Occupy Seattle’s “Targeted Property Damage”

I’ve had occupiers yelling at me that it’s the “unsanctioned Black Bloc” or “Cops” who have infiltrated us causing the property damage and smashing up businesses. Sanctioned or unsanctioned, it’s clear they can’t police their own, much less offer a cogent, logical message. Case in point, Harrison Schultz, a supposed leader of Occupy. He went on Hannity making those same claims.

Well, one Occupy Seattle Facebook page offers a link with some advice for those interested in the ‘how and why’ if your interested in doing some “Smashy-Smashy” all your own:

Still blaming the “Black Bloc” and alleged infiltrators?  Still denouncing violence and property damage? Yeah, not so much.  No one stopped them or denounced them in as they acted that day either, but instead cheered them:

The article is written by Brendan Kiley, who professes not to be into targeted property damage but has at least 1,500 words to say about it:

I don’t know. And I’m not a self-professed anarchist, nor a proponent of targeted property destruction (even though I’ve just devoted 1,500 words to justifying it in this post).

That quote is from the end of the piece, let’s go back to the beginning:

“There are reasons why thoughtful people sometimes smash windows.”

Seriously? That’s one of the opening lines? If you want more laughs, check out Kiley’s  column he titled “Mitt Romney and Judas Escariat“. Moving on further down, we see the Kiley try to point out heart of Gold in the occupiers but trips on the fact it was intentional and ‘calculated’:

We should note that the window-smashers today did not target mom ‘n’ pop corner stores or restaurants. They targeted Niketown and banks, presumably because they had some grievance against those institutions and not others. Their vandalism was not “know-nothing”—it was calculated.

Uh, right.  Tell that to the multiple mom and pop businesses, parks and even churches that have had to close due to occupy protests and ‘vandalism’. Is assisting people to become unemployed a form of ‘vandalism’ too? Was that ‘thoughtful’ of the occupiers? Was the Mayor’s home also fair game? What about his family? Don’t kid yourselves, Occupy is no friend to small business:

This does not even touch on how these infantile leftist morons have rendered  dozens of parks and spaces unusable to the public at large who pays for them and requiring workers in safety suits to clean up their mess once they’ve been evicted. Nor how the costs have nationwide to clean up said temper tantrums have soared over $25 million. Nor does it cover the harassment of other shop owners and regular citizens – even children – going about their lives. I need a moment of Zen at this point.

It goes on to rationalize property damage and ignore the use of Molotov cocktails, assaults on police officers, the setting of fires and more:

So it’s a question: Did today’s vandalism detract from the protests? If it was all hand-holding and vigils and kumbaya, would the press have replaced their coverage of the smashy-smashy with an equal amount of attention to “secure communities” and “e-verify” and how Wells Fargo makes money off of private prisons? Or would that have all been equally—or even more—ignored?

I don’t know. And I’m not a self-professed anarchist, nor a proponent of targeted property destruction (even though I’ve just devoted 1,500 words to justifying it in this post).

Long and Short: Property damage is not violence, it’s vandalism. The whole point is that they want to cost the ‘big business’ money and get on TV for doing it so they look serious.

Read the whole thing.

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a freelance journalist and is currently writing at The North State Journal. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_
This entry was posted in Occupy, The Articles and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Occupy Seattle’s “Targeted Property Damage”

  1. Pingback: The Morning Links (5/7/12) | Lady Liberty 1885

Comments are closed.