present grave and large questions beyond any > > > simple conspiracy theory is mentioned, a commonly used ad hominem. > > > Today, with the grossly misnomered “Patriot Act”, satellite > > > surveillance, cameras covering almost every square inch of ‘civilized’ > > > nations and other technological advancements, I doubt that the US > > > would have come about due to an original Tea Party type of activity. > > > > Given all of this, I agree that change often will and does take an > > > organized and often large movement. Exceptions do come to mind. So, > > > here’s to supporting your rallying cry Slip!!! > > > > “ Get with it, organize! “ – Slip Disk > > > > On Oct 15, 1:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good to see you back participating again pol kid. > > > > > Rallies are not much good when they are only conducted in small groups > > > > which appear more like some disgruntled group of people and seems to > > > > diminish the intensity of the issue. If you really want to get a > > > > point across you have to have organization, a reach out program that > > > > informs people of the issue, people who agree with your group. > > > > Believe me, when you have over 150,000 people parading for an issue, > > > > when there are so many people around that the area becomes grid lock, > > > > people are going to listen, people who aren't there are going to pay > > > > attention, the news media is going to have a field day and the whole > > > > world will be watching and as a result millions of people start to > > > > voice there opinion. Breaking windows only hurts the people who have > > > > to call their insurance company and pay higher premiums, and aside > > > > from that it's vandalism. You can't get a point across by vandalizing > > > > someone's property. > > > > Fact is that in this day and age of computer networking it is easier > > > > than ever to get together a few thousand people and organize a march. > > > > In the sixties it wasn't so easy but it worked with combined effort. > > > > Remember that in government there is > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
