Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

Gee, if only we had some way of finding out if that were the case or not, like some sort of.....investigation.

[SalmonGod]

I don't believe that property damage is violence, unless it results in harm to a person (burning a house down or destroying a life-support system).

I also find dictionary definitions of words are almost always misleading in a political context.  You know what terrorism means to people today.  It isn't throwing rocks through windows.  Your dictionary definition is a bunch of smoke.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

When can you prove that without relying on baseless assumptions of government corruption?

[SalmonGod]

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

I wouldn't say non-zero.  There are plenty of smash-shit-up anarchists out there.

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

Gee, if only we had some way of finding out if that were the case or not, like some sort of.....investigation.

Pardon my cynicism, but if agent provocateurs committed vandalism as a pretext for a secret intelligence gathering operation (investigation) to be conducted later, I don't think they're going to reveal that to the public.

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

When can you prove that without relying on baseless assumptions of government corruption?

There is plenty of precedent for law enforcement agencies using agent provocateurs.  I've posted plenty about that in this thread already.  I'm not going to go about digging up information on the subject right now.

[Nadaka]

The assumption is everything but baseless.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The assumption is everything but baseless.

Prove the assumption or stop spewing uneducated vitriol at our justice system.

[Nadaka]

The assumption is everything but baseless.

Prove the assumption or stop spewing uneducated vitriol at our justice system.

I don't have to prove the fucking assumption. You have to prove that it is baseless.

Our government has done this same thing dozens of times over the last 100 years to its own people. And hundreds of times to other people. Objectively not a baseless assertion.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

Gee, if only we had some way of finding out if that were the case or not, like some sort of.....investigation.

Pardon my cynicism, but if agent provocateurs committed vandalism as a pretext for a secret intelligence gathering operation (investigation) to be conducted later, I don't think they're going to reveal that to the public.

I doubt they'd have a choice. Have you ever seen what happens when a group tries to mess with the legal process concerning a trial being conducted by a federal judge? Federal judges are some scary motherfuckers if you cross them, and covering up important information like that is most certainly crossing them. They can't even make the secrecy argument, because the (hypothetical, but the grand jury is secret so the trial would likely be as well) trial itself is already classified and thus classified information isn't protected within it.

Intelligence agencies are great at their whole cover-up thing most of the time, but inside a courtroom it just isn't to be.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I don't have to prove the fucking assumption. You have to prove that it is baseless.

Our government has done this same thing dozens of times over the last 100 years to its own people. And hundreds of times to other people. Objectively not a baseless assertion.

So: just to get this correct, you have no evidence, no actual proof to base your assumption on. Your proof of current misdeeds are previous misdeeds. That is no proof, only enforcing that you're going with your opinion [supporting the anarchists] and not relying on the justice system to do what it does by investigating not only the group involved but the entire process. That's why they have investigations, children.

You'd both be talking about this the exact opposite way if the arrested were Neonazis instead of Neoliberals.

[SalmonGod]

Your proof of current misdeeds are previous misdeeds.

This is an ironic statement.

[sluissa]

I don't believe that property damage is violence, unless it results in harm to a person (burning a house down or destroying a life-support system).

I also find dictionary definitions of words are almost always misleading in a political context.  You know what terrorism means to people today.  It isn't throwing rocks through windows.  Your dictionary definition is a bunch of smoke.

Even if you don't believe that property damage is violence, which I disagree with. People were attacked as well. No injuries were reported, but at least one officer had glass broken against his plastic face shield.

There is a non-zero probability that they were false flag operations by agent provocateurs.

If this were the case, why wouldn't those three in custody simply say that to the grand jury rather than refusing to say anything at all? A denial is still an answer. It's also quite possible they wanted to go to jail and are using this simply to stir up sympathy for their cause. The fact that the girl who was released didn't report her release right away is a clue towards this end.

[SalmonGod]

People were attacked as well.

Umm... this is perplexing to me.  I didn't read up on the May Day actions, but I would be very surprised if protesters, even a black bloc group, attacked people.  That's nearly unheard of to me.

[sluissa]

It's also surprising for arguments over professional sports to end up in violent and occasionally deadly action, but it happens...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism

Violence can and does escalate, sometimes beyond the control or intent of those who incited it.

[SalmonGod]

It's also surprising for arguments over professional sports to end up in violent and occasionally deadly action, but it happens...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism

Violence can and does escalate, sometimes beyond the control or intent of those who incited it.

I've seen infinitely more cases of violence related to sports than cases of black blocs in America attempting to physically harm any human being.  And I follow this stuff, except for the last few months because I've been crazy busy.