Stryker tanks deployed to intimidate Anti-War protest in Los Angeles

by eeekkk Wed Nov 10, 2004 22:21

.

by Mike Thu Nov 11, 2004 15:55

Strykers are NOT tanks. Yes they are APCs but they are not Tanks. Please get your information correct. There is a massive difference between an APC and a Tank.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Thu Nov 11, 2004 16:44

(forwarding a comment off the orginal thread)


Whether or not it is technically a tank in military parlance does not matter!

Dear Sirs,

Though I am respectful of your knowledge of military fighting vehicles, I respectfully disagree with the idea that this sort of action by our government should be dismissed on the basis that the story did not correctly taxonomize the military fighting vehicle used to intimidate peaceful protestors. Whether or not this vehicle is in fact a tank is of little matter, the fact is, that for civilians the intimidating effect is the same whether it be a LAV or a Abrahms tank. This was an unecessary show of force and one which truly should be denounced by persons on all sides of the Iraq war issue; we as Americans need to defend our rights at home as well as abroad. In response to the comment made regarding the relative sanity of Californians, I cannot comment on its validity, but regardless of the sanity of protestors does it justify the use of military force to shut them up?

Author: Civilian Casualty of the War on Civil Liberty
Link:

by pc Thu Nov 11, 2004 16:52

if you read all the thread they say they went the wrong from an veterans day parade?

by Joe Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:06

The lost claim is quite funny, maybe its even true. You can imagine the conversation

Soldier 1: "Damn LA, I can't find were we are on the map"

Soldier 2: "Hey I've an idea why don't we drive over to that group waving 'stop the war' signs that we have been circling the last few minutes and ask for directions".

According to the thread they were actually Marine LAV-25 with the big gun (105mm) turret. Now given that the best WWII tanks had 88mm guns while the LAV-25 might technically have been an APC it would look like a tank and on a WWII battlefield perform like a tank. Unless the protesters have some ATGM's I don't think what they thought it was mattered.

by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - IMC Internationale Thu Nov 11, 2004 18:43

Tanks, schmanks, an armoured vehicle with a large gun sticking out the front of it looks like a tank to me and if you read my wording carefully you'll notice that I clearly state that it was a Stryker, call it an APC and mention "tank" in parentheses just so that it's clear what I mean by it.

It should also be noted that they didn't have tracks, but instead had heavy duty tires. So I guess if you wanted to be a pedant and ignore the Tianamen Square-like implications of armed government forces confronting peaceful demonstrators you could focus on that too!

No one has obtained a straight answer as yet as to whom these "armoured vehicles" belonged. They were supposedly originally from the National Guard armory which isn't far from the Federal Building, but the National Guard has denied this and suggested that they may be Marine vehicles.

Take a look at some of the other anti-war protests in Los Angeles on the http:///la.indymedia.org front page. A great demonstration at a recruiting station, huge numbers of "Don't Just Vote" and "If Voting Could Change Anything It'd Be Illegal" banners. Anti-authoritarians continue to be highly active, especially in targetting the recruitment drives going on in high-schools.

Mother of dead soldier wants troops home

by Starstruck - DGN Thu Nov 11, 2004 21:32

Good work L.A activists..memories of Shannon...
Looks like the U.S arent going to leave a single soul in Fallujah as they continue "democratising" the area...

by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - IMC Internationale Fri Nov 12, 2004 01:36

KCRW (an NPR/PRI syndication station) at 4:40 news break reported on the "chatter on leftwing websites" at the "perceived intimidation". States that the vehicles "took a wrong turning when they were coming from Camp Pendleton for the Veteran's Day celebrations".

by Mike Fri Nov 12, 2004 18:10

It is important to get facts right. I have always advocated knowing what you are talking about or shut up. By showing ignorance of whether it is a tank or not beg the question does one actually know what they are talking about. Example. One person claims it is a tank intimidating people. It is soon realised that it is an APC. The Humvee M1114 is an APC but to most people it looks like a SUV. Suddenly the Intimidation by tanks becomes a lefty hysterical about a few cars. The claim to be intimidated (whether valid or not) becomes a "Those Crusties are nutters!!!". To get facts wrong brings into question the fact that are correct and invalidates arguments. It draws abuse and marks the author as incompetant and lacking knowledge. From experience, to know you facts means having a valid argument that is difficult to counter.

Secondly, An APC is just that, a troop carrier with armour. It was used to move troops from one place to another. Again, the M1114 has a similiar job but on a smaller capacity. However a tank is a different Ball game altogether in terms of armour and firepower and can truely claim to be intimidating.

The claim of tanks has been reduced to strykers or LAV-25s or LAV-105s. These are all very different vehicles with very different missions. The fact that noone can agree on what they were brings into question the validity of the claim.
If someone was to cathegorically claim "They were Abrams MIA2s", then noone can dispute the facts and the argument is valid. But to say "Well they are tanks but they are not, maybe they are LAV-25s or maybe Strykers", who is going to listen?

by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - IMC Internationale Fri Nov 12, 2004 18:54

Mike, scroll up to the top of the page to my original story. It clearly states "Stryker tanks" and then "APCs". You may see a big difference between different vehicles with armor and guns on the front of them but to the people facing that vehicle it's a tank.

Fact of the matter is that a pair of heavily armored and armed vehicles were parked, not once (as might plausibly be argued by accident) but twice in between peace protestors and the passing traffic.

It's important to get facts right, and it's even more important not to lose sight of the story in pedantry.

by Mike Fri Nov 12, 2004 19:42

"Mike, scroll up to the top of the page to my original story. It clearly states "Stryker tanks" and then "APCs". You may see a big difference between different vehicles with armor and guns on the front of them but to the people facing that vehicle it's a tank. "

Yes but a correspondant needs to report his articles correctly and factually or those articles become mere conjecture. In the pressure of the moment, it can be difficult to get the story right, but a corresspondant has the time to verify the facts.
Strykers are not tanks. To claim that they are introduces an element of falsehood to the story which in turn invalidates the story.

If you want to be a corresspondant, then get the facts right.

by Mike Fri Nov 12, 2004 20:02

Have finally seen the pics.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/118943.php

The vehicles are USMC LAV-25s with a 25mm main gun and 7.62mm co-axial MG.
http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/b54eb957c0d3b17a852562830058111b?OpenDocument

It is an APC but far more heavily armed than a stryker APC.
So therefore it is neither a stryker nor a tank.
Secondly, being a USMC vehicle, it is forbidden by US federal law from being used in internal security. That is what the National Guard exists for. More than likely the vehicle commander decided (out of curiousity) to have a second look at what was going on or was actually lost. Either way, it could not have been an organised "Intimidation".

If this info had been stated at the start, it would have lended much needed validity to the story. As it stands, it is merely "hyterical crusties who don't know what they are talking about". It is an example of a story that hurts the credibility of Indymedia andf prevents people from taking it seriously.

by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - IMC Internationale Fri Nov 12, 2004 22:14

Look Mike, there were two huge armored vehicles with guns on the front of them. I reported it. Mainstream media did _not_ except for a small, dismissive aside the next day at the end of local news which quoted no sources. Are you as upset at this omission by well-paid professionals concerning the ENTIRE INCIDENT as you are over a debatable quibble as to which exact MachinesForKillingPeople were present? I presume that you give even less credibility to the "news" sources that didn't even report this news.

I was unsure initially what the vehicles were and so referred to them both as tanks and APCs (again, look at the story at the top of the page). This should make it clear that tank is being used according to the widely accepted usage of "an armored, armed vehicle". Under this understanding you should note that most people will see APCs as a type of tank.

Fact of the matter is that the story was got out on indymedia, commentators initially denied it (claiming it was variously a Hollywood-movie publicity stunt or a faked video using captures from the Halo2 video game).

The _minor_ correction that it is specifically an LAV whatever is welcome and shows the power of the open publishing model -- corrections happen from all of us.

Indymedia is _not_ a definitive, trust anything you read news source. Nothing is. And if you want that then you're doomed to disappointment. We do however report incidents like this that are ignored and suppressed by other media. Reports come in from a variety of sources and you can't assign trust and belief blindly. I reported within the limits of my knowledge. The essential facts remain correct.

Your suppositions and suggestions about how exactly it was that these two tanks happened to turn up at the demonstration, happened to stop in front of it, then left and then happened to return again are tenuous.

The soldiers driving the thing were smirking chimps and were either illegally interfering with, provoking and intimidating a citizen's protest on their own initiative or they were following orders: it doesn't matter to me because in either case they shouldn't have been there and strangely the "mainstream" media wouldn't report on it, haven't followed up on it and are not questioning it.

Given the choice between "hysterical crusties that report what they see" and "tank-spotter pedants that don't see anything" I'll take the crusties any day.

by Mike Fri Nov 12, 2004 23:05

So you say it is ok to publish incorrect and invalid information because noone else is publishing it? Do you think there is a reason noone else will even report it. Regular media sources did not report for obvious reasons..... they did a little research and saw it for what it was: A non-event. However you are insisting on using it to prove a point. You use words like "Intimisation....Tanks....disgusting" etc. Now who is worse? The mainstream media for publishing spun stories or Indymedia for publishing fabricated stories. By not researching the story, you have turned it into mere propaganda.
A case in example is the Mirror. A number of months ago it published a story about British troops torturing Iraqi citizens and had pictures to prove it. That story was ripped apart by the mainstream media and the British Ministry of Defence. The Mirror later was forced to admit that the story was a fabrication and they had not researched it enough. Their credibility (Even for a british tabloid) was destroyed. There is a lovely thing there called the internet that has ample info on the LAV-25. It would have been a simple thing to research it. Instead the story is mere gossip.

"The soldiers driving the thing were smirking chimps".

Oh my God, they smirked at you!!! I wouldn't blame them. I can see the APC Commander thinking to himself "That guy is going to make a fool of himself with that camera footage tomorrow".

'the choice between "hysterical crusties that report what they see" and "tank-spotter pedants that don't see anything" '

I don't wish to be disrespectful to you but the story is a non-event. It was an unfortunate chain of events that has been blown out of proportion through poor research and wishful thinking. It is a house of cards that fell once someone questioned it. You didn't report what you saw, you reported what you thought you saw, what you wanted to see. If you want anyone to listen, if you want to maintain your credibility, then you will have to research your stories better in future and present a balanced, well researched story that will stand up to scrutiny. Ok. Fine you made a mistake and a lesson has been learned. Lets leave it at that.

by as do many other smirking chimps Sat Nov 13, 2004 00:50

Tanks intimidating peace protesters?

Well it has happened in Shannon Ireland in the last year or so. The state managed to get the big line tanks on the front pages of national newspapers in the runup to a demonstration at shannon airport.

Oh of course - a fleet of them were there by ACCIDENT - I get it now. They probably got lost on manouvres in kildare and ended up in limerick.

Shit this does not make sense at all - maybe I should just pretend I didn't see them. Just like the media here never even questioned the sudden parading appearance of tanks on Irish Roads.

If I ever see a tank on my street I am going to throw a rock at it.

by pc Sat Nov 13, 2004 02:03

armoured vehicles is that ok ?

just watched the Miami Model at videoactive... saw APC's on ths streets for the FTAA protests, militarisation of the police and putting such things as thousands of police in riot gear with rubber bullet guns ( and gun guns ) and then attack protesters in order to justify the 8 million cyphoned off from the Iraq War budget, this is the Miami Model, dissent is terrorism...

I read an article in the Sunday Business Post( don't believe all that you read though) how they were thinking of training the army in use of so called less lethal weapons... which gave me a chilled feeling, this would put them in the position where they could use such weapons against protestors...

imagine that the Irish Army being used against its own population...

or has that already happened? when Bush was here or tha earlier Shannon demo behind a thin line of cops...

you'll have DF people coming on here saying they didn't want to be used in that way, that they were just following orders...

but we've already had the Army in direct contact nah conflict with its people, but hey who cares they only crusties...

by Pat Quirke Mon Nov 15, 2004 17:22

"The state managed to get the big line tanks .... If I ever see a tank on my street I am going to throw a rock at it."

Ahhhmmm. Won't and can't happen. Ireland doesn't have tanks! And throwing a rock at them would do very little especially when they don't exist.... a bit delusional, I think.

by Terry Mon Nov 15, 2004 22:31

Actually Pat I think you will find the Irish state does have tanks, in the region of 14 Scorpions I think, and they are tanks - with tracks and a turret gun, and were used in Shannon...mostly on the mud flats in adjoining Shannon airport I think. The existance of these was kept pretty quite before this.
The things in the newspapers, and laterly surrounded and menaced by hippies, were APCs and armoured cars though.

by Jane Tue Nov 16, 2004 13:06

The Scorpion tank

by Terry Tue Nov 16, 2004 21:56

"The Scorpion light tank is in service with Belgium, Botswana, Brunei, Chile, Honduras, Iran, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, United Arab Emirates and the UK. This includes both 76mm and 90mm versions and variants."

- according to Janes (follow the link from the link above).
Maybe once a week we could have somekinda tank related story, and then we could have nice discussion about tanks, and perhaps some pictures. A particular question could be is having an APC driven at you more or less an attempt at intimidation than the same with a tank.

by Pat Quirke Wed Nov 17, 2004 14:01

The Scorpion isn't a Tank.... it is a CVR(T), Combat vehicle reconnaissance (Tracked). It is merely a armoured car with tracks instead of wheels. Take into account that its sister vehicle is the Alvis Fox with 4 wheels. They are the same design but the Scorpion has tracks for better all terrein capability.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/Scorpion.html
Now the Abrams M1, that is a tank.