Originally posted by DeusEx
reply to post by billybob
And one does assume by your tone that you can chalk up all protest idiocy to the police? Yes, those officers were in the wrong. Then again, the SQ is
used to playing hardball. Those security fences didn't come down because of police action, it's because PROTESTERS chose to take up violent means.
Now that I think about it, this doesn't seem any different than a buy-bust. You get offered a choice: buy drugs, or do not. Pay the undercover
officer for sex, or do not. Heave that rock, or do not. It is YOUR choice that dictates the results. You have free will, do you not?
'The cops encouraged me to to do it' is not an excuse for wanton violence and vandalism now, is it?
DE
you seem to miss the poignant point that the only one with a big rock in his hand was a policeman disguised as a radical violent protester. in a big
protester/riot police situation, just one violent episode is enough to give the police the 'right' to start pepper spraying, lobbing tear gas, and
banging heads with their batons.
it is not at all the same as a case of ENTRAPMENT as you have described.
any security fences that came down in quebec city were arguably caused by more police agent provocateurs, as it is OBVIOUS that the "strategy" of
the quebec police DRONES was to disperse all protest by evoking FALSE FLAG violence.
nixon needed kent state, and sacrificed those four dead in ohio to quell further dissent from upstart "bleeding heart liberal lefties" at other
campuses(because of the cambodia controversy). they murdered those kids on purpose as a political checkmate move. it worked.
there is nothing new under the sun. it seems only a very few have eyes that catch the full spectrum.
you're a cop, aren't you? right there, your fealty to your brothers in arms gives you a personal bias that automatically gives the benefit of the
doubt to the boys in blue over the ("lefty")unwashed masses of useless eaters, eh?
no disrespect intended to you personally, but the badge is no longer an indicator of the morals and motivations of the wearer. when i read, "to
serve and protect", all that i can think is, 'serve and protect what? not the inherent sense of right and wrong we are born with, obviously. not
even laws carved in stone, if they happen to be broken by elite untouchables. just big bucks. to serve and protect the owners of the system'. and,
coincidentally, that is what history illustrates.