The Arab Spring vs OWS and London Riots

[Tutankhamun]

Does anyone else find the media and government officials extremely hypocritical when they salute and celebrate The Arab Spring while they condemn the Riots in London and the Occupy Wall Street movement? In my mind, it is the same thing - people around the globe are waking up in numbers the closer we get to 2012. Of course the New World Order controlled mass media won't talk about that. I just find it funny the media, government and citizens can celebrate the killing of so called dictators in the Arabic world while they condemn and swear over protests in their own country. The police in the U.S is even beating OWS protesters up!

Anyone else agree?

 

[keefy]

Nope I don't agree.

the riots in England were a bunch of pricks doing what they do best (being pricks)

Blue peter uses lots of sticky back plastic and tinfoil maybe you could fasion a hat.

 

[Tutankhamun]

[QUOTE="keefy, post: 5692748]Nope I don't agree.

the riots in England were a bunch of pricks doing what they do best (being pricks)

Blue peter uses lots of sticky back plastic and tinfoil maybe you could fasion a hat.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, put more to the point of the thread - in your mind what is the difference about citizens in the Western World protesting against their leaders and controllers versus people in the Arabic world doing the same?

Why were they pricks in England when they we're protesting against their government which is exactly the same what people are doing in Arab countries, although they have take in it further by overthrowing the government.

 

[Gregorious]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5692742]Does anyone else find the media and government officials extremely hypocritical when they salute and celebrate The Arab Spring while they condemn the Riots in London and the Occupy Wall Street movement? In my mind, it is the same thing - people around the globe are waking up in numbers the closer we get to 2012. Of course the New World Order controlled mass media won't talk about that. I just find it funny the media, government and citizens can celebrate the killing of so called dictators in the Arabic world while they condemn and swear over protests in their own country. The police in the U.S is even beating OWS protesters up!

Anyone else agree?[/QUOTE]

I would agree with most of that. Even the Tea Party protests were cast in a more positive light, or how about the Beck and Stewart/Colbert rallies. I'm not so sure it has anything to do with "2012", but people are becoming much more charged politically. I actually find it funny that the people who aren't "freaking out" seem to be actually becoming even more indifferent to the political landscape.

Alot of it also has to do with media's investment in the location on how it's portrayed. (Does that make sense?) The western media is going to be more concerned with the looting and pillaging side of protests when they look at NAmerica and Europe. That's what effects them most, in the middle east they only see the person in charge effecting them. They couldn't care less if a shop in Egypt was looted, so there is no focus on it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[adamdolge]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5692742]Does anyone else find the media and government officials extremely hypocritical when they salute and celebrate The Arab Spring while they condemn the Riots in London and the Occupy Wall Street movement? In my mind, it is the same thing - people around the globe are waking up in numbers the closer we get to 2012. Of course the New World Order controlled mass media won't talk about that. I just find it funny the media, government and citizens can celebrate the killing of so called dictators in the Arabic world while they condemn and swear over protests in their own country. The police in the U.S is even beating OWS protesters up!

Anyone else agree?[/QUOTE]
I think it's a valid argument, but there are some massive differences in quality of life in London, NA, and even Greece compared to countries like Egypt, Syria and Libya. I'm a reporter in Washington, DC (covering federal education policy, so I see what politics does to policy) but I was apart of the Media Empire, or Liberal News Media, or whatever anyone wants to call it. Simply put: news organizations are businesses, in it to make money. A good business model is giving editors and journalists the power to report as traditional journalists, meaning without a slant or "analysis." Sadly, that's all but lost and gobbled-up by a blog-o-fied 24-news cycle where opinion is regarded as truth. To your point, government officials have to be extremely careful what they support locally because their primary concern (at least with an election 12 months away in the US) is getting reelected. Most politicians (not all), do their best to respond to that swing from the news world so they can sound relevant, important, and say things that will make their constituents, conservative, independent, moderate, liberal, or progressive, happy enough.

 

[Tutankhamun]

[QUOTE="Gregorious, post: 5692753]I would agree with most of that. Even the Tea Party protests were cast in a more positive light, or how about the Beck and Stewart/Colbert rallies. I'm not so sure it has anything to do with "2012", but people are becoming much more charged politically. I actually find it funny that the people who aren't "freaking out" seem to be actually becoming even more indifferent to the political landscape.

Alot of it also has to do with media's investment in the location on how it's portrayed. (Does that make sense?) The western media is going to be more concerned with the looting and pillaging side of protests when they look at NAmerica and Europe. That's what effects them most, in the middle east they only see the person in charge effecting them. They couldn't care less if a shop in Egypt was looted, so there is no focus on it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.[/QUOTE]

Sure, it is in the media's interest to stay on the good side of as many people as possible - they make money from people watching their channel. That's what's sad about the mass media today, there's no expectation of true and unbiased reporting - it's just about the money. If they piss of Obama, they won't be invited to the White House (don't know if that's the case, just an example) so you can't take the chance.

[QUOTE="adamdolge, post: 5692774]I think it's a valid argument, but there are some massive differences in quality of life in London, NA, and even Greece compared to countries like Egypt, Syria and Libya. I'm a reporter in Washington, DC (covering federal education policy, so I see what politics does to policy) but I was apart of the Media Empire, or Liberal News Media, or whatever anyone wants to call it. Simply put: news organizations are businesses, in it to make money. A good business model is giving editors and journalists the power to report as traditional journalists, meaning without a slant or "analysis." Sadly, that's all but lost and gobbled-up by a blog-o-fied 24-news cycle where opinion is regarded as truth. To your point, government officials have to be extremely careful what they support locally because their primary concern (at least with an election 12 months away in the US) is getting reelected. Most politicians (not all), do their best to respond to that swing from the news world so they can sound relevant, important, and say things that will make their constituents, conservative, independent, moderate, liberal, or progressive, happy enough.[/QUOTE]

I can agree with that, nonetheless you'd expect some consistency from politicians and the mass media - even though quality of life is worse in Egypt or Libya it is the same problems they are facing as American's are facing. Someone else is controlling their quality of life without them voting on it. So why celebrate the Arabic Spring and shit on the OWS movement and the London rioters? They want the same thing which is power to the people.

 

[Versus]

Having watched alot of the right wing leaning Fox News Channel in the US, I can tell you the reason why people bash OWS and London riots, and praise the arab upspring.

It's a right wing point of view, they love how the arabs in the middle east are overthrowing dictators, not just because of natural reasons, but because they are more inclinded to be in favor of war and like seeing this outcome. They bash OWS, and London riots because they view them as being hand-fed citizens of liberal/left wing policies of their governments. What they said about the London riots was that people are going crazy because the government wasn't giving away stuff like they usually do, and say a similar tune toward OWS.

I think it's quite simple, OWS and London riots are mostly a bunch of hippies and thugs wanting an excuse to break shit and act like jackasses. It's ok tho, like one CNN reporter said, "the weather is starting to get cold, and all this kids will go back inside soon anyway". lol

 

[Tutankhamun]

I think you last paragraph is an extremely lazy point of view to take, one can easily find very eductated and high paid workers participating in both movements. If you remember, the OWS protests and the London riots was not violent from the beginning only later that happened. Is it possible government infiltrators infiltrated the movements to cause violence to strengthen their agenda of an Orwellian state?

 

[Equinoqs]

I agree completely. The media in the U.S. loves the underdogs in the Arab world rising up and overthrowing their crooked despots who control the country's finances and welfare. They present nonplussed coverage of Tea Partiers who carry loaded weapons to political rallies & presidential appearances, commit violence on liberal protesters and spit on black Congrressmen. Yet the OWC movement is criticized by media anchors as silly, dangerous and/or just a bunch of lazy students (I'm talking all mainstream media, not just Fox News). The same police who never batted an eye at the aggressiveness of the Tea Party now mace & beat peaceful OWC protesters. If ever one needed to see the controlling influence of Wall Street, look no further than New York law enforcement.

 

[[DT]]

 

[flibbetygibbett]

 

[spyrde]

I don't agree, I think the riots in England were just kids getting a chance to steal and freak out. They changed a peaceful riot into mayhem just for the fun of it. At the same time the arab countries are fighting for freedom and justice, instead of sneakers, and unfortunately violence is necessary for things to go through. Gaddafi and Mubarak would still be ruling Libya and Egypt if the protestors wouldn't have started fighting. Things need a change over there, and I for one am supporting them.

I am not familiar with the things going on in the US though, so I won't comment on that.

 

[Tutankhamun]

So the assumption is that the London protestors we're not protesting because of a sense of injustice and lack of freedom?

 

[spyrde]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5701739]So the assumption is that the London protestors we're not because of a sense of injustice and lack of freedom?[/QUOTE]

The London protestors were not what?

 

[Tutankhamun]

[QUOTE="spyrde, post: 5701747]The London protestors were not what?[/QUOTE]

Protesting. A little typo there, sorry.

 

[Nerevar]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5692742]Does anyone else find the media and government officials extremely hypocritical when they salute and celebrate The Arab Spring while they condemn the Riots in London and the Occupy Wall Street movement? In my mind, it is the same thing - people around the globe are waking up in numbers the closer we get to 2012. Of course the New World Order controlled mass media won't talk about that. I just find it funny the media, government and citizens can celebrate the killing of so called dictators in the Arabic world while they condemn and swear over protests in their own country. The police in the U.S is even beating OWS protesters up!

Anyone else agree?[/QUOTE]

I think you make a great point here, and admittedly it's one I have yet to consider. Of course it's fine for the people to rise up against their corrupt government, but not when it interferes their established daily lives. Americans, and perhaps most of the western world, have become used and almost accepting of their respective governments that choke them dry for money and restrict their freedoms more and more each year. Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant to the masses, it's whether it adheres to the status quo.

I've talked to plenty of people about the OWS, London Riots, and the rebellions happening over in Africa, and it's always the same response. "It's good that those people are fighting for their freedoms." but then it's "Those hippies/teens/idiots should just get more jobs and work harder." There's certainly some cognitive dissonance here. I almost want to say it's because people are just too lazy; they'll support what's right, but the moment it may need their hand for help or it causes any form of temporary discomfort for them then it's a bad thing.

I really, really hope something comes from the OWS movement.

 

[spyrde]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5701748]Protesting. A little typo there, sorry.[/QUOTE]

In the beginning sure, but once the kids took over it was just plain chaos, and for what reason? No reason. They saw a chance to have fun and they sure had some. They changed a peaceful riot that meant something into total anarchy with no meaning.

 

[Vulgotha]

Just got into a 20+ page debate with a professor over this very issue.

He's a friend and associate of mine, I'm not a student of his (he's an uncle of a very close friend of mine) and he lives off on the east coast.

Man the words are flying.

 

[Tutankhamun]

[QUOTE="spyrde, post: 5701766]In the beginning sure, but once the kids took over it was just plain chaos, and for what reason? No reason. They saw a chance to have fun and they sure had some. They changed a peaceful riot that meant something into total anarchy with no meaning.[/QUOTE]

Even if we accept that, to me, it doesn't change the meaning of the protests. Furthermore, why can the Arab's be cheered on when they use violence while Western societies using violence are looked down at. They want the same thing - change.

 

[spyrde]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5702101]Even if we accept that, to me, it doesn't change the meaning of the protests. Furthermore, why can the Arab's be cheered on when they use violence while Western societies using violence are looked down at. They want the same thing - change.[/QUOTE]

Well, over here things are a lot better. We can have peaceful protests, the people are respected and we have an organized democracy running. We have no need for unnecessary violence.

Over at the arab countries however, the leaders armies suffocate any protests with violence, so the only way to get your voice out is to fight back with violence. As unfortunate as it sounds, the necessary blood needs to be shed for change to come over there. There was no way to get for example Gaddafi off his stool without blood.

 

[Tutankhamun]

[QUOTE="spyrde, post: 5702111]Well, over here things are a lot better. We can have peaceful protests, the people are respected and we have an organized democracy running. We have no need for unnecessary violence.

Over at the arab countries however, the leaders armies suffocate any protests with violence, so the only way to get your voice out is to fight back with violence. As unfortunate as it sounds, the necessary blood needs to be shed for change to come over there.[/QUOTE]

And it doesn't here? The media in the Western World doesn't even report on mass-protests, or if they do they ridicule the protestors. Politicians don't change anything based on protests here, only difference than the Arab world is we are allowed to protests but it is hardly ever taken seriously.

 

[spyrde]

[QUOTE="Tutankhamun, post: 5702118]And it doesn't here? The media in the Western World doesn't even report on mass-protests, or if they do they ridicule the protestors. Politicians don't change anything based on protests here, only difference than the Arab world is we are allowed to protests but it is hardly ever taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

The situation in the arab countries was far far worse though. Violence should be used only in the most extreme situations, and as a last resort. For example Libya: Gaddafi ran the place like he wanted, over 20 percent of the population was unemployed, corruption was terrible and everything was shit. No free speech, no chance to protest.

I'm not saying things are ideal over here, but we have free speech, the chance to protest and the chance to vote. If the politicians are not listening to our protests, then we don't have to vote for them! We can vote for the ones who listen to us! Gaddafi ran Libya like he wanted for like 50 years and nobody could do anything about it. We can.

 

[flibbetygibbett]

Tennessee judge[/url] has had to go so far as to tell Tennessee officials not to enforce all the completely bullshit new rules that have been instituted just to arrest OWS protesters.

In Dallas, police have actually been taking advantage of the generosity of OWS protesters (occupy camps frequently have food kitchens) by telling recently released prisoners to go to the OWS camps to get free food.

Video proof of Oakland police infiltrating Occupy Oakland as violent inciters and provocateurs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0

Most recently in Occupy Oakland, a former marine was shot in the head with a rubber bullet. Mind you, there was NO violence occurring on behalf of the protesters at this point. Lying there on the floor bleeding from a headwound, several protesters rushed to the former marine's aid in an attempt to help him. And what did the cops do? They threw a goddamn flashbang at them. Last I heard the marine was in critical condition. So what was the justification for this? "Unlawful Assembly", according to the Oakland PD.

Make no mistake. The freedom of speech is freedom in theory only. You're only allowed the freedom to speak if you're saying something the establishment wants to hear or already agrees with. If you're not, well, prepare to be pepper-sprayed, shot at, tasered, and flashbanged. And no, I'm not talking about what happens in Egypt, or Libya. I'm talking about what happens right here, in America.

The upside to this? The fact that there is so much political backlash and attempts at smearing the OWS protests is incredibly telling; it tells us the establishment is scared shitless of these protests and doing everything possible in their power (media smear campaigns, media blackouts, calling out their loyal lapdogs the police) to try to bury this line of discourse as fast as possible, and get people back to thinking 'Everything is all sunshine and rainbows, no need for financial reform here!'

 

[Nerevar]

The misconception that the people are here for the people needs to be abandoned. They are the iron hands of the government and corporations; always have been, always will be.

 

[flibbetygibbett]

authoritarian personalities[/url] found in law enforcement and the military, and you have the perfect little lapdogs; individuals who will mindlessly enforce the rules laid down by their masters without ever questioning whether what they're doing is just or not, or who these actions are actually serving in the end, because they're predisposed to submit to authoritarian establishments. Especially if said establish can manipulate people into believing they're doing it for the beterment of the State.

 

[Versus]

Ima be real honest, I think this Occupy Wall Street protester are largely just a bunch of hippie/crazy people who don't have many obligations in life and just wanna hang out and have fun. To them this is one big tailgate party. There not as organized as the Tea Baggers.

 

[flibbetygibbett]

This[/url] is a pretty good place to start, if you actually have some interest in learning.

In other news, Bernie Sanders continues his crusade to be the greatest Senator nobody follows.

Over two years ago, I asked Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a few simple questions that I thought the American people had a right to know: Who got money through the Fed bailout? How much did they receive? What were the terms of this assistance?

Incredibly, the chairman of the Fed refused to answer these fundamental questions about how trillions of taxpayer dollars were being spent.

The American people are finally getting answers to these questions thanks to an amendment I included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill which required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and investigate conflicts of interest at the Fed. Those answers raise grave questions about the Federal Reserve and how it operates -- and whose interests it serves.

As a result of these GAO reports, we learned that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to every major financial institution in the country as well as a number of corporations, wealthy individuals and central banks throughout the world.

The GAO also revealed that many of the people who serve as directors of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks come from the exact same financial institutions that the Fed is in charge of regulating. Further, the GAO found that at least 18 current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. In other words, the people "regulating" the banks were the exact same people who were being "regulated." Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!

The emergency response from the Fed appears to have created two systems of government in America: one for Wall Street, and another for everyone else. While the rich and powerful were "too big to fail" and were given an endless supply of cheap credit, ordinary Americans, by the tens of millions, were allowed to fail. They lost their homes. They lost their jobs. They lost their life savings. And, they lost their hope for the future. This is not what American democracy is supposed to look like. It is time for change at the Fed -- real change.

 

[reggiebush22]

london protest were a major shame for those involved and the country