CNN: rioters at Berkeley were actually "Right wing" agent provocateurs.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I'm sorry but your post is riddled with question-begging, appeals to authority, ad hom and a wide variety of straw men and red herrings. How are you right and everyone else wrong again?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: fencesitter85

In their defense, the people supporting Trump are generally understood to be 'lesser educated'.

Yep!

You and fencesitter really sowed us conservatives by providing absolutely no evidence and ignoring every point that I raised on the issue! Shame you can't respond to my "less educated" points.

And you don't see the irony of claiming conservatives just call names while doing the exact same things yourselves.

Honestly, what am I supposed to respond to? You guys reject all manners of facts. Every respectable media source you reject. You may be educated, but you're also a total moron. I just don't always have energy to engage in a reasoned argument with someone who has established they're beyond reason. Go justify your Muslim ban, or the deportation, or torture and murder, or why we should deny the claims of scientists. Go listen to Trump and his alt-right admin with their alternative facts. What could I possibly offer you, when you're on the side of alternative facts? You're a f-ing moron, I'm sorry.

How does a person respect people who deny so much? There are better people than I who will more respectably challenge you on your little alt-right bubble ideas. I just see you as a narrow minded moron. And I know you disagree and you'll spew your little bullsh#t... but at the end of the day, you're wrong and nothing is going to change that.

From my general experience the moment someone goes to insulting someone they no longer have facts to cover their argument. You don't have to insult people if your losing an argument say I was wrong and bow out.

I've thought about this a lot since a lot in the last couple days, I believe the group that caused the violence at Berkeley was a funded group as I believe the one that did most of the damage on Inauguration day was. Most likely I'd say by the same people. Same general clothing/dress, a lot of the same slogans, a lot of the same signs, and acted in similar ways.

But I kinda get to thinking about who has the most to gain out of something like this. The typical go-to that people on the right would say is that it was George Soros. What would the motivation be to send in a group to start a mini riot like this, hope that somehow it swells and an entire school begins burning their campus and starts similar violence across the country, where people begin destroying their cities? I would think that not only would he realize the chances of that arent very high, but that if he were trying to advance an anti-Trump agenda that this kind of violence does infact turn off a large majority of the population. I dont doubt that there are stupid people that may resort to violence, but I feel like the majority know that it wouldnt help their cause. I can assure you many people I know on the anti-Trump side are disgusted they do this because it ruins the message everyone, that point gets continued in the next paragraph.

When I think of who benefits from it most, I feel like its more likely that the right side does. They can take the footage of protestors and claim that the left is a bunch of violent thugs, who cannot control themselves without causing violence, and that is exactly what I saw from Washington, its exactly what I've seen from Berkeley. Every single "conservative" or "right wing" news or social media page is sharing groups, making memes out of it, etc and using it to claim that the left is a bunch of thugs that cannot control themselves. They can take clips like those we saw at Berkeley and win the narrative.

Obviously I dont have concrete proof, but to me it sounds like the "conservative media" comes out ahead on every event like this, and that some people in their camp could logically be trying to paint the other side in this manner, because if thats what they're trying it obviously works.

Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

a reply to: trb71

Fair enough if thats what you believe.

A couple of questions if you don't mind.

Seeing as how violence or the threat of violence has been used to shut down conservative speakers again and again, do you think that it is also likely that it has been right wing people doing this in every case?

Secondly, we see poeple on ATS, campuses, the media, the entertainment industry and elected officials who identify as people on the left all suggesting that Milo not be allowed to speak on Campus. Do you feel all of these people are secret right wingers? If not, don't you think there is a good possibility that one of them would actually use violence to acheive their goal, even if it was bad publicity?

Lastly, if you are going with this who benefits mentality, so you use that in all instances?

For example, was occupy wall street actually pro wall street people?

Was Dylan Roof an anti white nationalist plant?

a reply to: D8Tee

SOUNDS GOOD

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

When it's all said and done, any violence committed by liberals, or perceived committed by liberals only helps this new Alt-right White Nationalist Admin establish a new brand of homegrown extremist to go after.

The best solutions are peaceful protest and the efforts by members in government to reign in any abuses by the Trump admin. Like Homeland Security suspending Trump's travel ban and reinstating visas... Those are the good fights keeping us American.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

When it's all said and done, any violence committed by liberals, or perceived committed by liberals only helps this new Alt-right White Nationalist Admin establish a new brand of homegrown extremist to go after.

The best solutions are peaceful protest and the efforts by members in government to reign in any abuses by the Trump admin. Like Homeland Security suspending Trump's travel ban and reinstating visas... Those are the good fights keeping us American.

Despite your name calling of me, I still value your input.

I applaud you, and think that you are totally right for advocating against violence.

Can I ask you for proof that Milo is a Nazi, or basically a Nazi?

ATTENTION:

Personal attacks and insults are not allowed anywhere on ATS. Please keep it on topic or move on.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: gladtobehere

He has know way of knowing anyway. This is really very funny

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

Yes the rest of the crazy sorts in this country have a long way to go before they measure up to assorted left group violence. Anyway this is all crap. This is fake news the radicals did this same guys hanging around assorted protests over the last 5 or 6 years.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: fencesitter85

In their defense, the people supporting Trump are generally understood to be 'lesser educated'.

Seeing that over 55% of White females voted for Trump, your statement is very bigoted, racist, and sexist.

You will not divide us.

Your president is already dividing you. Not only within your country, but from the rest of the world too.

Regarding that 55%, do you mean 55% of the trump voters were white females? Because your comment suggests 55% of ALL white females in America, which wouldn't add up at all.

I only hope that when he does screw things up, you guys hold him accountable rather than just making excuses for what he does. Questioning your leadership does not mean you made a mistake in supporting them. Nor does it make you a traitor or a snowflake. It means you're smart and also means such leaders can't just run amok without having to answer to anyone.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

When it's all said and done, any violence committed by liberals, or perceived committed by liberals only helps this new Alt-right White Nationalist Admin establish a new brand of homegrown extremist to go after.

The best solutions are peaceful protest and the efforts by members in government to reign in any abuses by the Trump admin. Like Homeland Security suspending Trump's travel ban and reinstating visas... Those are the good fights keeping us American.

Can I ask you for proof that Milo is a Nazi, or basically a Nazi?

No, we should get more specific about Milo is and what he attracts. I don't think Nazi's would appreciate me calling him a Nazi as much as Milo might. And I shouldn't call him a Nazi. He's something else. He's a troll. He attracts anger. He thrives in hate. He basically thrives in an atmosphere where people want to beat the sh#t out of him. He's an agitator and a Trump supporter. He could be perceived as a Nazi because he could easily use Nazi language to rile people up. He's more shapeshifter than an actually Nazi. He's an extremely toxic divisive force.... a great tool for tearing the country apart.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

When it's all said and done, any violence committed by liberals, or perceived committed by liberals only helps this new Alt-right White Nationalist Admin establish a new brand of homegrown extremist to go after.

The best solutions are peaceful protest and the efforts by members in government to reign in any abuses by the Trump admin. Like Homeland Security suspending Trump's travel ban and reinstating visas... Those are the good fights keeping us American.

Can I ask you for proof that Milo is a Nazi, or basically a Nazi?

No, we should get more specific about Milo is and what he attracts. I don't think Nazi's would appreciate me calling him a Nazi as much as Milo might. And I shouldn't call him a Nazi. He's something else. He's a troll. He attracts anger. He thrives in hate. He basically thrives in an atmosphere where people want to beat the sh#t out of him. He's an agitator and a Trump supporter. He could be perceived as a Nazi because he could easily use Nazi language to rile people up. He's more shapeshifter than an actually Nazi. He's an extremely toxic divisive force.... a great tool for tearing the country apart.

But our country has a great history of provocateurs.

For example, many of the Vietnam protestors were intentionally trolling people that were for the war.

How about a group like Pussy Riot in Russia, in the spirit of the Ramones and Sex Pistols, outraging peoples sensibilities to make a point about sexuality. Do you think they to are horrible for intentionally outraging people?

Would you condemn Malcolm X for the anger he caused, intentionally upsetting the establishment?

And what about modern day liberals provocateurs like Micheal Moore or Lena Dunham? They thrive on the anger they cause.

What about divisive race hucksters like Al Sharpton or Eric Holder, would you criticize them for divisiveness?

Milo is like a ton of liberal people who use humor and mock the right to prove points. Some of his jokes are extremely vulgar, but so are peoples like Dave Chapelle or Chris Rock that mock conservative people, and I don't see rots over them.

Milo has never called for violence or censorship (if so can you show me). He has never endorsed racial violence, or suggested for a racially pure country. In fact, he has often said the US should be ashamed and do more over slavery.

It seems that a lot of vitriol towards him comes from the fact that he is against feminist, and against things like identity politics and the Obama administration.

This does not make him a nazi.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
Whether or not he's correct, it's a lazy excuse. Liberals seem to believe that their side is completely incapable of violence, so they often experience a kind of a cognitive dissonance when something like this happens. They need to get over that, lest they get lumped together with violent extremists

Actually I think liberals are very capable of violence. On this issue at Berkeley, I'm open minded to any possible reason for that violence. To me the most obvious is bird dogging. We basically had a Nazi go visit the most liberal college in the country. It's a perfect storm no matter what. I have no doubt though that liberals, when faced with evil in the form of racism, bigotry, and hate speech, can get violent. Our country has a history of killing Nazi's. I don't think the hatred for Nazis has disappeared.

When it's all said and done, any violence committed by liberals, or perceived committed by liberals only helps this new Alt-right White Nationalist Admin establish a new brand of homegrown extremist to go after.

The best solutions are peaceful protest and the efforts by members in government to reign in any abuses by the Trump admin. Like Homeland Security suspending Trump's travel ban and reinstating visas... Those are the good fights keeping us American.

Can I ask you for proof that Milo is a Nazi, or basically a Nazi?

No, we should get more specific about Milo is and what he attracts. I don't think Nazi's would appreciate me calling him a Nazi as much as Milo might. And I shouldn't call him a Nazi. He's something else. He's a troll. He attracts anger. He thrives in hate. He basically thrives in an atmosphere where people want to beat the sh#t out of him. He's an agitator and a Trump supporter. He could be perceived as a Nazi because he could easily use Nazi language to rile people up. He's more shapeshifter than an actually Nazi. He's an extremely toxic divisive force.... a great tool for tearing the country apart.

But our country has a great history of provocateurs.

For example, many of the Vietnam protestors were intentionally trolling people that were for the war.

How about a group like Pussy Riot in Russia, in the spirit of the Ramones and Sex Pistols, outraging peoples sensibilities to make a point about sexuality. Do you think they to are horrible for intentionally outraging people?

Would you condemn Malcolm X for the anger he caused, intentionally upsetting the establishment?

And what about modern day liberals provocateurs like Micheal Moore or Lena Dunham? They thrive on the anger they cause.

What about divisive race hucksters like Al Sharpton or Eric Holder, would you criticize them for divisiveness?

Milo is like a ton of liberal people who use humor and mock the right to prove points. Some of his jokes are extremely vulgar, but so are peoples like Dave Chapelle or Chris Rock that mock conservative people, and I don't see rots over them.

Milo has never called for violence or censorship (if so can you show me). He has never endorsed racial violence, or suggested for a racially pure country. In fact, he has often said the US should be ashamed and do more over slavery.

It seems that a lot of vitriol towards him comes from the fact that he is against feminist, and against things like identity politics and the Obama administration.

This does not make him a nazi.

Provocateurs are not the same as trolls. These other people you mention, they may say things that are offensive or test the boundaries of sensibilities... Milo appeals more to attacks. His method would be to intentionally and disrespectfully attack as a means to get a rise out of people, and then attack them again for the rise he got. He subscribes more to an abusive tactic. Whatever he believes, trolling to the point of intentionally distressing people, to incite violence or anger... to only then call them on it and ridicule them for it.... He would have been a great propaganda tool for the Nazis making Jews look like whining babies, and even the Americans who fought Nazi's as hateful children. He's horrible.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Is he wrong? Its difficult to say.

Could they have been agent provocateurs or "Right wingers" stirring up trouble? Possibly.

Could they just as easily have been "Left wing" violent protestors/rioters? Absolutely.

Fact is, false flags of this nature and agent provocateurs are real.

The best example probably being the FBI's COINTELPRO.

New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies.

ACLU wants probe into police-staged DNC protest.

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest.

This thread should be in the "HOAX" bin ...... Since this has already been proven to be fake news and a lie. One thug has been identified as a UC employee ...

Sad to see so many partisan hacks posting disinfo on a site that once searched for truth .........

a reply to: fnpmitchreturns

To top it all off, the story from CNN itself says 'rumours'.
No credible evidence.
Not saying it's not possible, but rumours and unnamed sources do little for me.
The Dems never learned from the HRC campaign, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I hadn't even heard of Milo before these events, now he's a household name and his book is selling like hotcakes.
Fortune and fame, thanks to the brilliance of the left.

a reply to: D8Tee

It's not a hoax. CNN accurately states rumors and that's what it is. Since when do you have a problem with rumors?

Milo likes to prank. It's probably true. He probably is behind it just to enjoy the aftermath. His top goal is to make the left look bad. This brings him success and he's the one to gain from a left-wing 'riot' whether real or not.

Which means this thread isn't a hoax at all... but a rumor that may be true. Welcome to ATS.

a reply to: trb71

Not a funded 'Group' or 'Organization, we are Anti-Capitalism and want to abolish it, to think that Soro's would fund people that want to abolish him is ignorant