Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's entirely possible that the paint throwing civilians were, in fact, cops. This sort of thing is done to justify the quick and dirty removal of the otherwise peaceful assembly.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

How about a more plausible explanation? OWS is being used as an opportunity by anarchist donkey-caves to cause problems? This is Seattle we're talking about.

never checked the link did you Tyr

Tyyr, and no I can't. It's blocked.

However baring the police admitting to having people planted in the crowd I'm not sure what I'd get from it that would alter my ribbing him about assuming the people causing problems were cops in disguise.

brick was shown thrown and then a road flare came in at the cops.

One OWS protester at the beginning was telling te reporters it was a peaceful protest. Reporters video showing the same guy being quite aggresive towards law enforcement before he made the "peaceful protest" comment

Tyyr wrote:

It's entirely possible that the paint throwing civilians were, in fact, cops. This sort of thing is done to justify the quick and dirty removal of the otherwise peaceful assembly.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

How about a more plausible explanation? OWS is being used as an opportunity by anarchist donkey-caves to cause problems? This is Seattle we're talking about.

That guy still has yet to provide a single example

AustonT wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

It's entirely possible that the paint throwing civilians were, in fact, cops. This sort of thing is done to justify the quick and dirty removal of the otherwise peaceful assembly.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

How about a more plausible explanation? OWS is being used as an opportunity by anarchist donkey-caves to cause problems? This is Seattle we're talking about.

That guy still has yet to provide a single example

You don't need me to hold your hand, buddy.

This reminds me of the hippies back in the 1960's. Most people here only know about those times from what they've read or seen, but hippies used to hang out at my parents farm talking about all the killer demonstrations they'd been in.
All the emotion you see in the news reels from that time is in large part for the cameras and any member of the opposite sex they were trying to impress at the time.
Some got too caught up in their own image and started causing property damage and in some cases, injury and death.
I heard a lot of first hand stories back then and the occupiers are a very close echo.
After a bit, they'll realize that they are idiots, even if they don't admit it and get on with life.
Of course there will be those who try to lionize themselves, but it's mostly bs on their part.

Did you just dismiss the entire protest movement of the 60s as hippies trying to impress the opposite sex and look cool for the camera? You don't think people were genuinely interested in putting a stop to the Vietnam War, or in the Civil Rights struggle?

feeder wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

It's entirely possible that the paint throwing civilians were, in fact, cops. This sort of thing is done to justify the quick and dirty removal of the otherwise peaceful assembly.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

How about a more plausible explanation? OWS is being used as an opportunity by anarchist donkey-caves to cause problems? This is Seattle we're talking about.

That guy still has yet to provide a single example

You don't need me to hold your hand, buddy.

Without proof you and your tinfoil hat are full of it.

AustonT wrote:
Without proof you and your tinfoil hat are full of it.

Really? Are you so rude IRL?

"I don't need to hold your hand" - if you are interested to learn more, google is your friend. Otherwise, I am not looking for debate, merely making an observation.

feeder wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Without proof you and your tinfoil hat are full of it.

Really? Are you so rude IRL?

"I don't need to hold your hand" - if you are interested to learn more, google is your friend. Otherwise, I am not looking for debate, merely making an observation.

In other words, "I don't need to prove myself to anyone, I can simply spout anything I please, unsupported by any sort of evidence."

That's how I read it.

Were I the type to point out fallacies, I would do so.

This one is called shifting the burden of proof.

Mannahnin wrote:Did you just dismiss the entire protest movement of the 60s as hippies trying to impress the opposite sex and look cool for the camera? You don't think people were genuinely interested in putting a stop to the Vietnam War, or in the Civil Rights struggle?

To put it in perspective for you, I was around hippies quite a bit because we'd have them in fair numbers around town and at the farm that I lived on starting around 1967. At that time, I was 10 and considered invisible, so I heard a lot of unguarded conversations. There was always talk about how cool the latest protest or riot in Boston was and how good it was to be in on.
I never really heard anyone agonizing over the war unless there were members of the opposite sex around or someone was facing getting drafted, at which point, a lot would head over the mountain into Canada(I grew up by the New Brunswick) border. Just about any other time, it was talk of partying.
Just my veiw from what I personally witnessed over the course of a few years.

Relapse wrote:
To put it in perspective for you, I was around hippies quite a bit because we'd have them in fair numbers around town and at the farm that I lived on starting around 1967. At that time, I was 10 and considered invisible, so I heard a lot of unguarded conversations. There was always talk about how cool the latest protest or riot in Boston was and how good it was to be in on.
I never really heard anyone agonizing over the war unless there were members of the opposite sex around or someone was facing getting drafted, at which point, a lot would head over the mountain into Canada(I grew up by the New Brunswick) border. Just about any other time, it was talk of partying.
Just my veiw from what I personally witnessed over the course of a few years.

That's not uncommon in large protest movements, as generally only the organizers take a serious interest in the cause itself. This doesn't necessarily impugn the movement itself, though, as there are always varying levels of commitment involved, and even the most dedicated womanizer can only keep up the facade for so long without at least being ambivalent towards the movement.

If you want an analogous comparison, I know plenty of people who went to Tea Party protests in order to network for the purposes of career advancement, rather than any actual interest in the positions of the Tea Party.

Its also worth noting that hippies were a sub-culture famed for protesting, and not a protest movement, so the collective attitudes of the group were likely very different from that of simple protesters.

feeder wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Without proof you and your tinfoil hat are full of it.

Really? Are you so rude IRL?

"I don't need to hold your hand" - if you are interested to learn more, google is your friend. Otherwise, I am not looking for debate, merely making an observation.

I'm not your parents I don't have to entertain your fantasies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
must be Aliens

Ah, but you can't prove that the police didn't throw bricks at themselves!

Touché.

AustonT wrote:
I'm not your parents I don't have to entertain your fantasies.

You seem to be a very unpleasant and arrogant little man. Why be so offensive?

dogma wrote:This one is called shifting the burden of proof.

Agreed, and if this was an article or a court of law or even a reasoned debate I would. But I don't care to. Arguing on an internet forum is a bit of an exercise in futility, unless to one is merely looking to argue for argument's sake.

AustonT wrote:

feeder wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

It's entirely possible that the paint throwing civilians were, in fact, cops. This sort of thing is done to justify the quick and dirty removal of the otherwise peaceful assembly.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

How about a more plausible explanation? OWS is being used as an opportunity by anarchist donkey-caves to cause problems? This is Seattle we're talking about.

That guy still has yet to provide a single example

You don't need me to hold your hand, buddy.

Without proof you and your tinfoil hat are full of it.

Well in Canada we have (which seems to follow similar tactics but got caught by virtue of their own stupidity):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

feeder wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I'm not your parents I don't have to entertain your fantasies.

You seem to be a very unpleasant and arrogant little man. Why be so offensive?

Your sig provides an excellent answer.:
Because I'm trying to help you. I'm trying to help you have standards. I'm trying to make you know that the world isn't pleased to see you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

efarrer wrote:
Well in Canada we have (which seems to follow similar tactics but got caught by virtue of their own stupidity):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

Is this the only time? The fact that they were Quebecois police somehow makes their perfidy and stupidity almost expected.