The Conspiracy Chicks G-20 Misinfo or Disinfo?

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by EspyderMan

 

Then the footage was also the real deal of police dressed as plain clothed protesters in 2010 Toronto at G20.

Fact.

Related ATS discussion used in the CC broadcast.

Wow, ok I suppose it's now my turn to apologize. I had not seen the full video (which is at the top of the topic linked to in AshleyDs post above) which does quite clearly show plaincothed cops running for cover behind the riot line. I understand the time limitations but its too bad that they could not have used the full clip or at least more of it in the Conspiracy Chicks video.

However, there is still the issue of what exactly were these undercover cops engaged in. In Montebello they were clearly caught redhanded trying to start a riot. Hopefully we can find more clear proof of exactly what other activities (such as how much of the property destruction) they are responsible for.

Thank you for keeping me sharp and hopefully I have succeeded in sharpening you!

Edit: Ack, quoted wrong section...

[edit on 15-7-2010 by dangerouslogic]

It's unfortunate that the first video you watched on ATS was a video of a series that just only started a few weeks ago. The conspiracy Chicks are on a low budget I'm sure, and they're are doing thier best to just cover the largest ATS threads, and members concerns. This was what only thier 3rd show. I don't even think it was an official installment. Possibly a short show, rush job to cover the events there in Canada.

So AshleyD made an error. She apologized. I can forgive her. Especially since she is a loooong time member and poster from way back. I highly doubt if ATS is even pushing dis/misinfo, that Ashley would even know about it.

Take it easy on the gals they're doing their best.

Thanks for clearing this up Ashley. I hope your stomach virus is gone, and your feeling better. I'm sorry to hear you felt so badly after seeing the episode, that's terrible, especially after all I'm sure you worked very hard on it. But chin up, chalk it up as a learning experience, and forge ahead. =)


*Ludwig Van's 9th can be heard playing in the background*

"OH My dear brothers, as far as the issue at hand, there's no doubt that police are dressing up in maskies and inciting a little bit of thier own "ultrta-violence" to stir up the other peaceful protesting "malchicks".Very naughty indeed. As far as the officers "tolchocking" the poor camera man, he deserves a swift kick to the "yarbles...., if he has any yarbles."

Three of their fellow "droogies" were caught red-handed back in Quebec as the OP stated, and as AshleyD tried to integrate into her tale but a mistake was made, she however should be forgiven for her heartfelt "appy polly loggy" my dear brothers. I; as your humble narrator believe anyone who thinks after haveing "videed" the evidence on tape still believes otherwise should have thier "gullivers" examined, and the like."

-Alexander DeLarge - Six-double five-three-two-one.

(sorry had a Clockwork Orange moment there, excuse me)

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Nola213]

Let me clarify something here. The reason why undeniable proof of this or any such event is so important is because no matter how much we may "know in our hearts" that wrongdoing took place, that is irrelevant when considering the broader society. Even if you were at the protests and you saw first-hand every imaginable crime, if you cannot prove it then the public in general will just dismiss your claims and your resulting lack of credibility will only lend creedence to the press releases and claims of innocence by the police and government.

If we want to actually make the pigs (and yes pig is an entirely justifiable term to use for those police who are engaged in brutality and suppression of basic human rights - not to say that all or even most of them are mind you) pay for what they did, then we need to PROVE it happened such that even the entirely pro-establishment-biassed mainstream media or the government and police themselves cannot ignore or excuse what happened.

I would hope this is self-evident.

Excellent find by the OP. I wonder why AshleyD didn't bring this to the ATS community's attention herself instead of waiting for someone else to catch the mishap? Its easy to apologize when you're caught, integrity would cause you to apologize before that.

reply to post by ninthaxis

Excellent find by the OP. I wonder why AshleyD didn't bring this to the ATS community's attention herself instead of waiting for someone else to catch the mishap? Its easy to apologize when you're caught, integrity would cause you to apologize before that.

Because this has already been discussed, pointed out, and hashed around in the official thread of a couple weeks ago. This isn't a new revelation. It had already been noticed and fixed via editing subtitles a while back when it was first brought to our attention. I was actually surprised to see it brought up again here as if it was something new since it had already been discussed.

But that's OK. If others didn't see it the first time, I'm more than happy to explain it here and I appreciate the OP giving me an opportunity to weigh in and explain things for the record. By the time I saw the other thread since I had been sick, things had already been dying down so I took the moment to explain it here.

The facts were true in both cases. My error laid in presenting them as one event instead of making it clear one was historical context. Again, my apologies over that.

Originally posted by ninthaxis
Excellent find by the OP. I wonder why AshleyD didn't bring this to the ATS community's attention herself instead of waiting for someone else to catch the mishap? Its easy to apologize when you're caught, integrity would cause you to apologize before that.

I think she said notations were already edited into the episode to clear up the old footage and the new.

I don't know if that could have or was done before or after this thread was made though.

But even if it was after, perhaps she was just hopeing no one noticed the footage error, and made the leap from editing error to ATS trying to spread misinfo through the Conspiracy Chicks show. Which although possible is quite a leap imo.

No offense to the OP at all, who just wanted an answer, and he got. All's well that ends well? righty-right?

"As for the boots being proof? I have boots like that and im not a cop, they are very easy to find boots that many skinheads/emo's/bikers wear. So thats just a bunch of crock."

The boots were absolute proof in Quebec that agent provocateurs were used. Therefore, your comment is a bunch of crock!


"It took me 10min to gather the facts i have about this, which is that cops did not provoke this or hire under cover's to incite rioting, so why they couldn't of found that info while making the video is beyond me. Read some Canadian news papers, see it for yourself."

So you used the mainstream media, who are a bunch of disreputable robotic patsies who report what they are told, to gather your facts? It figures.


"Quebec and Toronto are TWO seperate places, they are two places that are pretty much rivals too, so to lump them together and insinuate that "if quebec police did it why not toronto?"

I believe Federal Law Enforcement Officials were responsible for security at both the North American Leaders Summit in Quebec and the G-20 in Toronto. The same untrustworthy Federal Conservative Government was in power during both events. So, in this case, you can lump Quebec and Toronto together, since both events were controlled by the same garbage individuals.

If you think a Government which stole $1 Billion from the taxpayers to give to their law enforcement buddies is not capable of using agent provocateurs to attempt to justify such an outrageous expense, then you are either very naive or an agent for the Police State. A piss poor one at that.


"The Conspiracy Chicks are a lame attempt at making this site more popular."

Actually, you are a lame attempt to shove this Police State agenda down people's throats. It is cowards like you who give the Government the power to rip off the masses and violate their human rights.





[edit on 15-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

I haven't watched the video, and was deterred by your name - 'Chicks'.
That means 'bimbos' to me - so I expected it to be light hearted humour designed to please men, and that is not really my scene.

reply to post by margaretr


Heh, well I assure you that even though my topic title sounds a bit harsh, there is substance to the show. Looking forward to see how the show develops. Please dont let my headline deter you from making up your own mind!

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by dangerouslogic

 

with investigative skills like those maybe they should hire you to back check all the stories they post before they post it.

Heh thank you for that but in all honesty it had more to do with the fact that I live in the vicinity of these events and was already familiar with them. Had I not already known the truth I would have likely just trusted both the CC report and Alex Jones (well maybe not AJ ).

I realize now that the tone of the OP was perhaps a bit too harsh and I apologize to the Chicks for that. If nothing else it was a reflection of my "crisis of faith", if you will, that all that was running through my mind was (and still to some extent is) if these cases were so blatantly false, how many other seemingly legitimate stories had I simply accepted because they were plausible and I had no immediate evidence contradicting them?

If nothing else, I hope this helps highlight the burden which all respectable alternative media sources must bear: that no matter how much more evidence and logic we have to present alternative points of view, we will never breakthrough into the mainstream (and thus be able to truly affect the course of history) unless and until our cases are that much more airtight and undeniable than the fairy tales spun by the real disinfo agents.

Originally posted by Nola213
I think she said notations were already edited into the episode to clear up the old footage and the new.

I don't know if that could have or was done before or after this thread was made though.

The issue of the Quebec footage being included in the Montreal story was brought up within four hours of the video being released and addressed by Springer the following day in the video discussion thread. I assume that the notations were changed at the same time.

The issue was raised by SphinxMontreal in this post and addressed by Springer in this post.

edit to make timeline more specific

[edit on 7/15/2010 by americandingbat]

You know, dangerouslogic, you've answered a question I had in the back of my mind, and people should know that more than the Conspiracy Chicks have been had with this case.

A few days after the G-20 summit, on LCN ( Le Canal Nouvelles ), on the show Le Négociateur, hosted by Claude Poirier, a famous reporter of Québec, there was this segment, said to have been filmed during the G-20 summit where we could see cops from Québec, identifying themselves as such, IN FRENCH, and basically telling people present in the building they had been arrested for manifesting...

I found it very strange that it was said in French only, knowing how Canada is fond of French.

Regrettably, I can't find the video in his online archives.

Originally posted by EspyderMan


Read some Canadian news papers, see it for yourself. Maybe even post the G-20 most wanted list, if truth, peace and justice is what your really after.

HAHAHA!!! yeah, that will work. read the paper. it always tells the 'truth'. forget about all the live footage you've seen of agent provocateurs being outed in quebec! the cops would NEVER do that, and the mainstream media would pick up on it and report it RIGHT AWAY if it happened.

truth is, YOUTUBE forced the mainstream media to 'notice'. YOUTUBE forced the cops to admit it.

there were clearly TONS of cops in "plainclothes", and at least one had a black hoodie on, in the now famous footage where they run behind the pig line, er, police line (sorry, pigs, but when you beat on innocents and let the hoodlums run wild, you earn the title).
the "anarchists were followed for an HOUR AND A HALF buy one videographer, and then they evaporated into thin air, leaving all their black clothes lying in a pile.
"real" anarchists can't AFFORD to leave their clothes behind, and REAL anarchists are NOT INTO ORGANIZATION!!!!! organization is EXACTLY what "anarchists" are against.

pigs. you'll get yours, if not in this world, then in the next.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


Interesting, please post if you do find it!

Perhaps that was related to the hundreds of protesters who were arrested on the University of Toronto campus? But again it begs the question as to why they would be speaking in French only, Ontario being an English province. I know a lot of people came to the protest from Quebec as its not all that far from Toronto, maybe they were the cops' "translators" for dealing with any francophones? Strange...

Or, rereading your post, are you suggesting that he had been using Montebello or other older footage instead? Either way, hopefully you can find the clip as I'm curious to take a look.

Thx AshleyD for the mea culpa, It is a strength of character to admit an error,
not a weakness.

As to the show, I've reserved my opinion, because it is said if you don't have
anything good to say, say nothing...

But with the Conspiracy Chicks it appears ATS is appealing to the
lowest common denominator.

Unlike other feedback I have seen in response to this show, I am left
unimpressed. The delivery is mundane and uninvolved. A good reporter,
like a good musician, needs to care about the material he is presenting.
That is what your show needs...passion.

PFFFT.

ATS could give each and every member a thousand dollars, no strings attached and someone would complain about it.

I watched that episode, mostly because it was on the G20 and I live in the west end, was also downtown on the Saturday and wanted to see how they presented it. I had also already viewed the "Agent Provocateur" video implicating the QC police in the activity of incitement. The CC's video mixed the two seperate occasions and it deed make it seem as though as you said ... "agent provocateurs" were confirmed at the Toronto G20 event. This is not the case. Whether the error was due to an unclear understanding of the two events or purposely edited to look that way I don't know. I figured most if not all the people here would have noticed it and dismissed it. Granted, if a complete stranger watched it they certainly would be lead to believe that police complicity was confirmed.

That being said ... "My belief" is that the po po are complicit. Maybe not officially associated with the black bloc but their inaction allowing them to perform their acts of vandalism certainly went a long way in allowing them to say 'See, this is why 1.2 billion was neccessary for security' The police were aware that the black bloc was incoming and they allowed it to happen. If the shoe were on the other foot the police would charge a citizen with being an accomplice for just sitting by and allowing a crime to take place.

Welcome to the Brave New World,

reply to post by dangerouslogic


I'll try again to find it for sure.

I would be surprised to see Poirier be so easily dupe, but one can never know for sure.

Yes, it could have been for a translation that the cop was speaking in French, but it didn't look like that. There were a lot of people in the building, and the cop speaking was really in front and spoke first, and by the reaction of the people, more than many understood his words. It would be surprising to learn people were separated by languages...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The boots were absolute proof in Quebec that agent provocateurs were used. Therefore, your comment is a bunch of crock!

Your statement proves nothing but your bias attitude. Again, prove to me these boots are proof positive these undercover agents were provoking the crowd. If you can't then just let it go and stop using verbal diahrea for discussion.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"It took me 10min to gather the facts i have about this, which is that cops did not provoke this or hire under cover's to incite rioting, so why they couldn't of found that info while making the video is beyond me. Read some Canadian news papers, see it for yourself."

Yes, i will use the Canadian Media, the Canadian People's Videos and Picture's to derive my conclusions because its facts that are tangible. Sure, they will spin it one way or another, but facts are facts and thats what we want. If the cops did wrong, they should be punished like the Police Force has stated. Ive worked with some law enforcement, some are bad, some are good, but the organization as a whole is not corrupt. The people within it, maybe, but not the whole of it. Some are passionate about doing good for the public so i refuse to watch people berate an entire force for the potential acts of a few idiots.
I guess getting your "proof" from the Chicks is good enough for you, but in my search for the real truth, i have to question their motives and stories based on their collected facts and make a statement if something is wrong. Don't like it, too bad. That's life. Get used to it.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Quebec and Toronto are TWO seperate places, they are two places that are pretty much rivals too, so to lump them together and insinuate that "if quebec police did it why not toronto?"

I believe Federal Law Enforcement Officials were responsible for security at both the North American Leaders Summit in Quebec and the G-20 in Toronto. The same untrustworthy Federal Conservative Government was in power during both events. So, in this case, you can lump Quebec and Toronto together, since both events were controlled by the same garbage individuals.

Wow your really either naive or just plain ignorant. Two seperate issues, two seperate security forces run by the federal government for two seperate meetings. My point was, because something bad happened in quebec and it was wrong (note: i said it was wrong) doesn't mean the incident at the G20 is true and the cops involved should be immediately be announced as guilty. Your logic is completely wrong.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
If you think a Government which stole $1 Billion from the taxpayers to give to their law enforcement buddies is not capable of using agent provocateurs to attempt to justify such an outrageous expense, then you are either very naive or an agent for the Police State. A piss poor one at that.

Sure, its possible like many things. Plausible, possibly. Factually true? Not as of yet. Your problem is you focus too much on emotion of a topic then the logic and justified side of it and that's why you don't look to bright right about now.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Actually, you are a lame attempt to shove this Police State agenda down people's throats. It is cowards like you who give the Government the power to rip off the masses and violate their human rights.

I never said accept the police state nor am i shoving their ideals down your throat. I am merely stating the video had no proof and only insinuations and its deplorable.

I dont condone violating Human Rights nor do i want the government to have the power to rip off the masses. I seek truth and fact that support them. I understand your mad at the world and government that doesnt mean its ok to be a completely irrational person in your arguments.