**** labor unions. (Flamethrower video)

15357

15357

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
23
200607190364_01.jpg


[Union members with flamethrowers] VS [ROK Combat Police Division]

http://www.chosun.com/national/news/200607/200607190364.html - Click on it to see video

123wy1.jpg



They want more pay, so they decide to burn people up. ****ing bastards. The Army should go in there.
 
Hmm this reminds me of what happened here with the miner strikes. The police was outnumbered and many of them got clobered, however the miners didn't have ****ing flamethrowers!!:eek:
 
Theres nothing in that about fighting and the video isnt working.
 
Eh, wrong link.

I'll try and post some pics from the video then.
 
I support the people with the flame throwers.
 
Argh, I can't. But that picture says everything. Labor Unions striking, police going in to get them out since its illegal, labor unions using flamethrowers at police.


Just wait a few minutes for it to load, btw. Its on a Korean server so..
 
Solaris said:
I support the people with the flame throwers.
Click to expand...

You're a fanatical nutjob then. Just because police are police officers... doesn't mean they aren't people too who have lives that are just as valuable as yours.
 
It seems to me that the workers were fed up of eing abused so went on strike and shut the factory down, the police came to get them out, and they fought back. It seems in Korea the police are acting in the intrests of the rich much like most police forces.

So yes, I support the strikers.
 
Solaris said:
I support the people with the flame throwers.
Click to expand...
Oh you would.
There's nothing wrong with striking - I believe it's every person's right to campaign for better pay, working conditions, etc. (well, not if you're a CEO, but you know what I mean) but fighting with flamethrowers is f*cked up and in general a really shit idea.
It most certainly will not get your strike/cause any sympathy, nor will it make it a more effective demonstration. Quite the opposite.
 
el Chi said:
Oh you would.
There's nothing wrong with striking - I believe it's every person's right to campaign for better pay, working conditions, etc. (well, not if you're a CEO, but you know what I mean) but fighting with flamethrowers is f*cked up and in general a really shit idea.
It most certainly will not get your strike/cause any sympathy, nor will it make it a more effective demonstration. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
But they were using the flame throwers to defend themselves from the police who were trying to arrest them for striking.
 
They should have been allowed to strike, yes.
It is not ok that, as part of their strike, they used an incredibly harmful weapon. That's beyond self-defence and into the realms of out-right, undeniable criminality and beyond.

I believe I've seen you deride gun ownership before - why is it ok for strikers to use flame-throwers, but not ok for citizens to use guns?

To clarify - I do not support the use of flame-throwers, I do not support gun ownership, I DO support the right to strike, but not when that becomes violent.
After that point, it ceases to be a strike.
 
I agree with Chi. Using tactical riot police to break a strike is not a good idea, but it is very bad that they defended themselves with flamethrowers.
 
[LEFT][COLOR=red][FONT=serif][B][U]el[/U][/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT] Chi said:
They should have been allowed to strike, yes.
It is not
ok​
that, as part of their strike, they used an incredibly harmful weapon. That's beyond self-defence and into the realms of out-right, undeniable criminality and beyond.

I believe I've seen you deride gun ownership before - why is it
ok​
for strikers to use flame-throwers, but not
ok​
for citizens to use guns?

To clarify - I do not support the use of flame-throwers, I do not support gun ownership, I DO support the right to strike, but not when that becomes violent.
After that point, it ceases to be a strike.
Click to expand...
The Police were removing their right to strike by trying to arrest them.
These peoples source of income was on the line, and they needed to strike to defend it. The police were trying to break the strike, thus removing the power of the union. It was in the
interests​
of the working classes of South Korea that they built a flame thrower and flamed the police. I would be pretty scared after watching some of
those​
videos if the police were trying to arrest me, they seem pretty brutal, the workers had to defend themselves from the oppressive minions of the capitalist elite.
 
Solaris said:
The Police were removing their right to strike by trying to arrest them.
These peoples source of income was on the line, and they needed to strike to defend it. The police were trying to break the strike, thus removing the power of the union. It was in the
interests​
of the working classes of South Korea that they built a flame thrower and flamed the police. I would be pretty scared after watching some of
those​
videos if the police were trying to arrest me, they seem pretty brutal, the workers had to defend themselves from the oppressive minions of the capitalist elite.
Click to expand...
As I have said, I do not deny their right or need to strike - I know perfectly well what the situation was, Solaris.
I know why they did what they did, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

And if you could argue your point without the usual hackneyed pseudo-Marxism, that'd be just swell.
 
flamethrower? as in a military issue weapon or a guy with a blowtorch? I'm assuming it's a blowtorch due to the fact that it's at a car manufacturing plant. So now it's a matter of determining intent: is it an isolated incident of a desparate worker fighting off what he perceives to be a threat or did he intentionally bring the blowtorch with him with the intent of using it as an offensive weapon? Numbers would have you believe it's the latter but since we dont have all available information I'll feel more at ease assuming it's the former
 
Your views are completely skewed Solaris... twisted and downright scary at times. I'm siding here with el Chi... the voice of intelligence and reason in this little conversation.

Obviously the citizens should be allowed to strike, and be heard, and not be shut down by force... but that doesn't give them the right to attack with excessive violence.

Why you think otherwise, astounds me... since it contradicts completely with your other views on other matters... as already pointed out in this thread. I never did understand your contradictory beliefs... such as condemning the US for civilian deaths, while supporting groups who intentionally attack them. A person worthy of any semblence of respect would speak out against both incidences as wrong, and condemn them both.

And this... well it's already been detailed above.
 
The strikers were defending themselves from the police, they used whatever tools they had at hand.
 
You don't use deadly force unless deadly force is being directed at you.

"We're just defending ourselves with flamethowers, in an effort to equalize the might of your pepper spray and ballistic shields!"
 
Raziaar said:
You don't use deadly force unless deadly force is being directed at you.

"We're just defending ourselves with flamethowers, in an effort to equalize the might of your pepper spray and ballistic shields!"
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't think they had equal stuff with them. The police were attacking, thus making them enemys of the working man, so using a flamethrower is an acceptable tactic against an enemy.
 
Solaris said:
Somehow I don't think they had equal stuff with them. The police were attacking, thus making them enemys of the working man, so using a flamethrower is an acceptable tactic against an enemy.
Click to expand...

You're so unabashedly radical in your views, there's not even much of a point discussing things with you. It amazes me how much of a violent supporter you are... you're just supporting the violence inflicted on different people.
 
I dont know how any of you can be arguing for either side ...I mean the only evidence is a blurred picture that doesnt show anything concrete ..oh that and the word of numbers ..who I cant help but feel might just be a tad biased when it comes to public deomstrations
 
were the police using potentially deadly force?
 
Well, are shields and water hoeses deadly?
 
Right so it seems that they made it in advance in order to "protect" themselves.
That's pre-meditated, not improvisational desperately-getting-hold-of-whatever-the-hell-you-can-to-save-your-life. The latter I could have sympathised with more (which isn't saying loads, but I would have seen how it was them panicking or whatever.
As it is, I think their tactics were excessive. Like I've said - I can understand it, but I don't completely sympathise with it, nor do I condone it.
 
The striking construction workers armed with homemade flamethrowers and stones vowed to fight to the end. The Pohang branch of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions told reporters it had “no choice but to fight to the death”
Click to expand...

They have ****ed up minds.

Police display homemade weapons from striking construction workers occupying the POSCO headquarters in Pohang on Thursday. The 3-m weapons emit flames longer than 1 m.
Click to expand...
 
As much as I disagree with your government system, numbers, I pity those poor cops ;(
 
You disagree with a democratic republic system?
 
Absolute madness and pretty damn shitty, even if the cops were in the wrong at the start.

At the same time, we've got to ask why exactly the labour movement over there feels it needs flamethrowers to 'protect itself'.
 
I have no idea. Its not like we secretly take them away to torture them or anything.



Although claims have been made that Kim Jong Il is controlling them.
 
Anyone who needs to use a deadly weapon to get their point across when non-violent protest is an option doesn't get my respect...I don't know what's going on in solaris' mind to actually support fanatics like this

Solaris said:
Somehow I don't think they had equal stuff with them. The police were attacking, thus making them enemys of the working man, so using a flamethrower is an acceptable tactic against an enemy.
Click to expand...

Um earth to solaris! They broke the damn law and the police were doing their job to arrest them. The police were not 'attacking'...my god solaris...I dont know whats going on in your mind sometimes when you post.. 'flamethrower is an acceptable tactic' .... would you say the same thing if US troops began using flamethrowers as weapons in iraq? I bet not, you have proved your double standards time and time again after all.
 
Zeus said:
Anyone who needs to use a deadly weapon to get their point across when non-violent protest is an option doesn't get my respect...I don't know what's going on in solaris' mind to actually support fanatics like this



Um earth to solaris! They broke the damn law and the police were doing their job to arrest them. The police were not 'attacking'...my god solaris...I dont know whats going on in your mind sometimes when you post.. 'flamethrower is an acceptable tactic' .... would you say the same thing if US troops began using flamethrowers as weapons in iraq? I bet not, you have proved your double standards time and time again after all.
Click to expand...
It's an unjust law protecting the rich.
 
CptStern said:
ya that makes perfect sense ...wouldnt you do everything he says?

Kim-Jong-Il-Unfolds-C.article.jpg


:O

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27590
Click to expand...

:laugh:


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

hahahahaha thats awesome. Only thing weird about that is why he has "beauty contest" on his leg and upper arm.

It's an unjust law protecting the rich.
Click to expand...

Thats a buisiness building there. People are losing shitloads of profits! They had no right to go in someone else's property and use flamethrowers to attack CPs.
 
And that's why, in South Korea, you get to vote. That's part of the glory of democracy. Contrary to what you think, South Korea has free elections. They can vote for someone who'll abolish the law. But they didn't, and it was their choice - and their choice alone. It's a difference in culture. When you live next door to a country that threatens to invade alot, you tend to be much more interested in security than freedom.

-Angry Lawyer
 
What are you talking about? I'm scared Stern and his goonies will march into Harvard Square every time I open my door.
 
15357 said:
Thats a buisiness building there. People are losing shitloads of profits! They had no right to go in someone else's property and use flamethrowers to attack CPs.
Click to expand...
So? I don't care if some fat cat only gets 10million instead of 20. I'm intrested in the welfare of societys poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Raziaar
Why am I doing this absolutely terrible job again?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Raziaar
Raziaar
RakuraiTenjin
Federal Government Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Replies
6
Views
1K
RakuraiTenjin
RakuraiTenjin
W4d5Y
Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan
Replies
10
Views
1K
clarky003
clarky003
K e r b e r o s
The Mufti (Hadjimin Al-Huesseni) and the Fuehrer (Adolf Hitler)
Replies
2
Views
2K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
Back
Top