Skip to main content

View Diary: Actually read the documents released by the FBI about OWS (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They did not label the entire (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rscopes, emelyn, Nowhere Man

    OWS movement as terrorist, contrary to the constant reporting. They mentioned, often 'terrorist elements' in OWS. There is a substantial difference there.

    Now, I do think the FBI and DHS use that term far too freely. Not everyone that uses violence as part of their political protesting (I'm looking at you, Black Bloc) is actually a terrorist. But it can be a fine line.

    47 is the new 51!

    by nickrud on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:59:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  We're just now reopening the examination (5+ / 0-)

      of the unwarranted and harsh crackdown on the Occupy movement.

      This FOIA request actually produced some information (while other FOIA requests returned nothing from the FBI). And there are more FOIAs in the pipeline and appeals.

      Just give it time before you brush off the coordinated crackdown as a conspiracy theory. As has been lobbed for so many months now every time someone asks how and why things happened like they did at an Occupy protest or gathering.


      One may live without bread, but not without roses.
      ~Jean Richepin
      Bread & Roses

      by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:31:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Someone has a vested interest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, bronte17

        in shutting this conversation down. Sources that are well respected in the progressive community and that practice exceptionally good journalism have been critically examining the FBI documents.  The sudden descent of a diarist and commentors who obviously wish to distract the Kos community from the work of people like Amy Goodman is passing strange and warrents some critical observation..  

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:29:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are absolutely wrong on this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bill W

          I posted a link to the ORIGINAL documents so that people could read them and draw their own conclusions.  The other two diaries relied on third party reporting which is fine but I prefer to look at the source data and make up my mind.  

          NO ONE is trying to shut down any conversation.  I want as many people as possible to look at the documents.  You don't get to control what conclusion they draw from those documents after reading them.

          •  You're Right, I Don't Get To Control Anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bronte17

            but I do have the right to suggest to others that we have more knowledgeable people available to us help us make sense of what we are reading.  We have Amy Goodman, and others like her, who bring together expert witness, if you will, with experience of the politics and culture of these organizations and people who understand the literature.

            To assume that each of us can draw meaningful conclusions from reading the decuments on our own is a little like saying that anyone can read the Bible and draw their own conclusions...Yes they can but their conclusions are ilkely to be very faulty, misleading and naive.  

            What I appreciated about the other two diaries is that they gave us a path to knowledgable people who can help us parse what we're reading in useful ways.

            Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

            by tikkun on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:37:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  it is called "critical thinking" (0+ / 0-)

          the other three diaries were an exercise in groupthink.  Reading through the documents gives an entirely different picture than what is being presented in those diaries or from those "well respected" sources.  Sorry, but making up your own mind is desirable over just oohing and awing over "well respected" sources.   Using the bible analogy, I prefer to read passages myself and interpret them myself rather than just listening to someone telling me what the interpretation should be.  

          The problem here is overreach bordering on hysteria.  So, based on these documents, which have no proof whatsoever and, to me, don't convey what is being "sold" in those threats, I am supposed to join in screaming from the rooftops that Obama should be impeached, the administration was complicit in plotting murder against peaceful protesters, etc.?    

          Just dreadful.  Make a point, but leave the hysteria out until you have some real proof.  The right-wing tea-baggers are reactionary fools.  I don't like it anymore just because the unproven paranoia is coming from the left.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site