Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What if you don't want your business vandalized, looted, or burned down?

ALL businesses matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ALL businesses matter.

Which is exactly why they should put a stop to the rioting.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Which is exactly why they should put a stop to the rioting.

And how do you see that playing out, considering they're deploying tactics that are proven to have the exact opposite effect?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And how do you see that playing out, considering they're deploying tactics that are proven to have the exact opposite effect?

1. You're claiming that...I don't see any proof.

2. If they do escalate to acts of terrorism....they should be thrown in jail as terrorists. I suspect that once they start facing serious consequences, they'll be done.

 

[Paulos23]

Looks like Chicago is next.

Homeland Security sending 150 agents to Chicago this week: report

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

1. You're claiming that...I don't see any proof.

I refer you to the entire history of civil unrest as proof. Escalating tactics, such as those being used in Portland, are known - not hypothesized, known - to result in further radicalization and recruitment. It's exactly how the Provos were formed in Northern Ireland, to pick one example of a great many.

There is an actual field manual on this subject,
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
We're not shooting in the dark. We know exactly how movements can spin out of control and break off into insurgent groups, and what measures to take to avoid letting them get that far.

That's why local leaders in Portland are urging the feds to leave, because whoever is calling shots for them is either stupid and incompetent, or de-escalation is not their goal. In either case, they are making things worse. Not better.

2. If they do escalate to acts of terrorism....they should be thrown in jail as terrorists. I suspect that once they start facing serious consequences, they'll be done.

I've got a much better idea. How about instead of gambling with people's lives on a suspicion, we don't let it escalate that far in the first place. How about we don't use tactics that are guaranteed, if deployed long enough at a big enough scale, to escalate things that far. How about we de-escalate instead.

Just a thought.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

I wonder who speaks more for the local property owners then their local representatives?

Well, in this case they have proven not to be good representatives of the City in which they live nor the People who reside in that City.

M

 

[Ana the Ist]

I refer you to the entire history of civil unrest as proof. Escalating tactics, such as those being used in Portland, are known - not hypothesized, known - to result in further radicalization and recruitment.

Worked pretty well in Tiananmen Square. There's also the Whiskey Rebellion if you want something closer to home.

There is an actual field manual on this subject,
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

That's in reference our military engaging in foreign operations. Notice frequent use of the term "host nation".

I've got a much better idea. How about instead of gambling with people's lives on a suspicion, we don't let it escalate that far in the first place. How about we don't use tactics that are guaranteed, if deployed long enough at a big enough scale, to escalate things that far. How about we de-escalate instead.

Just a thought.

If we try appeasement...they'll just riot next time they want something.

What do you suggest we do to end this that doesn't involve caving to their ridiculous demands?

 

[Sparagmos]

I will speak whatever term I so choose, and you will never deter it… Am I clear about ANTIFA? Keep counting... all you want...

Correcting me isn't an issue, but counting at me like you're scolding a child? Get over yourself.

What is ANTIFA willing to concede?



Me personally, I do not believe it would even be fruitful. I have not heard a single issue of theirs I agree with or want implemented.

Why would Antifa even be part of the convo? People who associate as “Antifa” make up maybe 5% of protesters in Portland. No need to try and negotiate with that tiny minority.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I refer you to the entire history of civil unrest as proof. Escalating tactics, such as those being used in Portland, are known - not hypothesized, known - to result in further radicalization and recruitment. It's exactly how the Provos were formed in Northern Ireland, to pick one example of a great many.

There is an actual field manual on this subject,
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
We're not shooting in the dark. We know exactly how movements can spin out of control and break off into insurgent groups, and what measures to take to avoid letting them get that far.

That's why local leaders in Portland are urging the feds to leave, because whoever is calling shots for them is either stupid and incompetent, or de-escalation is not their goal. In either case, they are making things worse. Not better.



I've got a much better idea. How about instead of gambling with people's lives on a suspicion, we don't let it escalate that far in the first place. How about we don't use tactics that are guaranteed, if deployed long enough at a big enough scale, to escalate things that far. How about we de-escalate instead.

Just a thought.

Furthermore, here's what your field manual says about the direct methods for defeating an insurgency....Chapter 9-19

9-19. Operations and tasks associated with achieving the clear begin by controlling access to an area and then by controlling key points within that area. Security and influence can then spread out from this area. Commanders and staffs should consider the following points for operations in the clear:  Create a secure physical and psychological environment.  Provide continuous security for the local populace.  Eliminate the insurgent combatants.  Reinforce culturally appropriate political primacy within the context of host-nation systems.  Enforce the rule of law.

 

[Sparagmos]

I'm talking about the masses. How did people think others would react to all of this violence and stuff? Did people honestly think no one would fight back?

We are responding by taking to the streets in even larger numbers. On Saturday, maybe 50 moms showed up and did nothing but stand between the cops and the BLMprotesters, yet were attacked with rubber bullets and tear gas. Last night, 400 or so moms showed up. These are not Antifa, they are not rioters, they are regular people coming out to protect their city.

'Wall of Moms' stand between Portland BLM protesters and federal police

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Worked pretty well in Tiananmen Square.

Portland is not Tiananmen Square. Yet.

If it does go that way though, of mass military intervention, are you willing to gamble on the same outcome? Do you trust that our government, for example, will be able to execute a supremely aggressive media blackout on the event, such that no one would know about it except the people who survive?

Also, do you actually want such a thing to happen?

That's in reference our military engaging in foreign operations.

It's a field manual on insurgency and counterinsurgency. Those can happen anywhere.

Notice frequent use of the term "host nation".

And in this case, the nation would be the US. There is, as far as I know, no field guide specific to insurgency groups within the US. All the theory and tactics still apply. Just skip the chapters on international law.

If we try appeasement...they'll just riot next time they want something.

How do you know that?

Also, who's "they"? Human beings, in general? I would say that depends. People tend to riot when they feel they have no other recourse. It's the language of the unheard, after all.

So, the key is to provide them with means of being heard, before it gets to that point.

What do you suggest we do to end this that doesn't involve caving to their ridiculous demands?

I do not grant the premise of your question.

The answer to the non-loaded version of your question though, is bringing them to the table to negotiate. It appears the local leaders are trying to go that way, rebuilding trust by denouncing the feds. I hope it's not too late.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Furthermore, here's what your field manual says about the direct methods for defeating an insurgency....Chapter 9-19

9-19. Operations and tasks associated with achieving the clear begin by controlling access to an area and then by controlling key points within that area. Security and influence can then spread out from this area. Commanders and staffs should consider the following points for operations in the clear:  Create a secure physical and psychological environment.  Provide continuous security for the local populace.  Eliminate the insurgent combatants.  Reinforce culturally appropriate political primacy within the context of host-nation systems.  Enforce the rule of law.

Firstly, it's not "my" field manual. It's the US Army's.

Secondly, those are tactics for dealing with established, embedded, armed insurgent groups. A real world example would be something like a town in Iraq, occupied and run by ISIS militants. Do you believe that is what's happening in Portland? If not, why would you cite that portion of the manual?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Portland is not Tiananmen Square. Yet.

If it does go that way though, of mass military intervention, are you willing to gamble on the same outcome? Do you trust that our government, for example, will be able to execute a supremely aggressive media blackout on the event, such that no one would know about it except the people who survive?

Also, do you actually want such a thing to happen?

No...I don't want such a thing to happen. I'd much prefer rioters simply went home and called it quits.

It's a field manual on insurgency and counterinsurgency. Those can happen anywhere.

And they aren't the same as a riot.

And in this case, the nation would be the US. There is, as far as I know, no field guide specific to insurgency groups within the US. All the theory and tactics still apply. Just skip the chapters on international law.

Lol theory and tactics are not the same. Objectives in a military occupied nation and the US are not the same. If objectives are different....then theory and tactics are different.

How do you know that?

The entire history of appeasement of violent groups.

So, the key is to provide them with means of being heard, before it gets to that point.

They've been heard...in Portland, they've been rioting for 50+ days.

I do not grant the premise of your question.

The answer to the non-loaded version of your question though, is bringing them to the table to negotiate. It appears the local leaders are trying to go that way, rebuilding trust by denouncing the feds. I hope it's not too late.

You're on the side of the rioters then.

I hate to be the one to point out the obvious....but people need police, they don't need rioters. Society will break down if we lose police....but nothing will break down if we lose rioters.

Try considering my question as if you didn't support the rioters or what they wanted. Let's imagine that every day, for the past 50 days, it was nothing but white supremacists rioting for a "whites only Portland" where everyone who isn't white was exiled from Portland and anyone who refused to leave was thrown in jail indefinitely.

My guess is that you wouldn't support "negotiating" some sort of "compromise" with them....would you? In this hypothetical scenario....how long would you let them riot before you supported military intervention?

Is there some other measure that you would approve of first?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Secondly, those are tactics for dealing with established, embedded, armed insurgent groups. A real world example would be something like a town in Iraq, occupied and run by ISIS militants. Do you believe that is what's happening in Portland? If not, why would you cite that portion of the manual?

Those are tactics considered to be the "direct approach" to defeating an insurgency. They don't apply because it's not a field manual for dealing with riots in a city in your own nation.

For fun though, let's imagine a group of rioters surround a military base in Iraq and attempt to burn it down....much in the way these rioters attempt to burn down police stations in their own cities....what do you think the military response would be?

Do you think they'd just abandon the military base? Walk away and let it be burned down?

 

[Radagast]

This thread is about the Federal police coming into a city and taking over from local jurisdictions; they were not asked and do not have authority to police a city run by a state government.

In the past federal officers only came into a state by the expressed invitation of the Governor of that state.

Federal officers have the authority to enforce federal laws.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Portland is not Tiananmen Square. Yet.

If it does go that way though, of mass military intervention, are you willing to gamble on the same outcome? Do you trust that our government, for example, will be able to execute a supremely aggressive media blackout on the event, such that no one would know about it except the people who survive?

Also, do you actually want such a thing to happen?



It's a field manual on insurgency and counterinsurgency. Those can happen anywhere.



And in this case, the nation would be the US. There is, as far as I know, no field guide specific to insurgency groups within the US. All the theory and tactics still apply. Just skip the chapters on international law.



How do you know that?

Also, who's "they"? Human beings, in general? I would say that depends. People tend to riot when they feel they have no other recourse. It's the language of the unheard, after all.

So, the key is to provide them with means of being heard, before it gets to that point.



I do not grant the premise of your question.

The answer to the non-loaded version of your question though, is bringing them to the table to negotiate. It appears the local leaders are trying to go that way, rebuilding trust by denouncing the feds. I hope it's not too late.

Also, in regards to appeasement....we really only need to look at the demands of rioters now.

5 years ago when they were rioting about police....the demand was for more accountability, for cops to be seriously investigated and charged when they committed a crime.

In the murder of George Floyd....that's exactly, what happened. The cops were investigated, and charged with a crime.

Now the rioters want more. It's clear that giving them the accountability they demanded hasn't reduced the incentive to riot....it's only shown them that if they riot enough, they can get leaders to cave.

When defunding the police fails....they're just going to riot again. The problem is that next time, there will be less police to control the riots. I don't know what the demands will be...but I can guess by looking at the more extreme demands they're making now.

 

[durangodawood]

If Ammon Bundy with tons of guns was there feds would be like, "no problem take all the time you need!"

 

[Paulos23]

I am reminded of some words of wisdom:

"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was ‘policeman’. If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers. “ — from Snuff by Terry Pratchett

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am reminded of some words of wisdom:

"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was ‘policeman’. If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers. “ — from Snuff by Terry Pratchett

Sure wish Mr. Pratchett were still with us.