Occupy: Is their recent violence false flag?

So I've been noticing the recent series of reports about violence, attributed to the Occupy movement; primarily the flag burning and the condom incident.

What I want to ask ATS is, do people here think that these acts were genuinely carried out by people from Occupy, or by agent provocateurs who someone paid/otherwise put up to it, and told them to look as though they were affiliated with Occupy, in order to discredit the movement?

I've had someone call me naive when I first had that thought, but I'm honestly not sure. It just seems a little too predictable, that violence would be attributed to them at this stage in the game. I think someone is trying to shut down Occupy for good, and make sure they don't come back when America's winter ends. From the reports I'm reading about public opinion now, it also looks as though said attempt is going to be successful. Camps are being shut down and raided world wide, and opinion of them internationally has apparently been dropping like a rock over the last 24 hours, as well.

It reminds me of how coincidental the Arizona shooting was, in terms of discrediting the Zeitgeist Movement. It happened about a week before the release of the movement's biggest film yet, Moving Forward. The timing made me think that was false flag, not to mention the incredibly stereotypical "psychopath/terrorist," appearance of the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. Did anyone see his mug shots? He looked almost identical to Uncle Fester, and he had this dramatic, cartoonishly evil looking grin on his face. It would have been hilarious, if it wasn't tragic.

reply to post by petrus4

Assuming it was Occupy, how do you equate flag-burning and distribution of condoms with violence?

I think much of what we are told is nothing but state-controlled TV delivering its latest dose of propaganda. I believe the Gifford shooting has been debunked as a false flag...

ETA It might be interesting to note that Nelson Mandela and his crew back in the day were only effective when they started using "terrorist tactics". They started bombing government buildings to get their point across. He got caught and spent 2 decades plus in prison as unfortunately they don't like it much when you blow up buildings but the seed for change had been planted...

reply to post by petrus4


This is just a natural progression..not necessarily a false flag...they didn't listen to the first type of movement so what's the next one? Lets see how the OWS movement deals with the next presidential election...that's what they need to focus on to become legitimate..not some ding bats protesing with masks on...

Nothing false about it.

Whenever you have a mass gathering of liberals, you will have filth, foul language, violence, and substance abuse.

It can not be avoided.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Nothing false about it.

Whenever you have a mass gathering of liberals, you will have filth, foul language, violence, and substance abuse.

It can not be avoided.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
ETA It might be interesting to note that Nelson Mandela and his crew back in the day were only effective when they started using "terrorist tactics". They started bombing government buildings to get their point across. He got caught and spent 2 decades plus in prison

So your definition of "effective" is violence that doesnt achieve the goal for nearly 30 years?

1961 - Mandela's violence.
1990 - End of apartheid.

Doesnt seem very "effective" to me.

kids doing violent things

thats all