6 ms·

Nice, you totally cut and pasted out of context: >>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical a

Nice, you totally cut and pasted out of context: >>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. >"blame the victim" right from the start (2nd paragraph). I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. Sentence immediately before this in the same paragraph "During unified action, U.S. forces should never violate basic civil or human rights. Most protesters are law-abiding citizens who intend to keep their protests nonviolent, but some protest planners insist that the event involve violence." >>The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene. Again, the sentence before this one: "Violence can be the result of demonstrators beginning to conduct unlawful or criminal acts and authorities (who are responsible for the safety and welfare of all) enforcing the laws of the municipality, state, or nation." You're biases are clear.

trhway 12y ago
the key items are naturally embedded in the "context" so an argument like yours can always be made, yet these key items are the ones that's getting ingrained in the minds of their target audience. Basic skill of good copywriting. to the rayiner below - there is no argument that protests are crushed much more violently in the rest of the world (may be except for a couple of countries like England and Germany). There is a reason i left Russia where just calling for a protest is a felony these days :)
- rayiner 12y ago
  By your reasoning, you can take any quote out of context and use it to make up an argument. I don't know anything about your experience, but I suspect you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The fact is that protests out in the rest of the world aren't like protests in San Francisco. I was once in Bangladesh during a "hartal" (general strike). People staying in our hotel were shuttled to the airport under armed guard. Last year, almost 100 people were killed in these sorts of protests. And Bangladesh is a very safe, stable country compared to the ones where the U.S. military usually intervenes. That's the context this manual must be read in.
- owenjones 12y ago
  What does how other countries deal with protests have anything to do with the US Army's guide to dealing with protests?
Spooky23 12y ago
I agree it was a biased statement, but the key issue is that if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do. If they are there to prevent escalation, they need to take the abuse hurled at them and suck it up. Saying "We come in peace and respect you, stand by while we crack your skull open with a truncheon" doesn't exempt your conduct. If standard operating procedure calls for escalation from skull-cracking to rifle fire into a crowd to machine gunning of the crowd, we have a problem.
- justizin 12y ago
  "if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do." One of the interesting things I learned participating in a number of protests in recent years surrounded by veterans is that they were shocked at the local PD's willingness to violate basic human rights in ways that they'd never have been allowed in the Army / Marines / etc.. One of the concerns I discussed with a friend this weekend regarding the current / recent situation in Ferguson is that police with military equipment are doing things that are simply not acceptable for soldiers at war, such as outright pointing their weapons into a crowd in order to get people's attention, as well as the unchecked use of teargas which I also saw in Oakland. I don't look forward to encountering any group of soldiers in a demonstration, nor do I doubt the Army has policies that are frightening, but one of the most frightening things about the militarization of police is that police are civilians who do not answer to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor do they require proper training on how to interact with the public as military. Many of them are vets, but not all of them had such duties while in the service. This is why you often hear the perception that these police are 'dressed up to play soldier' because as horrifying as it is that a city would send soldiers in to repress its' citizens, it's an order of magnitude worse because they aren't trained to have any restraint and the protest they are policing is _directly_ against them and their presence in the area.
  - click170 12y ago
    John Oliver touched on this in his recent segment. The Army, is given training in Escalation Of Force. The police, who are being given all these toys because terrorists and drugs, do not have that training. This is why you hear about the police shooting and killing unarmed civilians, deploying teargas in residential areas, and walking around pointing their weapons at people instead of the ground. Frankly they shouldn't have that gear at all, but if you're going to give it to them at least train them properly with it first.

trhway 12y ago

the key items are naturally embedded in the "context" so an argument like yours can always be made, yet these key items are the ones that's getting ingrained in the minds of their target audience. Basic skill of good copywriting. to the rayiner below - there is no argument that protests are crushed much more violently in the rest of the world (may be except for a couple of countries like England and Germany). There is a reason i left Russia where just calling for a protest is a felony these days :)

rayiner 12y ago
By your reasoning, you can take any quote out of context and use it to make up an argument. I don't know anything about your experience, but I suspect you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The fact is that protests out in the rest of the world aren't like protests in San Francisco. I was once in Bangladesh during a "hartal" (general strike). People staying in our hotel were shuttled to the airport under armed guard. Last year, almost 100 people were killed in these sorts of protests. And Bangladesh is a very safe, stable country compared to the ones where the U.S. military usually intervenes. That's the context this manual must be read in.
owenjones 12y ago
What does how other countries deal with protests have anything to do with the US Army's guide to dealing with protests?

Spooky23 12y ago

I agree it was a biased statement, but the key issue is that if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do. If they are there to prevent escalation, they need to take the abuse hurled at them and suck it up. Saying "We come in peace and respect you, stand by while we crack your skull open with a truncheon" doesn't exempt your conduct. If standard operating procedure calls for escalation from skull-cracking to rifle fire into a crowd to machine gunning of the crowd, we have a problem.

justizin 12y ago
"if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do." One of the interesting things I learned participating in a number of protests in recent years surrounded by veterans is that they were shocked at the local PD's willingness to violate basic human rights in ways that they'd never have been allowed in the Army / Marines / etc.. One of the concerns I discussed with a friend this weekend regarding the current / recent situation in Ferguson is that police with military equipment are doing things that are simply not acceptable for soldiers at war, such as outright pointing their weapons into a crowd in order to get people's attention, as well as the unchecked use of teargas which I also saw in Oakland. I don't look forward to encountering any group of soldiers in a demonstration, nor do I doubt the Army has policies that are frightening, but one of the most frightening things about the militarization of police is that police are civilians who do not answer to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor do they require proper training on how to interact with the public as military. Many of them are vets, but not all of them had such duties while in the service. This is why you often hear the perception that these police are 'dressed up to play soldier' because as horrifying as it is that a city would send soldiers in to repress its' citizens, it's an order of magnitude worse because they aren't trained to have any restraint and the protest they are policing is _directly_ against them and their presence in the area.
- click170 12y ago
  John Oliver touched on this in his recent segment. The Army, is given training in Escalation Of Force. The police, who are being given all these toys because terrorists and drugs, do not have that training. This is why you hear about the police shooting and killing unarmed civilians, deploying teargas in residential areas, and walking around pointing their weapons at people instead of the ground. Frankly they shouldn't have that gear at all, but if you're going to give it to them at least train them properly with it first.