Provocateur Cops Caught Disguised As Anarchists At G20

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by and14263

 

I never said it was off-topic. I don't control that stuff or really worry about it. I just didn't think it was relevant to if they were cops or not. If the cursing bothers you so be it, you can talk about it all day.. I don't care about it but that's just me.

As to other proclaiming it is irrational to determine if they are cops by sight..I'm guessing you never lived around cops/soldiers/first responders? Believe me when I say there are overlapping personality traits, manners and such.

Ok look, this is going down an unproductive route and I've stopped learning. Please re read what I said about my views on swearing, this was in reply to your post so I thought you would have read it, however I typed a lot so I can understand if you skimmed over it.

In my eyes swearing shows a person is intouch with their emotions, it expresses true anger, love and passion. the problem is the media has conditioned the general public to believe swearing equals a lack of vocabulary and therefore stupidity.

Look, we live in a world were lots of things are f****d up. Much of this stems from materialism and instant gratification. A form of instant gratification comes in stereotypes. We can use these to get instant judgements on people. Firstly stereotypes are common for a reason, the sad fact is lack of diversity means they are often pretty damn accurate. Ask a poker player how he/she asseses their opponents when they first sit down at a table.

So judging by looks can often work. This doesn't mean it's right. Things can work but still be bad. That's why we try and look for hard evidence to support our theories. Of course, some people need instant gratification in their beliefs, they have to believe yes or no, true or false. We are taught to come to a decision and not hold a 'sketchy' view. Athiest or christian? Erm well I don't really know, there's so much to both sides I'll never really know.
this leads people to make assumptions on looks.

You could take this not trusting your assumptions down to a skeletal level www.sparknotes.com...

These guys are out of place, there is something going on but the answer the video is pushing me towards requires that I take a leap of faith based on only what I can see... through a video which has no conclusion.

Your all being played like a fiddle.

What happens when the real protesters show up, the ones that are against this "Police State"?

How do you think they will be dressed? How will they behave? I'd hope they'd be as formadable looking as these 3 guys, and have some type of knowledge of surveillance and crowd control tactics.

Anarchists are paranoid as hell. Of course they are gonna conceal thier identity. Maybe they were just testing the reaction they'd get from the crowd, for future projects, no one knows.

These videos, ALL OF them Show NOTHING conclusive.

For all anyone knows these guys were patriots, sizing up the police forces, seeing how many protesters were actually competant to cover THIER backs should the need arise.

But no. Now anytime a real force shows up in say a group of 20+ dressed this way, there to protect the protesters with thier lives if TSHTF, your gonna out them as cops?

The video shows nadda, nothing zip. Just 3 guys, concealing thier identity. Why do you jump to the conclusion they were concealing thier identity from you and not the police? Because they didn't whisper, "hey, we're with you guys, here, take a picture of my face if you don't trust me?" Is that what you NEED as proof?" How do they know Miss suzy home-maker takeing pics of them isn't undercover?

Bottom line, you won't know who your enemy is at these sorts of protests until it's too late. Your better off stayoing the hell away from these things.

Form some grass root community militias, where you all know who is who. Then when the SHTF you'll know, ok anyone with a blue bandana around thier left leg is on your side.

Right now both sides are undercover, gathering intelligence. There is NO WAY to KNOW (by the videos posted in this thread) who is police, and who is a patriot.

Think outside the box, or you'll be trapped inside a 6x8 foot one.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Nola213]

reply to post by and14263


I'm not here to teach you. I'm not here judging you. My point was that this woman in question could have been flopping about screeching "I am the walrus"..It doesn't really matter does it?

Either they were cops or they weren't cops. It's ok to say well "The video doesn't prove anything". That's fine.

If they were cops we have to ask if it's appropriate for cops to disguise themselves as anarchists and follow around protesters. It has to be asked if they partook in any criminal acts while undercover. Just part of the thing.

The revolution will not be televised, it will however be syndicated, t-shirts will be sold, and everyone will know "the truth" that "they" want you to know.

I have been commenting on agent provocateurs for a while now here on ATS and I find it amazing that anyone within the Law Enforcement community would even bother to try doing this, both for the legality, or it being illegal, as well as the possibility of these people getting found out as antagonistic individuals and that the crowd might not react in a peaceful manner throwing them out but instead killing these agent provocateurs.

Are You The Victim of An Agent Provocateur, On ATS?

I am not condoning the killing of Law Enforcement Officer's, nor am I condoning them becoming agent provocateurs, but at the same time you have to wonder at the logic behind sending in a single individual or a group of individuals to act as agent provocateurs, because some people will become highly agitated and just kill them, while other people will just outsmart them.

Having been accused, abused, and screamed at for appearing to be a Police Officer, when I am not, just because I walk, talk, and think like one, I have been right in the middle of that feeling, when someone points their finger and makes the accusation of being Law Enforcement, and every time I back them down through verbal de-escalation assuring them I am not.

This to me would be the closest I can say I have come to this particular situation, but it was at smaller settings, with one, two, three, or a group setting of no more than twenty, but to me being able to handle myself in that situation came easily, but at an event of this magnitude it would seem almost suicidal of anyone sending in let alone being that Law Enforcement Officer going in voluntarily.

False Flag Operator, Become Sheep-Dipped Or Wolf-Dipped, and Become A Puppet Dictator?

Anyone else seen the thread below?

An Intro To Anarchism

That one is not mine but I thought it was curious considering the topic of this thread.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

How were they "Provocateurs"?

I just saw potentially 'disguised' LE.

Just askin'.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
How were they "Provocateurs"?

I just saw potentially 'disguised' LE.

Just askin'.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by loam]

Well, whether they were there as agent provocateurs or not, they were caught.

Sometimes Law Enforcement will send in undercover Officer's just to get the "temperature" of the crowd, something I can understand, but as well there have been times where they were sent in to stir the crowd up into a riot.

I am not necessarily saying this was what was intended for this particular instance, but it does happen.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Once again a totally misleading headline which reflects someones guess and NOT PROVEN FACT.
And even if they were cops. its not as if they were even behaving as 'agents provocateurs'. Sheesh....
You get all sorts of troublemakers latching on to these demos. Can't beat a good brick through a window heh? Did anyone think that even if they were cops, they might actually be there to give the alarm about potential flashpoints or keep an eye for known troublemakers - thus helping protect the genuine demonstrators? Nor is having an undercover presence at such events particularly Orwellian or new.
Talk about paranoia run rampant. Keep on taking the blue pill...


[edit on 29-9-2009 by unicorn1]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by unicorn1]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by unicorn1]

These guys were not undercover in the typical sense. They were "in your face" obvious. They stood out intentionally.

In my opinion they were there to intimidate. To make it obvious to the crowd of protesters that they were being watched from within.

Undercover ops are usually very discreet. This was anything but.

All I see is a claim that they were cops.

No substance.
No actual fact.
Just a claim.

And a response based on the unsubstantiated claim.

Its not news reporting - its "views" reporting.

Why didnt the person with the video camera follow them secretly rather than in their face and catch them doing something provable. Creating problems, taking off their bandanas and matching their pictures with their police pictures. Anything! "Provocateur Cops Caught Disguised As Anarchists At G20" is misleading and only serves to diminish future claims. Aka "crying wolf".

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by and14263

 

I'm not here to teach you. I'm not here judging you. My point was that this woman in question could have been flopping about screeching "I am the walrus"..It doesn't really matter does it?

Either they were cops or they weren't cops. It's ok to say well "The video doesn't prove anything". That's fine.

If they were cops we have to ask if it's appropriate for cops to disguise themselves as anarchists and follow around protesters. It has to be asked if they partook in any criminal acts while undercover. Just part of the thing.

You fail to understand that it does matter. Look at the title of the thread then look at the video and decide who is behaving in a provovative manner.

If they were cops we should ask why they were there. Unfortunately from actions of late their reason (which would probably be to keep the peace) is fragile. But look at the evidence if they did give the reason then the video supports this.

Are they disguised? Yes. As anarchists? Sorry, what does an anarchist look like? You do know that anarchy doesn't have anything to do with fighting and spitting on each other? Anarchists don't all look like Sid Viscious. Anarchy is a state with no laws, no political structure and no hierachical dictator/leader. A true anarchist who believes in anarchy and understands it will tell you that nowhere in anarchy does violence need to exist. However it may arise if people are too weak to control their emotions.

They look more like skinheads or football hooligans as I said earlier, I wouldn't be foolish enough to judge them on looks alone though, for reasons I mentioned before.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by and14263]

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Ask yourself:
what's the point of undercover cops in general?
it's their goddamn job

Undercover cops are necessary when investigating say..organized crime, or uncovering drug shipments destined for the streets of any major city.

They are not required to infiltrate civil protests by people who simply want their voices heard in a country where this is supposed to be guaranteed to them by the articles on which your country was founded on.

Placing masked cops in the guise of anarchists can only serve to increase the suspicion of those around us furthering the control effected by the elite. Since you cannot fathom these simple concepts i will waste no more of my time on you except to say that in the future, when your rights have been stripped and you look to your neighbor for help, don't expect any. You might be young and strong now, but in 30-40 years you wont be.

Good luck in your future, you helped create it.
..Ex

reply to post by Nola213


Those guys could indeed be members of a militia that were doing some intel work.

Think about this:

You and a couple of your associates, true patriots, decided to scope out the G20.

Some protesters start calling you out as cops are you going to take off your bandanna in front of all those cameras and yell:

"We are the good guys, were on your side, we are the ones that will really fight when the time comes, true patriots that will fight against tyranny and oppression'...

hell no that would put you on a DT list pretty fast.

A true patriot would take the verbal bashing knowing they are really the goods guys.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by lucentenigma]

calm down the cops just walk with the ignorant crowd.. swearing in public good image for children.. wat losers

I've only gone through a couple of pages, so I hope someone else has already mentioned this, but since there was so much damage to the storefronts while the protestors were fleeing, this damage probably came from these guys. Because like what motivation could fleeing protestors have for vandalizing the storefronts, but on the other hand our illustrious government would oh so much think they could get away with something like that. The business owners not only lost business from G20, but had damage to their property. Have the protest leaders tried to contact the business owners to let them know that they didn't think their people were responsible? Because it is simply logically that the fleeing protestors didn't do it.

dont see any proof that they are cops. at all.

more likely it was alex jones and his freinds themselves.

Wake up people..... The guys that have been singled out may be here to protect the people that have been hired to protest..... They had protesters brought to Dallas 25 years ago for the Republican National Convention that arrived in luxury motor homes with California plates and appeared to been hired from central casting to play a role..... There where a number of them arrested and released the night the convention was over to be picked up by the same motor homes parked up and down he street near the city jail.... They were arrested for virtually nothing but there were local and national coverage when they were..... The guy that stirred up all of the emotional rhetoric used by both of the Bush campaigns regarding flag burning was a staged event in front of the city hall.... The flag burner patiently waited while smoking an illegal substance telling others to wait around to see him burn a flag and that the camera men will be arriving soon..... When they did he got up from a bench and put on his act after the cameras were in place..... The majority of those protesting are just actors being used as a side show and distraction from what is really going on and needs to be covered by the press..... Unfortunately the press is in on it too.

Originally posted by Jenna
I watched the video, but I think I must have missed something.. What were these three doing that means they were cops trying to stir crap up? They weren't talking, and didn't move much except to walk with the crowd. A guy at the beginning says one of them broke his camera, but we don't know what was going on to cause the camera to get broken or if it even really happened.

Hey Genius, they aren't doing anything because their "cover" was blown. They knew if they did anything they'd get followed by citizens and cause an embarrassment for the Police/Operation. So they just laid low, pretended to be part of the crowd and act "normal".

Originally posted by neformore
All I see is a claim that they were cops.

No substance.
No actual fact.
Just a claim.

And a response based on the unsubstantiated claim.

Its not news reporting - its "views" reporting.

If you put this video into context (as prison planet has done), the guys in this video are clearly cops. How do we know? Because you never once see them deny that they are cops (which is illegal for them to do if they are cops).

If they guys weren't cops, why don't you see them deny it in the video? I know I sure as hell would.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by harrytuttle]

reply to post by harrytuttle


not really they have taken it out of context with no proof they are police.

what just because they are older, they are cops? this makes no sense. people of all ages have opinions on global affairs.

all it is is alex jones own spin on it. from someone who claims that the mass media is biased and pushing an agenda nwo etc... and what exactly does he do? plus he makes a living from it. hypocrite..

i would rather listen to a blowhorn than this guy.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by MR BOB]