Anyone else think the protestor smashing thru @ the RBS window looks like a military type?

[mod mom]

It's on the front page of Huff Po. Protestor with a clean cut using a beam to smash thru the window at the Royal Bank of Scotland. Doesn't look the usual anarchist type. Maybe he is a plant to rile the crowds. Anyone share my distrust?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Warpy]

1. Yes, it's really typical behavior

for government stooges.

I smell the same thing you do.

[havocmom]

2. First thing I thought when viewing that picture:

'agent provocateur'

[Occam Bandage]

48. First thing I thought:

"Chav."

[ShortnFiery]

3. Oh Heaven Forbid we even suggest that Big Brother would have covert Ops such as this!

:sarcasm:

I'm with you. You never really know for sure but with a CORPORATE Press Corps hyper-focusing on the violence, your suggestion is not unsound.

[Barack_America]

4. What is a protester supposed to look like?

:shrug:

[geegollygosh]

5. ...or maybe he's more interested in causes than looking the part...

Do people really have to *look* like you in order for you to believe that they're genuine?

[mod mom]

9. Most protestors aren't violent. The one's that are, do a great disservice to the cause.

I am suspicious of all those who use violence to promote a cause.

[geegollygosh]

12. But, the reason you chose to back up your suspicion was that he looked "clean cut"

[mod mom]

15. I suspicious of those who turn violent because agent provocateurs have been used

at past protests as demonstrated in the photo posted by backscatter712 down thread.

[TexasObserver]

13. Unlikely. He's probably a government agent.

[Barack_America]

17. Someone who looks like a government agent trying to get anarchists to follow his lead?

:shrug:

That doesn't seem like a very effective strategy.

[TexasObserver]

31. Apparently you're unfamiliar with such events at the GOP convention 2008.

You might want to read up on that, do a little research, see some videos.

[NightWatcher]

6. I've got a "high and tight" and I am not a "military type". I just prefer clean cut

Plus the "long hair look" is a dead giveaway. I like to blend in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. And of course, the clean cut look really blends in with a mob of

anarchist protesters.

[anigbrowl]

36. I've known plenty of anarchist types with tight haircuts

Hair fashions in the UK are somewhat different from here.

[Occam Bandage]

45. Protip: Other countries are not America, and often have different subcultures. nt

[peacetalksforall]

7. That sounds like the RNC Convention= a story going around is that a

person came from behind the police line with a pole, smashed a window (Macy's?) and went back behind the police line.

[backscatter712]

8. It's not unprecedented. Remember the SPP protests in Quebec?

A union leader called out a group of "black bloc anarchists" who were picking up rocks. The real black bloc protesters were shouting "POLICIER! POLICIER", the would-be-rock throwers got up and cozy with the cops in the hats and bats, and quickly got themselves "arrested" (and treated very gently by the police I might add." Turns out they were wearing the same brand of boot that the riot cops were wearing.

[Blue_Tires]

39. i remember that...

good call

[niceypoo]

10. Yes, but so do these soccer hooligans...

[mod mom]

11. The difference to me is that those are dudes wanting to rumble. This is a man

making a very public violent gesture that just might rile the crowd out of control.

This photo will be used around the world as why tough police action is necessary.

[cali]

14. I saw it all live

I doubt he's a plant. And sorry, the police action has been pretty restrained.

[Echo In Light]

16. Hard to say for certain...but yes, standard procedure is to discredit protesters...

...by way of creating violence/destruction, which is often the vehicle used for the riot cops to begin beating and gassing innocent people who haven't broken any laws.

[G_j]

129. very standard

whatever the case here, anyone who thinks this hasn't happened hundreds of times before, has not bothered to educate themselves on the subject.

[TahitiNut]

18. Great disguise, huh?

[cali]

19. I doubt it. What do the police benefit by starting a riot?

Do you actutally believe that they want to see a lot of people injured, including their own? And if the goal was to enable them to use strong and repressive tactics, why aren't they using them? Besides, British police are not American police. Note that you're not seeing tasers or tear gas.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Yes, police never join for action. Nor would certain elements wish to cause damage in order

to prevent future protests. OR to discourage older people and families from protesting. No, no elements of our blessed and holy police department would do wrong. They are, after all, "The Authorities" and our best interest is ALWAYS their goal.

Believe it or not there are "unsavory elements" in all career fields. :shrug:

[cali]

21. didn't say that. I"m just not a zebra person.

when I hear hooves clomping down Central Park West, I think horses, not zebras. And shockingly, I think there has to be some recent history demonstrating that the British police have done what you're accusing them of. Or some evidence. You have presented exactly.... no evidence whatsoever, dear. Futhermore, your assumption is that this is true, and that all the protesters are little plaster saints. that's pretty ignorant.

[ShortnFiery]

40. You crack me up. There are several instances ... but you will not stop adoring "authority"

Earlier you mentioned that you feel sorry for me. Perhaps you should because it must be very comfortable to believe that "Authority" will take care of you. :(

Have you forgotten the *innocent* BRAZILIAN MAN that the British Authorities mistaken for a Middle Eastern "TERRORIST" and promptly shot him SEVEN (x7) times in the head? Whoa! It's a little frightening when "the authorities" are unable to tell the difference between South American and Middle Eastern Ancestry and choose to KILL before identification has been made. :eyes:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200507/25/eng20050725_198036.html

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

62. As always, you default to the cheap shot. You truly have no shame ... that must suck.

I do feel sorry for you cali. :(

[cali]

81. I'm snarky but honest.

you aren't. I dislike dishonesty. particularly when it's habitual.

[ShortnFiery]

111. Perhaps a little willfully ignorant? Here's a video of alleged London Police Brutality with ...

a little racism on the side?

Black Postman is taken down by cops for refusing to move his van. Policeman at back punches him in groin 30 seconds in, big crowd, possible injury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYuRbjcs1uo

What do I wish for you to understand from these examples? There are TWO sides to every story. I regret that you tend to default on the side of Authority but sometimes they do MIS-BEHAVE too. After all, we are all human. :-)

Do not deny the OTHER side only because they do not have the Authority or Power. Sometimes Police abuse authority.

I know GOOD and BAD Police Officers. We live in a Democratic Republic NOT a totalitarian Police State.

[ShortnFiery]

110. Unfortunate for you to believe that the London Police do NOT have a history of CORRUPT Officers:

Here's some statistics: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/city_of_london_police

An article from The Independent: Podium: John Stevens: The deep roots of police corruption From a speech by the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to a conference at the London School of Economics

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5008462.html

Oh, this book written by "an authority" within Scotland Yard INVESTIGATING (1997) ???? .... ? ....?

Survey SAYS The London Police Force!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bent-Coppers-Scotland-corruption-Corruption/dp/0297830937

'Ghost squad' uncovers web of police corruption

The specialist team found that up to 250 officers, mostly senior detectives working in some of the force's most prestigious squads, were involved in major criminal activities. Serving and retired officers, up to the rank of commander, are suspected of earning tens of thousands of pounds from bribes and corruption, some by working with London's top crime gangs. Officers are also accused of salting away illegal money for retirement nest-eggs. Offshore bank accounts have been identified, some with more than pounds 100,000 deposited. The scale of the scandal, and the existence of the secret squad, were revealed yesterday by senior sources at Scotland Yard. Its follows the biggest anti-corruption operation ever mounted earlier this week, when raids were carried out on the homes and offices of 19 serving and former officers from the Flying Squad. Thirteen officers have so far been suspended and inquiries are continuing. Other suspects have attempted to avoid investigation by applying for early retirement - which has been declined - while others are taking sick leave.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3811549

[Echo In Light]

30. And in other instances they're simply "following orders," even if those orders aren't made public

It's top-down, not a "few bad apples."

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. PR. If a riot starts, they get to blame the protesters, and if a riot does

not start, they get to commend the restraint of the police in the face of intense provocation.

For them, it's a win/win.

[Marr]

109. Exactly. It's not like this is a new thing.

[billyoc]

23. Anarchists don't need provocateurs to smash windows for them.

That's the only thing I like about anarchists. :evilgrin:

[Echo In Light]

33. Many intelligent Anarchists wouldn't resort to property damage or violence...

That hasn't anything to do with anarchism as a political philosophy/social movement.

[anigbrowl]

35. Yeah, but there are stupid anarchists out there too

I don't believe that all anarchists are angelic any more than I believe that all police officers are honest and incorruptible.

[Echo In Light]

37. Being non-violent doesn't = "angelic."

In a world where corporations own and run everything it's easy to understand how negative opinions of anarchism take root and thrive. That's what I was addressing.

[anigbrowl]

38. I think you know very well what I mean.

Some people identify as anarchists because it gives them a ready-made excuse to engage in vandalism or the like. They're a minority and not characteristic of anarchists in general, but they exist. Just like some sports have a small number of fans whose idea of a good time is drinking and fighting. I lived in an house in London for several years with a bunch of anarchists and a similar number of cats, so I've met plenty of both the peaceable and the aggressive types. The anarchists were an equally mixed bag.

[Echo In Light]

44. You're missing the point: within the context of protests where the M$M will intentionally use...

..."anarchist" in a disparaging way (loony, crazy, violent, conspiracy theorist, etc) it's important to point out that anarchism doesn't automatically translate into the terms the Establishment seeks to confine it to.

[anigbrowl]

50. No, I'm not.

I'm perfectly aware of this. One might just as well say it's important to point out that governments and other institutions are not necessarily instruments of oppression or coercion.

I've met quite a lot of thoughtful, intellectual anarchists who want to seriously explore alternative social structures and maximize individual freedom. I have a great deal of respect for these people even when I disagree, and it's been a big influence on my political philosophy.

I've also met a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists who are thick as two planks and, say things like 'smash the state!' a lot, think all business, politics, medicine etc. is part of a giant conspiracy (unless they need to go to hospital for something) and so on. As you can probably tell, I don't have a great deal of respect for this latter group, but they are in plentiful supply.

The guy smashing teh window could be an agent provocateur. I don't know for sure, it wouldn't be the first time, I certainly won't rule out the possibility. But nor am I going to rule out the equally likely possibility that he's just a violent dickhead who's found a good excuse for a 'spot of bovver' (brit slang for 'get some!').

[Echo In Light]

54. We'll just have to agree to disagree then

[billyoc]

60. Yes, but many would. Do you really think Black Bloc anarchists would shrink from breaking windows?

Really?

[Atman]

24. I see one "protestor" and no less than SIX photographers.

I'm sure this was all very spontaneous. Yeah, sure.

:eyes:

.

[cali]

29. uh, that's a still. I watched it live, and it looked quite spontaneous and

there sure as shit was more than a single person smashing the windows.

[Peregrine Took]

26. Just odd how this clean cut, military looking lad decided to be the first ONE to

do the daring deed of smashing the window

Agent provocateur.

[anigbrowl]

27. Not really

Tight haircuts carry different fashion implications in the UK. When I lived there i knew plenty of anarchists of both the crusty (dreadlocks, allergic to soap) variety and the skinhead type. In the UK someone who looked like this would be called a 'chav'. It's possible he's an agent provocateur, but there are usually plenty of people in ski masks or similar at protests like this, so it's easy for someone to be anonymous if they have ill-will.

Let's face it, some people go to protests for the aggro. You're deluding yourself if you think that everyone attracted to such an event is guided by principles of non-violence and dignified behavior.

[backscatter712]

34. Yeah, this guy is trying for the chav aesthetic.

Just seeing the track jacket - it's UK teen-douchebaggery known as chav culture.

[azureblue]

28. staged photo op

This is so staged- the rest of the crowd is standing back, the camera angle is perfect and steady, there is no one between the photog and the subject, the agent is in perfect profile, and I read that there was more than one photog taking this picture. The crowd had to have been told what was going on, because they would not be standing away if this was spontaneous. My bet is on the window breaker telling a photog that he was going to break a window, so a few other photogs got wind of it, everybody took their places, and the pic was taken at just the right time.

[cali]

32. sorry no. I watched it live. oh, and there were quite a few window breakers

not one, and it was happening simultaneously- or pretty close to it.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Yes, and those scrappy "window breakers" are far more EVIL than the CEOs who bankrupt the ...

the entire WORLD Banking System then scamper off with MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollar parachutes.

Oh yes, evil "window breakers" are the reason that the entire economic world COLLAPSED. :crazy:

[Occam Bandage]

47. Nobody has ever claimed anything like that. You're silly. nt

[cali]

53. or just terminally addicted to tossing out utter bullshit.

[ShortnFiery]

68. It was a comment. However, do you feel guilty?

:evilgrin: ;)

[Occam Bandage]

86. So you admit, then, that nobody had claimed anything of the sort,

and you were just building strawmen because they look pretty in the evening sunlight.

[ShortnFiery]

119. You're hopeless!

Have a nice authoritarian day. ;)

[cali]

52. grow up, dear.

and do stop making shit up. it's a terrible habit and one you're thoroughly entrenched in. I never said any such thing, little genius. and you know it. First of all, I'm not an idiot who uses the word evil. In fact, you can rummange through every post I've ever written and you won't find my applying that word to anyone. And I certainly never said jackshit about the protesters who broke windows being evil. that's entirely a product of your dishonest and feverish and pathetic imagination.

Cut out the bullshit, shortstuff.

[ShortnFiery]

64. You can't change, can you? With time, your behavior is increasingly rude.

Hey, if you can't be civil, don't respond to my posts.

You are RUDE cali. You know that and you don't care.

Just SAD. Go darken someone else's door, I will not discuss "squat" with you. :(

[anigbrowl]

72. You should talk.

[ShortnFiery]

83. I was not addressing this to you. p.s. stop following me around - we're not dating. nt

[anigbrowl]

95. Strangely, you replied to one of my comments before I replied to yours.

This must be some new kind of following people around that I'm unfamiliar with. Take a look at the timestamps on the right.

[ShortnFiery]

117. We are obviously not communicating and are now entwined into one-ups-man-ship.

Just look at our behavior in this thread? We hold two very different views - it's NOW only about pissing all over the other's perspective.

I think it's long past time we agree to disagree?

[Occam Bandage]

42. Everyone knows protestors never break things. It must be the government!

[Barack_America]

43. Check out this video about 45 seconds in...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x291335

Different guy, but same "style" (short hair, track suit). Do you question his sincerity?

[Codeine]

46. Not all anarchists are crusties.

In England this is just a fashionable haircut, nothing more or less.

[Two Americas]

49. amazing

People on this thread are dismissing and ridiculing the possibility that there could be plants in demonstrations. Hard to imagine that anyone could be ignorant of the long history of that happening.

[Occam Bandage]

51. amazing

People on this thread are dismissing and ridiculing the possibility that there could be aggros in demonstrations. Hard to imagine that anyone could be ignorant of the long history of that happening.

[Two Americas]

55. yeah

It all "goes both ways" in your view, doesn't it?

The government and dissenters are equal. Racism goes both ways. The Left is as bad as the right.

Back in the 1850's, people made the same arguments against the Abolitionists - that we needed to see "both sides" and "not all slave owners are bad" and "not all slaves are saints."

No one can advocate for the powerless here, without you jumping in and aggressively defending the powerful.

Yep. Fair and balanced.

Surprised you actually responded to this. "I know you are but what am I" is not exactly a telling counter argument.



...

[Echo In Light]

56. Agreed. It speaks to the efficacy of the methods of thought control

[anigbrowl]

65. Right...only those who agree with you are capable of thinking for themselves

People who disagree are mindless robots, unable to form opinions of their own. It must be so, because morality, politics etc. are simple and uncomplicated.

[ShortnFiery]

66. No alternative explanation to "big brother" is allowed. If provided, it's "conspiracy" ...

What a good little "one world order" bot some of you will make.

"God Bless Our Authorities. They NEVER do wrong. Daddy told us so!"

[Occam Bandage]

77. Ironic, considering that "Big Brother did it" is the only explanation you'll accept for anything. nt

[ShortnFiery]

87. No, it's a possibility that FRIGHTENS the shit out of some so much that they have to trash me so ...

we don't dare even consider the POSSIBILITY. :evilgrin:

[Occam Bandage]

92. Yes, and what about the possibility that the protester is actually an alien from space?

Why are you so scared by the possibility that the protester is an alien, that you haven't mentioned it once? I guess some people just can't handle the truth.

Extraordinary claims with no evidence or justification in particular fact are dismissed not because they're frightening, but because the likelihood that they are correct is microscopic. Your agent-provocateur theory is no more justified and therefore no more likely than my space-alien theory is.

[anigbrowl]

99. Oh, now you've done it!

I'm forced to post the ultimate, awful truth: http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/

[Occam Bandage]

100. David Icke is a great example of the pitfalls of "but you must consider the POSSIBILITY!"

[anigbrowl]

105. Reptilians peed in my cornflakes today.

I know the best-before date for the milk was a week ago, but milk should not taste like reptile pee.

[Echo In Light]

107. Even tho I basically agree w/you on the possibility of 'plant' involvement, I'd disagree that....

...the crusading, macho-bullshit attitudes of the adamant anti-conspiracy crowd represent, or cover for, "fear" of the notion of top-down social control in democratic societies. Such types are frequently cocksure of their views and want everyone to admire their superior insight as they belittle any contrary view. Rarely does one encounter these anti-conspiracy types online where a generous portion of sneering condescension isn't involved - hence the psychological underpinnings that drive it within an anonymous medium where one needn't worry about having one's ass beaten to a bloody pulp for taking on a fighting tone with others - which is a VERY distinct potential in real life lol

And really, what's actually being argued here? ...the notion that a plant may have been used in a protest to help solidify an image of anti-capitalists and anarchists as being pro-violence and carelessly destructive? ...a tactic that's been well documented in similar situations, which warrants the questioning in the first place ... and so this apparently really pisses certain types off, and they insist that anyone who suggests this may indeed have been the case is then by default, per their ideology, a crazy, conspiracy theorist who believes in aliens or something.

My suggestion, ShortnFiery: don't bother wasting your time, cause no matter what you say or present, with certain personality types, it only falls on deaf ears and doesn't achieve common ground. Or worse, it merely gives them a fight for the sake of it which is all they're seeking to begin with.

[anigbrowl]

88. Find a mirror. Take a good, long look in it.

[ShortnFiery]

112. Why are you so threatened at the mere possibility that not all violence is fomented by protesters?

Does it unbalance your view of the world? Why can't you at least entertain, the mere possibility of disruptors being on the side of "Authorities?" Believe it or not, there are many with a hidden agenda but THAT complexity would upset many people's view of "a perfect father figure" to stand for our blessed Authority. :(

[anigbrowl]

113. I'm not, and I'm tired of your patronizing attitude.

a. I have already acknowledged that possibility in this thread, before you came along. I even managed to disagree with another poster about anarchists in a spirit of mutual civility.

b. what I'm against is not entertaining such a possibility, but jumping to such a conclusion based on nothing more than the fact of someone's haircut.

c. I used to be a journalist, including a stint at well-known UK daily newspaper which leans firmly to the left. I'm not innocent about abuse of authority; I helped expose a UK member of parliament for bribe-taking.

d. I've lived in large anarchist households in 3 different countries; you're not my introduction to unconventional political thought or belief systems.

e. I've also had plenty of organizational involvement in 'alternative' activities, from rave parties to protest marches.

f. I've had both bad and good experiences with the police, ranging from false arrest to smoking dope together.

In sum, I don't need you to open my eyes about how the world works. Your assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you is doing so from a position of ignorance and fear just tells me that you're stuck on an ego trip; all you've done is substitute one kind of absolutist belief for another.

Having discovered that the conventional worldview is often misleading and illusory, you're convinced that your current beliefs have the force of Absolute Truth and anyone who doesn't share them is dangerously misguided. It seems to me you hold exactly authoritarian viewpoint you complain of, just from an inverted, paranoid position. Accusing me of 'following you around' in response to a single comment on one of your messages, when you had already started commenting on mine several minutes beforehand, is just one example.

[ShortnFiery]

116. You have been following me and responding in a condescending way. What the hell makes you think ...

that your judgment trumps mine? Our OPINIONS are equally valid.

Let me give you a little background sans the a. b. c. and d.s? :eyes:

Opposite of your "alternative youth" I was raised within a right wing libertarian family. In fact, the vast majority of them still keep the channel on FOX news 24/7. One member of my family was formally invited to join the John Birch Society, but thank Heavens, he wasn't THAT far gone.

What you may find astonishing is that I served honorably in the US Army for four LONG years. I went into this experience a "good republican" who loved Saint Ronnie and emerged a sadly disappointed REALIST.

Given the above, I KNOW the allure of authoritarianism. It was a very comfortable place for me to be in my late teens and early 20s.

I've not claimed "absolute truth" but I do fear some people (perhaps say ---> YOU?!?) who have not been fully indoctrinated in the right wing world tend to believe that most people in positions of power are trustworthy.

I believe that you've had a bad experience with the "more flaky" type liberals and feel disillusioned?

If I'm wrong, please forgive me?

However, I submit that my views on POSSIBILITIES and the authoritarian mindset are as valid as yours. Perhaps more so because I was an Officer within the Active Duty Army. I've felt the rush of being "in charge" of a rifle range and leading a platoon. However, it was that very exposure to the ABUSE of authority by far too many people (officer and enlisted) that has left me more of the "suspicious of absolute power" type persona.

Yes, I've emerged from military service with a very profound anti-authoritarian bent. Perhaps that's why the Sergeant Major of the Battalion sized unit told me that I was one of "the very few" Regular Army Officers that he regretted was to leave active duty service via resignation. That is, I resigned my Regular Army Commission because I became disillusioned and disgusted with the politics and moral corruption of many who held high rank but ABUSED their positions of power. However, after earning my masters, working within government service was a much "better fit" and I'm a more appreciative AMERICAN for such intense learning experiences.

I'm surmising but PERHAPS your past experiences have led you to "a mirror opposite" type perspective that defaults to revere "authority figures?" That doesn't make your perspective invalid, just divergent of mine.

I hope you have a good evening. :-)

[anigbrowl]

120. You are deluding yourself. It's months since we last conversed.

And as I pointed out, you first replied to me in this thread; then when I replied to a separate message of yours (not having seen your previous comment yet), you told me to 'stop following (you), we're not dating". This is the behavior of a mentally ill person. Sorry.

"Given the above, I KNOW the allure of authoritarianism. It was a very comfortable place for me to be in my late teens and early 20s."

Why am I not surprised. I'm afraid the bulk of your surmises are completely off base. I'm not disillusioned by flaky liberals, didn't have a particularly alternative youth, and just never went though your authoritarian stage.

You seem fixated on the notion that I can't conceive of the government sabotaging a protest. I can, but it doesn't seem terribly likely in this case from the available facts. As stated above, a lot of people are jumping to the conclusions based on nothing more than a person's haircut. If the guy is an agent provocateur, he's got to be about the most recognizable one ever.

[ShortnFiery]

123. I believe that you are in denial but are 100% convinced otherwise. My condolences.

Please take your all-knowing attitude elsewhere? :hi:

p.s. I didn't want to mention it but you are RUDE.

"This is the behavior of a mentally ill person. Sorry."

WTF? You're not sorry but only interested in scoring points. Did you know that this is a sign of "a controlling" type personality?

Let me put it this way, one of us has a masters degree in psychology and it's NOT you. :evilgrin:

[anigbrowl]

131. I really don't care what you believe.

You don't even have a point or an argument; you just bunched 5 cheap shots together and called it a post. You're the one who started accusing me of 'following you around' for no reason, and substitute characterizations for addressing people's arguments. I stand by my previous remarks.

[Occam Bandage]

58. So wait. Your argument is that it is actually more likely that a window broken in a demonstration

was broken by an undercover cop and not by an aggro? Seriously? Not just, "you should keep your mind open to the slim possibility," but "the certainty that this was done by a cop is roughly analogous to the certainty that slavery is a bad thing?"

That's where you're comin' down on this one?

[Two Americas]

63. ROFL

Of course not.

I did not say, would not say, and nor did the OP that "it is actually more likely that a window broken in a demonstration was broken by an undercover cop and not by an aggro."

You are asking us to believe that the only alternative to dismissing the possibility that a plant was involved would be to insist that it was a plant? That is completely illogical.

You are saying that since it was probably not a cop, that all speculation that it might be is therefore invalid, and then you characterize the position of others falsely - saying that they are insisting that it had to be a cop.

No one said that it was a certainty that this was done by a cop, and I did not say that this is roughly analogous to the certainty that slavery is a bad thing.

I said you are using a common style of argumentation that has been used through the ages to defend those in power. That is - "not all those in power are bad" and "not all of those in opposition to those in power are good." That is true enough, but what is the point in using that against people?

You are saying that not all demonstrators are good, and not all police are bad. "Fair and balanced." It "goes both ways."

Not all white people are racist - therefore, we cannot talk about racism without being accused of accusing all white people of being racist - "reverse racism."

Not all hetero people are bigoted - therefore we cannot talk about bigotry without being accused of "reverse bigotry" or "poutrage" or something.

Not everything that every Union has ever done is good, so therefore any advocacy of Unionism requires that people are reminded about that before they are allowed to take a pro-Union position or discuss the subject.

Not all bankers are bad, so therefore we should not criticize the banking system.

"Fair and balanced," and "both sides do it" is a way to prevent people from expressing any stand, and always supports the status quo - it argues in defense of those in power, and always has.




...

[anigbrowl]

69. And you are using a common style of argumentation called 'moving the goalposts'.

As I pointed out upthread, the Royal Bank of Scotland group is now largely owned by the government, so the costs of repairing the damage here will indirectly come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

Also, consider that former RBS CEO Fred Goodwin, who is a grade A asshole, certainly did rip off taxpayers, shareholders, and exemplifies the worst of what the financial sector has to offer...but he's already been forced out and is no longer the CEO of RBS. In fact, he resigned two whole months ago.

So I should feel sympathetic to someone smashing the windows of a bank that has already been taken into public ownership, and where the architect of the financial misfortune no longer works?

[Two Americas]

76. don't be ridiculous

I did not say that you "should feel sympathetic to someone smashing the windows of a bank."

Who is "moving the goalposts?"


...

[anigbrowl]

102. My mistake; I referenced the wrong message (ie, not yours) upthread. Sorry.

[Two Americas]

104. no worry

We could argue anyway lol.

[Occam Bandage]

75. All speculation that it might be a cop is pretty much invalid, yes,

just as any speculation with absolutely no evidence or reasonable justification is. I might as well claim it was a rogue social-studies professor performing an off-the-books experiment in mob behavior. Extraordinary claims with no substance and no grounding are not worth considering on the same level as ordinary claims.

I find it ironic you tried to use false equivalence of ideas as a defense. Indeed, your only hope is to rest on false equivalence: that because there is no proof that a protester is not actually a secret cop, baseless speculation that he is a secret cop should be afforded at least similar respect as the claim that he is just a protester.

[ShortnFiery]

79. NO, it's not. It's only INVALID to people who "embrace authority" without question. nt

[Occam Bandage]

82. It's invalid to people who embrace empiricism. nt

[ShortnFiery]

89. Just like the Authority Figures admired, you will not even entertain the possibility that

the person you saw may not be a true anarchist. That's rigid and bordering on the right wing or at least the DLC end of democratic? :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

103. And you're not entertaining the possibility that it was a reptilian humanoid,

which is bordering on fascist. :crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

74. No, the argument is that "it's possible" but you are so threatened by the possibility

that AUTHORITY is not righteous that you will NOT allow any alternative explanation. Now that view, IMO, is stilted. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

80. Conspiracy theorists always claim people are "threatened" by their bullshit.

"Oh, you're just threatened by my claim that the government sprays mind-control fumes using crop dusters!" This is, like most things with conspiracy theorists, ironic; significant research has suggested that the propensity towards conspiracy theories is rooted in a fear of a disordered, ambiguous, and unpredictable world.

[ShortnFiery]

91. But you are... look at all the haranguing and gnashing of teeth. You are FREAKED.

Your behavior says it all but it's not fair for me to tweak you ... my point has been made. :-)

Good-day. :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

96. I've always thought conspiracy theorists need to believe they frighten people because

that is an alternate explanation for the ridicule they receive; they can't handle the thought of people thinking they're a buffoon, much like they can't handle the thought of a disordered world. However, I'm entertaining an alternate hypothesis: that they're so obsessed with being feared because fear denotes importance, and fear of a disordered world leads to insecurity. Maybe "you're afraid of me" is a security blanket of sorts, comforting their fear of insignificance, which has obvious links to their fear of a world without order (or, that is to say, greater significance.)

[ShortnFiery]

108. As the GOP's Saint Ronnie would quip, "There you go again!" ... It's "a tell."

:evilgrin:

[cali]

61. most pathetic "argument" I've seen in a while.

and dog, you are so full of boring dogma and predictable cant.

[Two Americas]

90. that is not a rebuttal

It is a personal attack.

[cali]

59. bzzzt. I am ridiculing the automatic assumption by people on this

thread that the protesters smashing the RBS windows were plants. I'm ridiculing anyone who assumes all cops are evil pigs and all protesters are plaster saints.

[ShortnFiery]

67. Newsflash: You're repeating old behavior patterns that do not serve your intelligence nor

thoughtful personality well. :shrug:

[mod mom]

71. rofl

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

94. ...

You won't let her stand up for herself? It's called enabling. ;)

[mod mom]

70. It's you who makes assumptions, no one but you suggested " all cops are evil pigs ..."

Put your blinders on if you want, but agent provocateurs have been used in the past to instigate trouble. Most protestors are peaceful. Those who incite violence are suspect.

[cali]

78. yes, most protesters are peaceful. duh. did you figure that out all by your little

self? And some aren't. The odds are that some yobs in the crowd started the window breaking, not the cops. Try and learn a wee bit about human nature, dearie.

[ShortnFiery]

93. Yes, we all must LEARN because if we disagree with "certain people" we are just plain WRONG

They tell us so ever damn day. ;) :hi:

[Two Americas]

85. no one did

No one is making "the automatic assumption that the protesters smashing the RBS windows were plants nor that all cops are evil pigs and all protesters are plaster saints."

People are erring on the side of being suspicious of the authorities, while you take the opposite view - relentlessly and consistently, and raise suspicion about and ridicule the powerless, the dissidents, the critics and protestors and defend those in power and authority.

as I mentioned in another post, this is an age-old reactionary argument, precisely the same argument, that was used against the Abolitionists in the 1850's - "not all slave owners are evil" and "not all slaves are saints" - against the early Labor organizers and against every other movement for social justice.


...

[ShortnFiery]

98. "I'm ridiculing anyone ..." No, you end up ridiculing EVERYONE except those who agree with you. nt

[arbusto_baboso]

73. Straw Man operations are nothing new.

Especially for the SAS.

[Occam Bandage]

84. We have just reached an all-time record for "most inaccurate use of the term 'straw man.'"

[backscatter712]

114. I believe the term is "agent provocateur".

I don't have enough information from that photo or elsewhere to say for sure whether the person smashing in that window is a civilian hooligan or a police provocateur.

But I've seen enough police shenanigans that I wouldn't put it past them.

[Uncle Joe]

97. I wonder if he was one of the eight; arrested?

"At least eight people were arrested but there were no serious injuries reported."

[NashVegas]

101. It Looks Like Morrissey

Well, a younger version.

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. My first thought. The distinct possibility.

[New Dawn]

115. Video of Canadian agents-provocateurs caught in the act.

Watch this educational video of Canadian agents-provocateurs being exposed by trade-unionists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

[readmoreoften]

118. I think anyone smashing a window without a balaclava is likely to be a provocateur.

Unless they are new to protest or have a death wish, people hide their face as not to be the target of a manhunt for years to come.

[anigbrowl]

121. Right...while provocateurs want everyone to be able to ID them

That's a really great way to do things on the downlow if you're serving a political agenda...make sure everyone (particularly the media) can see your face very clearly, so you can be easily identified later as a member of the the police or whoever. Agents provocateur LOVE being caught on camera without any kind of disguise.

By the way, I have this bridge that I'm trying to sell. You seem like the sort of person who'd be interested.

[ShortnFiery]

124. And you KNOW all these "tells" because you worked for a left leaning publication? nt

[anigbrowl]

130. No, because I have basic common sense

If you look at other examples of agents provocateur, some of which are mentioned on this thread, they tend to go masked, for obvious reasons.

The ONLY piece of evidence offered for the possibility of this guy being such is...his haircut. For some reason, I'm not convinced.

[moondust]

122. Profile much?

[SeattleGirl]

125. Ah yes. Every protester who breaks something, hits something,

overturns something, or causes ANY kind of damage is actually a cop.

We all know that ALL protesters are pure, good people who only have the highest good in mind when they protest.

And we all know that ALL cops are dirty, lying somebitches who have only the destruction of the protesters on their minds.

I'm really sick of this attitude.

I DO think most protesters are not out trying to destroy things. But I DON'T think that there aren't those among them who really don't give a flying fuck about the point of the protest; they just see it as an excuse to act like assholes.

And I KNOW that there are cops out there who turn their testosterone on full blast the moment they put their uniform on, and use any kind of protest as an excuse to bash heads and/or slap the cuffs on. But I DON'T think that that is true across the board.

I get tired of the knee-jerk reaction around here about protesters and cops, as if it's all black and white, good guy and bad guy.

[ShortnFiery]

126. We've already had our full dose of hyperbole on both sides. No need to stoke the fires

of discontent. Well, let's agree that we live in a world of complexities? ;)

[arcadian]

127. responding

I want to read this tomorrow