It wasn't an Agent Provocateur

[pintobean]

"He asked the crowd, 'What do you want us to do with the flag?'" Johnson recalled. "They said, 'Burn it! Burn it! Burn it!'"

As many egged on the bandanna-masked men, lighters were passed around. A photographer on assignment for The Associated Press said a woman rose from among the crowd to urge against the flag-burning. She then threw the flag to the ground and tried to put out the fire, shouting at them that it would only hurt their cause.

The fire-starter is not an anarchist, but a typical member of Occupy Oakland who feels the system has failed them, said Johnson, who pulled out his cellphone to show his recording of the flag-burning.

"I would describe him as someone who loves his country, but also disappointed in the system that's running this country," said Johnson, who goes by the nickname "Uncle Boom" and was a sergeant in the U.S. Army.

Read the whole thing:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/occupy-protest-rekindles-debate-about-flag-burning-1.3489116

[SidDithers]

1. Maybe they were all agents provocateur...

there's no telling how deep the conspiracy goes.

Edit: bookmarking the link for further use. Thanks for posting.

Sid

[BeFree]

2. Yep

They were. But that still gives no call for the police rioting.

The police were, once again, wrong. They need to control themselves.

[TheWraith]

126. So police aren't supposed to react to people trying to break in and steal public property?

Seriously? And not just steal a flag, but that the entire point of the march was to invade City Hall and seize it?

[Luminous Animal]

7. There were only a couple of dozen people at city hall...

the other couple of thousand were marching peacefully.

[Bonobo]

24. Maybe they were all humorless, anal retentive Canadians? nt

[pintobean]

26. Sid has a great sense of humor.

[SidDithers]

30. ...

Sid

[brooklynite]

37. Maybe EVERYONE in the Occupy Movement is a Provacateur...

Maybe the entire movement was cooked up to damage the reputation of any potential protestors.

If you're going to spin a conspiracy theory, might as well make it a good one.

[SidDithers]

44. Provocateurs, provocateurs everywhere!!...

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

52. AP's actual headline is 'Occupy Protest Rekindles Debate About Flag- Burning'

And that is what the theme of the article. Interesting the reshaping going on here. A real stretch, new headline, the works. Dishonest tactics.

[pintobean]

55. It's an honest

and logical assessment. It addresses the speculation that's been going on here. A couple of people here have actually made logical arguments by dealing with the facts. Others, like you, have attacked the messenger. Who's dealing in dishonest tactics?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. If framed as your own opinion of what is said, sure. When you keep saying 'I posted

an article' and 'I like facts' then the fact that the article does not so much as use the term Agent Provocateur, nor does the article use the headline you wrote to replace the actual headline. You are pretending that your conclusion is what the article says, and that is simply not the case. That part is not honest. Honest would include using the actual headline and the lexicon of the article, not imposing your own language and conclusions onto that article.
That is not the headline and the article does not address Agent Provocateurs nor use the term. Now count how many times that term is used on this thread. This thread is focused on that term, which is not used in the article you link to. Not one time is that phrase used at AP.
If this is all for 'facts' and 'the article' then let us stick to the facts of the article.

[pintobean]

60. You've peppered the thread with your brilliant

observation about the headline. You know what? Everybody already knew that wasn't AP's headline.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. It is interesting that the phrase 'Agent Provocateur' is not used at all in the AP story

That is not the AP headline, the AP does not discuss any agent provocateurs, does not deny them, does not in fact speak of them at all.
And yet that is the word that keeps getting repeated here. A word that is not in the article, an article which discusses no such thing. The article itself is interesting, and that is what we should discuss here. The actual article.

[MineralMan]

67. This is not LBN. There is no requirement to

use the original headline in GD. What the OP did was to use the TITLE of his post to express an opinion about the article, which was duly linked to, so anyone who bothered to click the link would see the headline.

If it were LBN, the original headline would have to be used. This is GD, though, so people can use their title line as they wish. With the link there in the OP, there was no attempt to disguise anything.

You're on the wrong track with this criticism, I think. Clearly, the article indicated that the person burning the flag, and those who encouraged that action were OWS folks, not agents provocateurs. Drawing attention to the article for that reason is a legitimate use of the title of an OP in GD.

[Rex]

82. Spot on.

nt

[rhett o rick]

3. What is your agenda to shame Occupy? Why would you go to such lengths?

The fact that you are willing to push the right wing talking points makes me wonder how you quality to post on DU.

I believe in karma, and you will reap what you sow.

[mmonk]

6. Status quo people are nervous of people that protest.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but people sometimes prefer the political process.

[2pooped2pop]

46. yes

we call those sheeple.

[pintobean]

8. I posted a news article.

If you don't want the facts, don't read the fucking thing. Better yet, put me on ignore. It's not up to you who gets to post here. I've been here 8 years and I don't appreciate your insult.

[rhett o rick]

13. So you wont tell us what your agenda is? Why you disparage OWS. Are you Sean Hannity? nm

[2pooped2pop]

48. the best answer I have found

Is that some of the anti Occupiers work for dems who cannot gain OWS support. They may be afraid of going down when we throw all of the politicians out of office who do not work for the people.

You will see the same 3-4 people jumping on every single occupy thread to claim occupy is wrong or dead. What's dead is the job they are doing. They think continuing the same ol shit is gonna really work this time.

What clowns. I expect to see them drag their asses out of the "Man in the Moon and the Millionaire" republican clown car anytime now.

[pintobean]

51. Some people just can't

handle the truth when it differs from what they want to believe. You can't dispute an AP story that tells the story of two eye witnesses, so you attack the messenger. It's pretty lame.

I'm not working for anyone. But, you know that.

[rhett o rick]

109. Your OP didnt just report the news. You added your bias which appears to be

anti-ThePeople. Who do you support?

[pintobean]

113. How many times do you need to ask that?

I answered you before this thread started. The redundancy makes you look foolish. Everyone knows what you think of me. You don't need to keep saying it.

[rhett o rick]

123. I wont bother you again. I just wonder why you go to such lengths to disparage those getting

the shit kicked out of them fighting against the oligarchy. I understand if you dont agree with this tactic, but to continually rail against them makes me wonder why. I understand why Fauxed Up News and the Corp-Media do it, they are tools of the oligarchy but why would Democrats do it?

It isnt personal.

[pintobean]

128. It isnt personal?

You've accused me of pushing right wing talking points, asked me if I was Sean Hannity and wondered how I qualify to post on DU. You've also asked me the same question a half dozen times when it was answered the first time.

No, I'm sure there's nothing personal about it.

[rhett o rick]

129. It isnt personal. But I will challenge anyone that appears to use right wing talking points.

How do your opinions of OWS differ from Fox News? THis is an honest question. When you make a point of post after post to disparage OWS, I just wonder why. I welcome any response. I have asked this same question to a few people here that seem to agree with you. The only response I have gotten so far, is that OWS is wasting their time. My response was, if that's the only objection you have, why are you so determined to vilify them? There has to be more.

[2pooped2pop]

116. actually

I did mean the other couple of anti Occupiers. I don't know your history of posting. I was just commenting on those that seem eager to jump into every single occupy thread with the same ol shit.
I haven't really noticed you yet and perhaps you were just reporting on a subject of interest.

Personally, I don't believe the media reports on anything and Occupy would have to burn the fucking city down to make me stop supporting them. I mean, our govt and wall street has just about burned down the entire US in a manner, so Occupy has huge leeway with me.

I don't personally approve of flag burning but if they want to do it to show displeasure in the way the US is behaving, then I don't really care. They aren't the first and won't be the last.

I just have to question how those anti occupy shots are so clearly taken and apparently easy to get, but the ones of us getting the shit kicked out of us have to be filmed by us to be seen at all, and seldom on mainstream.

[Kellerfeller]

69. And some people support the general cause

But not the execution.

The OWS tactics did garner a lot of attention and energy. And there is no doubt it had to transform to actually begin to make change. However, some disagree that continuing to escalate confrontations with the cops and the rest of the community are the correct transformation and hurt the cause instead of advancing it.

[emilyg]

33. Thank you for posting.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. You posted an article with a different headline, you made your own headline.

And it is that title that is getting criticized here. The article does not say what you are claiming it says, which is why the headline got rewritten for the purpose of this thread, and the point you wanted the article to make.
So you posted an article, with some alterations to the original. Many are taking issue with your alterations. You are pretending the criticism is of the text of the piece, when most of it is of your self created headline not of that which is written at AP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Why is reporting what OWS does "shame"?

If what the protsters are doing is shameful maybe they shouldn't do it. People who conduct such antics in public do it for attention, presumably to draw attention to a bigger issue. That's why PETA uses naked models on occassion; come for the boobeez, stay for the message.

Many within OWS have done some pretty stupid stuff trying to gain attention. Then when the PR messaging goes against them it gets even more stupid with claims that agent provacateurs (AP) are running around in their midst. Now we have this OP showing that those who burnt the flags were egged-on by the crowd. Apparently such a significant portion of OWS is nothing bunch APs so I wonder what the defenders are defending.

I know OWS wants a leaderless movement but unless there are some ground rules that can and will be enforced some bad eggs are going to tarnish the movement. They need to be weeded-out and if stupid people doing stupid stuff makes the news then don't complain. The Tea Party has no right to complain about news stories about racists in their midst until they take affirmative steps to weed them out.

Worse still, OWS's message seems to be, "trust us to point out and correct the injustices of society." Sounds good but it loses a lot when OWS is more interested denying, blame-shifting and messanger shooting over the buffoonery in their own ranks. THAT will harm OWS much further and deeper than anything the OP might try to affect.

[randome]

79. Your last paragraph says a lot.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. good or bad?

[randome]

85. Sorry! Good!

Well, the rest of your post, too, but especially that last paragraph, which puts things into perspective in a way I haven't seen yet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Thank-you

It's really a bit of spleen-venting on my part. I wanted OWS to mean something. So much of what they presumably speak to should get more "airtime" but message execution is something that will doom the movement and it will drag down its principles with it. If things don't change for the better OWS will be a bigger boon to the Tea Party than to progressives -- and that's not snark.

[rhett o rick]

105. Wow, anti OWS on Fox, Corp-media and in DU. Exagerating the damage done

by a small fraction of OWS makes it look like you have an agenda which you have a right to. But I would hope that all Democrats would be united in support of a movement attempting to expose corruption in Washington the DC and Wall Street. How do you suggest fighting for the American Dream? Vote and email? How's that working for you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. I think the Guy Fawkes mask might be constricting your oxygen supply

Because the messaging is getting muddled.

When groups from OWS do something that is received poorly by the general public we see an absurd number of posts claiming its undercover cops posing as poseurs. That is what the OP is responding to. Those absurd denials exist. The fact those absurd claims of agent provacateurs exist proves that even those who support OWS understand instrinsically that doing stupid stuff in front of the general public gets you bad PR, damages the brand and makes it harder to get people to sign on to your cause.

Now, suddenly, the silly antics are being defended because supposedly emails and voting aren't good enough. Well, they were good enough to get Obama elected despite the money and messaging leveled against him. Supposedly OWS will triumph despite the money and messaging leveled against it. Okay. Awesome. More power to you.

But mere attention seeking is not enough. You have to have effective messaging that grows your numbers, not show the group as repellant. Nobody is going to trust the guidance of an economic and military superpower to a bunch of be-masked adolescents acting-out. If attention is what you want then hand out free dead puppies with every pamphlet. I promise it will make the news.

If *how* you deliver a message is more important to you than the message that is ultimately delivered -- and more importantly: how it is received by your audience -- then social justice, equality, civil rights, etc. loses out to a bunch of silly fools using principled goals as an excuse to burn flags just to get negative attention from passers-by. It's spiteful, petty, playground antics. Anyone doing spiteful things that ultimately hurt the cause of sicial justice cannot legitmately claim to be for social justice.

I -- and many, many others -- want social justice; real, honest social justice by appealing to what is good about our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. These are people we love and we try not to insult them with stupid stunts meant to offend them. Try not to ruin that for us.

[snooper2]

114. I always quality to post on DU

with spell check

[EFerrari]

5. Lmao. Your evidence is that this guy incited a crowd

and that someone there thought they knew him

[pintobean]

11. You didn't read the rest

did you?

[rhett o rick]

15. What is your agenda? Why do you disparage OWS? Common on, you know

you want to tell.

[dionysus]

18. i can't speak for this poster, but how about this;

i'm sure there's some OWSers that would burn the flag. probably a tiny minority of them. i'm also sure there's police plants who'd love to make OWS look bad.

either way, some people reading this in the news will be turned off by it, but it's not going to bring OWS crumbling to defeat.

on either end of the spectrum, there's those who think all the OWS protesters are flag burning whatevers, and those who think no true OWS member would ever torch a flag, that it's all done by plants. the truth is never in the middle of these two positions, but i bet you it isnt on either opposite end.
on DU, hyperbole rules always.

[rhett o rick]

38. OWS will attract all types of miscreants that will try to coopt the message of OWS. I expect that.

But what I object to is posters here in DU that claim to be Democrats, using the miscreants to disparage OWS just like Fox News. How can DU'ers side with Fox News?

[pintobean]

41. Wow. No one can argue with that logic.

[LanternWaste]

47. Unlike the water tight arguments

Unlike the water tight arguments you yourself have presented to us...

[SidDithers]

43. The article in the OP was from Associated Press, not Fox News...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

50. The title is not from AP at all. The linked article does not say what the title here says.

So the portion of this OP that is getting criticized is NOT from the AP it is the work of the DUer, the OP of the OP.
Associated Press did not write that headline.

[Kellerfeller]

71. The problem is

All of those different messages eventually become the message unless the message and specific plan to implement it is codified by a semi-official representation of the group.

As is, anyone can claim their message is the OWS message and there is no one to dispute that.

[pintobean]

20. I like facts

There was a lot of speculation on this issue. It's that simple. I would have posted if I found that it was an agent provocateur.
You seem to have issues with facts that you don't like. You've taken some rather nasty shots at the messenger.

[rhett o rick]

35. Your "facts" always seem to point to an agenda. Be brave and tell us your agenda.

I support freedom from the subjugation of the corporate overlords. How about you?

[pintobean]

39. I answered your question

in another thread. You're just trying to put on a show here. I've tried being nice, but you just seem to have a problem with me. I suggest you get over it.

[EFerrari]

16. If you have more evidence, I'd love to see it.

[Remember Me]

21. Yeah. Agents provocateurs can be in place for YEARS

and years. And years.

And being able to incite a crowd isn't that big a deal IMO. Further, that kind of "report" can easily be exaggerated in print.

[EFerrari]

22. I regret being dismissive of pintobean exactly because

CoInTelPro depends precisely on trust and on playing on reliable reactions from people. If I hang out with you for a while and build trust, you have no reason to suspect me. Just as if I do things like flag burning or smashing a model of City Hall, you will feel you have no reason to trust me.

It's not hard to get the responses you want from people. You just have to know the buttons and have a little bit of time.

[Remember Me]

23. Excellent point

(I, however, do not regret... wait! I don't want to say that, do I?)

[pintobean]

25. I don't care

[Remember Me]

32. Well, that's a relief.

Perhaps you recognize I'm just having a little fun -- ??

Or not.

[pintobean]

40. See post #25

[Remember Me]

75. Oh, how cute.

Are you hoping you'll hurt my feelings? Make me feel insulted?

You're taking me WAY too seriously.

Translation: I don't care either.

[joshcryer]

31. LOL, you didn't read the article.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. I did. The phrase 'Agent Provocateur' does not appear in the article at all.

The headline is not from the article, and the article does not say what the headline says, the article does not use that phrase at all, not one time. That really stood out for me, that the headline here does not fit the piece at AP and that the AP articles makes no mention of Agent Provocateurs at all. No mention.

[pintobean]

61. Really? That stood out for you?

Who would have guessed?

[joshcryer]

130. The article does not indicate any sense of incitement.

However, "agent provocateur" has been used against the flag burners here, without any evidence. What's amusing is that the flag burning is not new to Occupy and it will not go away. Occupy is two groups. Group 1) is the long standing occupiers who are there every day, after work, or they don't work and it's their full time job. Group 2) are those who come out and regularly participate whenever there is a call to action but they have other commitments that don't allow them to be constantly active, a lot of them are known by Group 1, and they are just as much a part of Occupy as the rest.

As far as the flag burning is concerned I can't say if it's stragglers who did it in the other instances, but in this instance it appears that the flag burner is in Group 1, one of the regular activists, not just someone who came down to join in and give numbers to the protest. We had the same thing happen in Charlotte, the flag burners were actually going to be ostracized, but it turned out that if they were, the entire group would've splintered.

We should embrace those who express their free speech even if we disagree with it.

And that's precisely what the guy in the article did, he embraced his friend who burned the flag and explained it away as frustrations as opposed to some sort of moment signifying the Occupy Oakland movement as a whole.

[mike_c]

9. who cares?

Jeeze, with all the things genuinely fucked up that need attention, someone cares about FLAG BURNING?!

[EFerrari]

17. Conditioned responses.

[T S Justly]

10. Damn fine police work, lol.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. After reading that article I'm more convinced than ever that it was indeed an agent provocateur.

[gopiscrap]

14. The fucking feds need to come into Oakland

and shake that cop shop up

[tiny elvis]

19. glad he was arrested with the others, because

...Quan said Sunday she believed officers had modified their tactics to better single out troublemakers.
"We're tired of one faction using Oakland as their playground," Quan said of demonstrators intent on clashing with police.
...
In a morning tour of the damaged City Hall, Quan pointed out that a room with a smashed door and toppled soda machine is used for classes for low-income, first-time homeowners. Several flags that had adorned the grand staircase were missing.
City Council agendas and trash littered the floor in the building's grand lobby. Although some graffiti had already been removed, evidence of the previous night's mayhem was visible in broken display cases.
Near the door, a more than century-old architectural model of the regal structure was toppled in its case.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-occupy-oakland-20120130,0,6365053.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+

[lonestarnot]

27. Yeah like that would convince anyone of anything.

[lonestarnot]

28. Since flag burning has been ruled freedom of speech, I do not care who burns it, I would not.

Just because someone says something doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Yet.

[joshcryer]

34. Exactly, and that's the same view the Occupy Oaklander interviewed in the article has.

It's free speech. Let us not denounce free speech, please. Yes it looks bad, we can defend free speech while disagreeing. (Frankly I do not know if I would disagree with some of these instances.)

[lonestarnot]

36. Wow!

[metalbot]

63. Flag burning is absolutely protected speech

However, it's not protected when you decide to burn a flag that belongs to someone else.

[hack89]

80. Why did they have to steal someone else's flag first?

if OWS wants to burn flags let them buy their own.

[Rex]

42. And it won't be the end of OWS.

I'd think the people throwing things at the cops would be doing more damage to OWS then a 'flag burning' PR stunt for whatever the agenda reason.

[applegrove]

45. Okay. I'm wrong again.

[99Forever]

49. Perhaps, perhaps not..

.. nothing in the article makes your declarative opening statement a lock. False flag operations are a staple of law enforcement and military types. That is not to say that this was one of them, but it very easily could have been.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. That declarative opening statement is not from the AP article.

That's the OP's own handiwork. The article does not fit the headline at all.

[99Forever]

62. Precisely my point. Thanks. n/t

[morningfog]

56. Burning a symbol is a symbolic gesture and protected speech.

Let it burn. Occupy on.

[metalbot]

65. Really? Can I break into your house and burn some of your symbols?

Because that's what really happened here. Burning a symbol is protected speech, but when you steal that symbol from someone else to burn it, it's an entirely different issue.

[morningfog]

125. It was the people's flag, the people burned it.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Judge rules covered police badge serious violation (real headline alert)

"An Oakland police officer who covered his nameplate at an Occupy Oakland protest in November, and the lieutenant who failed to report him, committed serious violations of court-approved conduct standards for the city's police force, a federal judge has ruled. The agreement also required the Police Department to make structural improvements and authorized Henderson to hold officers in contempt of court, with possible fines or jail time, for serious misconduct."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/30/BAIM1N0JPG.DTL#ixzz1l2yeSxxV

[pintobean]

66. ...

[pinboy3niner]

68. Why so down on Occupy?

I can understand people having questions. But a simple search will turn up lots of information to answer questions about Occupy movements all over the country.

What I don't get is why some (like this post and others) are so invested in taking Occupy down. Apart from the "one percent" and their wingnut lackeys, I can't imagine why anyone else would so commit themselves to disparaging and undermining the movement.

I know the OP will have an answer. I suspect it will be more of the same shit we've already seen.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[pintobean]

73. I don't think you want to understand.

It's been said, by many, over and over again; it's about the tactics. If you support their tactics, that's fine. Opinions that differ from yours are not shit.

[pinboy3niner]

74. The tactics of Occupy are many and diverse

That has been pointed out endlessly to the naysayers, who dismiss and ignore the replies and continue to portray Occupy as all about "camping." And who insist that Occupy is doing nothing but waiting for fair weather, despite the evidence that Occupy actions have never slowed, and are continuing all over the country. That is shit.

As a movement, Occupy has engaged in a broad range of actions, From Occupy Our Homes, to Occupy the Courts, to Occupy Congress.

I guess I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what it is that you have a problem with. Occupy is doing a lot of good work that has already gotten results in a very short time.

I don't get those who, under the guise of criticizing this tactic or that tactic, endeavor to throw the whole movement under the bus.

[randome]

78. What results?

And what results were contemplated by trying to take over a public building?

[pinboy3niner]

86. For one thing, Occupy has stopped many foreclosures

And Occupy has gotten banks to drop foreclosure actions that were in progress and return to negotiations with homeowners on loan mods.

Naysayers may argue endlessly about whether Occupy has "changed the dialogue" and had positive effects that way, but Occupy's effects on foreclosures by banks are inarguable and tangible.

[randome]

87. Does it make me a 'naysayer' to say that Occupy Oakland's attempt to take over a public building...

...resulted in nothing good?

[pinboy3niner]

89. If that's your only complaint, you should be posting OPs extolling the virtues of Occupy

Haven't seen them yet.

[randome]

91. There are plenty of OPs extolling the virtues of OWS.

Even when OWS is in the wrong.

My problem with OWS is that time and energy are being spent on side issues like taking over public buildings.

I want OWS to mean so much more and it's disheartening to see that it STILL has no leader or central message, but dozens of 'semi'-leaders and dozens of conflicting messages.

'Change the system' is hardly the kind of targeted message that needs to be sent.

And the only people who need to hear that are the legislators in Washington. Only they have the power to change the laws. It's certainly not the city of Oakland.

[pinboy3niner]

95. Occupy is doing a lot besides the "side issues" to which you object

As you already know, there are plenty of Occupy websites that discuss specific objectives beyond "change the system"--in detail.

And it's pretty amazing to suggest that protests should only occur in Washington and not in the home districts of our legislators, where their constituents (including us) actually live. D.C. protests are only one part of the whole.

Yes, you do seem to have a "problem with OWS." And none of us, after all these threads, seem to be able to help you with that...

[randome]

96. You continue to side-step the issues I bring up.

Did trying to take over a public building have any good results?

Taking the message to constituents still ignores reality: only congressional legislators can change the laws. Do any members of Congress reside in Oakland? Is OWS trying to force them to listen? It doesn't look like it to me.

[rhett o rick]

108. Your problem is the time wasted by OWS? Then why do you go to such lengths to vilify them?

Fox News vilifies them as does most of the Corp-Media. Them I understand but why are you so against them? What are your principles?

[Bluenorthwest]

103. So is if fair to me to look to a single element of say, a Presidential campaign and say

Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren's tactics are hate filled and anyone associated with them in anyway IS what they are. OFA hired and paid McClurkin, who calls for war on gay people, says we try to kill children. If you support that tactic, that's fine. You dig that sort of preaching thing, fine.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Sorry, but that's exactly how provocateurs work

(I'm a DUer who attended her first demonstration in 1970).

[hack89]

83. That's exactly how hot headed idiots work too. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Most provocateurs are masters at pretending to be hot-headed idiots

and like others on this thread, I wonder why you are so hell-bent on discrediting OWS.

[hack89]

97. Most hot-headed idiots don't have to pretend

I like their goals, don't like some of their tactics. Occupy Oakland seems to have lost their way.

[suffragette]

72. This very much reminds me of Seattle WTO 12/2/99

At that point, WTO protests had been going on for a few days and numerous community groups and the general public were expressing outrage at the police tactics, particularly their attacks on peaceful protestors and their nightly forcing protestors up on to Capitol Hill (a residential neighborhood) and gassing of the protestors which also gassed workers and residents of that neighborhood.

That day the police de-escalated their show of force and the protests were conducted peacefully (funny how that works -eh?).

I attended the rally at the market mentioned here and listened to speakers about corporate farming and GMO, all new info to me at the time:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=2140

As noted in the article above, many of the protestors then gathered at the King County jail to demand the release of those who had been arrested previously. I did not attend that, but at this point, with this being history now, you can see the description focuses on that action and the negotiation that ensued.

However, at the time, that was not the prominent image displayed on the news stations that night. Instead, and I recall this vividly, the news stations played and replayed one moment from that day over and over. That was the video of a person who had attempted to burn the flag outside the jail. They focused on this to the exclusion of the many events held that day, of the speakers from around the world, of the issues involved.

Now, those issues are still being discussed and OWS is at the forefront of doing so. The history of that time does not even mention the image that the media tried so hard to make the prominent image of that day and focal point.

[Zorra]

93. Yep. AP, better known as *American Propaganda*. Hit pieces for the 1% their specialty. nt

[suffragette]

111. Yep, and our local news stations did the same

NGU.

[Broderick]

77. I see bad people

everywhere

[Rex]

84. Yes it was.

[Zorra]

92. So, um, are the cops going to pick up Troy Johnson for questioning, since

he has publicly alleged that he knows the identity of a person that he alleges has committed a crime? And that he has proof of this crime on his cellphone?

I mean, why announce this if you want to protect the person's identity? WTF is he thinking?

I don't believe that a person is obligated to report a crime in California. But if someone publicly admits (and it is reported by AP nationwide) that they saw someone committing a crime, that they know the identity of the person committing the crime, and they have proof of this person committing a crime on film, aren't the cops kind of obligated to investigate?

Like, "Hey America! I saw John Doe murder Jane Doe, and I have it on film!!! And the cops haven't even asked me about it"

I'm just sayin', from my POV as an unabashed skeptic that saw a frightening amount of AP propaganda during the Bush era. Back then, AP was known as "American Propaganda".

Have any of the persons alleged to have committed blatant acts of vandalism, destruction, or theft while self-associated with any Occupy direct ever been arrested and charged for anything other than stuff like trespassing or unlawful assembly?

Or do the cops just let these people skate for some reason?

Just curious, I haven't seen anything about this anywhere.

[Rex]

94. Thank you.

That is exactly what I was thinking about. Your post is a far better elaboration then my poor brain could come up with...I agree 100%.
I remember the American Propaganda under GWB.

[pintobean]

98. "I haven't seen anything about this anywhere"

Me neither. The first place I looked was Occupy Oakland. They're not making any of the claims that I see here on DU. Perhaps you should direct your questions at them. After all, it's their reputation at stake. I find it strange that third parties are making excuses while they're not.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. try looking again

I was able to find references to agents provocateur at the Occupy Oakland site. I frankly don't know if that's the case or not, and your assertion isn't a big deal one way or another. The takeaway: I need to vet your assertions before believing them, as your assertions have turned out to be untrue.

[pintobean]

100. Give me a link

I don't mind being shown that I've made a mistake. I didn't see anything like that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. link

http://occupyoakland.org/2012/01/open-letter-to-the-fool-who-set-the-flag-on-fire/

[pintobean]

104. That's a letter TO Occupy Oakland

"To the occupiers of Oakland, to the rest of you: look into those responsible for burning that flag. The act itself was so crude and divisive…. I would not be the least surprised if those responsible are agent provocateurs."

It's in an open forum.
It's not a statement from them.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. well then, get me a list of their officers so I know what's official

Oh wait. They don't have leaders.

[pintobean]

107. They have official statements

and press releases. Look at their home page.

[Taverner]

112. Why is everyone so bent out of shape about the burning of a fucking flag?

It's a piece - of - cloth

Yes, it was public property but it was a flag. You can replace it on the cheap.

Crude and divisive? Excuse me?

More crude and divisive than laying off teachers?

More crude and divisive than shooting a can of tear gas into a veteran's face?

More crude than casually pepper spraying people holding a sit in?

I'd burn A MILLION FLAGS and still I wouldn't even be scratching the surface when it comes to our government's crude and divisive tactics.

Save a tree, burn a flag!

[Zorra]

118. my comment refers to the fact that I have not heard of any one of these people

committing acts of vandalism and destruction at Occupy direct actions being arrested and charged for these acts.

We see pictures of these people, and we read about them committing these destructive acts, but it seems that we never hear about them getting arrested and charged for committing these destructive acts.

Lots of protesters get arrested for trespassing, unlawful assembly, etc, but why are the people that are committing the acts of destruction that the AP/MSM is using as examples to present a a negative view of Occupy not getting arrested, charged, and reported on?

I've been wondering about this for some time, and way before this flag burning incident occurred.

[randome]

101. But it was an Associated Press photographer, right?

It's not so easy leaning on the press to hand over evidence.

[Zorra]

117. No, person in question appears to have been someone simply volunteering information

to AP "reporters".

[Taverner]

110. Oh noes! Not the flag!

[renie408]

115. For chrissakes, people, do some of you REALLY believe that nobody in the OWS...

movement is capable of making a poor judgement call?? And that anybody that says, "Gee, that might not have been such a great idea." is out to get OWS?? That if someone does something like what happened in Oakland on Sunday, they have to be 'agent provocateurs'? Does that make any kind of sense at all?

Some people here are doing EXACTLY what the right does. "I am on the side of OWS. I am a good person. Therefore, everything anybody involved with OWS does must be good."

Realistically, some people involved in the OWS movement are less interested in creating real social and economic change in this country and are just there because they are inclined to enjoy a little anarchy. Stealing that flag and vandalizing the city hall was just stupid excess. Period. It did more harm than good. If you want to burn the flag, bring your own. I doubt anybody here would have a problem with that. But when you are trying to sell yourself as a peaceful protest, theft and vandalism seem a little counter productive. The people who did it don't have to be agent provocateurs, they could just be stupid...or just the kind of people who like trouble....or just some people who got into a crowd frenzy and got carried away. But no matter what, Sunday was a bad day for OWS.

[fascisthunter]

119. yeah, well, tell that to the people blowing this out of proportion.

[renie408]

121. Honestly, the only reason it is getting blown out of proportion...

...is that every time anybody remotely implies that it might not have been a great idea to try and take over an abandoned building owned by the city of Oakland or to vandalize City Hall, steal an American flag and burn it on said City Hall's steps, there are people who get really, really upset and argue that all that stuff was just fine. Which just doesn't make any sense. SO, the first people ratchet up their response and the second group ratchets up theirs and everybody is running around the DU like chickens with their heads cut off.

Some people are more comfortable with anarchy than others. Me, not so much. I hope that doesn't make me a BAD Democrat, just one that doesn't see the value in playing into the worst stereotype the 'other side' has of us.

[Zorra]

122. IMO, it is important to be sure that the 1% is not using agents

provocateurs and their very own private media to falsely cast Occupy in a negative way.

They have every reason to do so, and they will do so.

What you say in your post is reasonable and possible; I'm not denying it.

I don't trust the 1%, or their media, as far as I can spit.

With very good reasons for not trusting them.

Thorough scrutiny, speculation, and investigation is always warranted, and totally justified, when considering the 1%, the MSM, and all other things that come from the RW.

Look what the banksters and 1% did to our country. They are sociopaths.

I simply don't trust them.

Do you?

[fascisthunter]

120. Long Live OWS!!!!!

[Ruby the Liberal]

124. This whole thing was an open invitation to anarchists from the get go.

Not that they don't have a purpose or serve a point. It was just headed in the OWB/IMF direction from the start.

Tis' ok. The point was made and each further attempt to get the attention of TPTB will be more effective than the last.

Go ahead, take your best (collective) shot. Lord knows I still have the scars from last September to show for equating OWS to anarchy. One (or a dozen) more won't hurt.

[joshcryer]

131. This guy wasn't an anarchist according to the interviewed Occupier.

It's possible that anarchists have influenced his behavior, however, and after the tear gassing earlier in the day I have no reason to expect emotions to be low. It was an emotional and powerful message, even if it was the wrong message to send.

[whatchamacallit]

127. Who gives a shit?

(other than those programmed to have a pavlovian response to nationalistic symbolism)