Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   Occupy Cleveland would like you to know that the would-be bridge bombers were fringe members totally not connected to their group, except for the tiny detail that one of them signed the lease for their warehouse   ( cleveland.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Occupy movement, bike tires  
•       •       •

1451 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2012 at 6:48 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-07 12:41:24 AM  

ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism


not really, no. Well, I suppose pure libertarians are anarchists. Very few of them though so it doesn't make much sense to equate the two.
All anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists though the ideologically pure ones are.
 
2012-05-07 12:44:40 AM  

ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism


No, anarchists and libertarians are essentially nothing alike. Libertarians want a government that consists only of the organs of state violence and is empowered only to wield said organs to enforce oppressive hierarchy. Anarchists reject all forms of coercive governance, not just ones with a potential positive impact.
 
2012-05-07 12:48:32 AM  

skullkrusher: ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism

not really, no. Well, I suppose pure libertarians are anarchists. Very few of them though so it doesn't make much sense to equate the two.
All anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists though the ideologically pure ones are.


Not really. Anarchists that want to blow other peoples stuff up aren't libertarians. The anarchist in this plot is also a burglar and wife-beater. That fits an anarchist profile, not a libertarian one though.
 
2012-05-07 12:48:54 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism

No, anarchists and libertarians are essentially nothing alike. Libertarians want a government that consists only of the organs of state violence and is empowered only to wield said organs to enforce oppressive hierarchy. Anarchists reject all forms of coercive governance, not just ones with a potential positive impact.


except the fact that anarchists are libertarians and that anarchism exists on both sides of the spectrum but don't allow that to stand in the way of your saying stupid shiat, yet again
 
2012-05-07 12:51:02 AM  

Chimperror2: skullkrusher: ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism

not really, no. Well, I suppose pure libertarians are anarchists. Very few of them though so it doesn't make much sense to equate the two.
All anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists though the ideologically pure ones are.

Not really. Anarchists that want to blow other peoples stuff up aren't libertarians. The anarchist in this plot is also a burglar and wife-beater. That fits an anarchist profile, not a libertarian one though.


huh? Libertarianism exists on the left and the right. So does anarchism. When we hear the word "libertarian" we normally associate it with right wing minarchism but that is not the whole of the set. Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, anarcho-communists are too. They both reject coercive government but differ on what system should replace it.
 
2012-05-07 12:54:37 AM  

whidbey: RanDomino: I don't suppose at this point it will do any good to point out that these guys were set up by an FBI asset with multiple felony convictions.

Look at yourselves. You keep falling for the same cheap trick. Come on.

The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Awesome. Not that any of the trolls in here are going to start retracting their comments.


I couldn't find any comments by you to retract. You think it's okay to put explosives on bridges? Or were they only following orders?
 
2012-05-07 01:01:35 AM  

Mrtraveler01: cman: GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: cman: Lionel Mandrake: News Flash: Large groups often contain bad eggs. Ric Romero reports at 11.

fark you

You gave no slack calling the Tea Party racist. Why should slack be given to OWS?

Have you ever seen an Occupy sign demanding the bombing of bridges?

No, but I have seen a few of these:

And under your standard that makes OWS anti-semitic.

Oh, a few. As I understand, a few bad apples should be ignored, shouldn't they?

That is exactly my point.

Both sides have used these tactics to discredit the other. Sure, there are racists on the right, and yes, there are anti-semites on the left, but its not the whole group.

True.

But there are a lot more pics of racism on the right than antisemitism on the left.



Really? Have you got a link to the pics anywhere?
Not being a smart ass but I've seen very few overt signs. The ones that I have heard about were usually followed by a condemnation by the rest of the Tea Partiers.
 
2012-05-07 01:03:25 AM  

whidbey: RanDomino: I don't suppose at this point it will do any good to point out that these guys were set up by an FBI asset with multiple felony convictions.

Look at yourselves. You keep falling for the same cheap trick. Come on.

The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Awesome. Not that any of the trolls in here are going to start retracting their comments.


so did you get to that same conclusion by reading the affidavit or did you just take the word of a site called "green is the new red" ??
 
2012-05-07 01:09:27 AM  
skullkrusher: Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, anarcho-communists are too. They both reject coercive government but differ on what system should replace it.

Interesting. Rejecting coercive government, yet having two systems at odds with one another; and association with any one of these systems being wholly voluntary. How does an anarcho-capitalist operate in an anarcho-communist-dominated system (or visa versa)?
 
2012-05-07 01:14:18 AM  

KiplingKat872: OgreMagi: KiplingKat872: OgreMagi: KiplingKat872: OgreMagi: cman: Lionel Mandrake: News Flash: Large groups often contain bad eggs. Ric Romero reports at 11.

fark you

You gave no slack calling the Tea Party racist. Why should slack be given to OWS?

Why should they live by the same standard? Sure, that guy at the tea party rallies with that incredible racist sign that keeps getting posted in Fark threads was told to leave by the tea party organizers of that event and they publicly denounced him. Sure he had no affiliation with the tea party other than having registered a tea party related website for his personal use (which any idiot with a computer and ten bucks can do). He represents all tea party members just because.

To me, signing the lease for their building seems to be a bit more associated than waving a sign and owning a computer.

And what about the Tea Party leaders who have been caught making racist comments?

I don't follow them much since I am not a tea partier, but if true, they should be called out for it. Note, however, that tea party groups are very regional. The groups here in California would not have tolerated racist comments, the groups in Independence Kansas would probably be applauded for that shiat.

Google "Mark Williams Tea Party." This guy was one of the big organizers and thought it would be utterly acceptible to publish a racially charged rant.

And these are not the only incidents. I tried to be generous towards the Tea Patry, but after a couple years of stories like this from a party who members who, in addition, many if whom are "birthers" and some of whom have made threats against the presidents life, against his children's lives and it seems most Tea Partiers seem to think that is acceptible, it is obvious there is a strong current of racism in the Tea Party's motivations.

FYI, I was sympathetic towards the tea party at first. But when the fundies started to get involved, it left a bad smell. I still agree with their ba ...


I did the google Mark Williams Tea Party. Got this as the second hit


Link
 
2012-05-07 01:25:41 AM  

lilbjorn: except for the tiny detail that one of them signed the lease for their warehouse

He would be the one who works for the FBI.


Wouldn't be the first time.

Or the last.
 
2012-05-07 02:05:08 AM  

cman: GAT_00: cman: Lionel Mandrake: News Flash: Large groups often contain bad eggs. Ric Romero reports at 11.

fark you

You gave no slack calling the Tea Party racist. Why should slack be given to OWS?

Have you ever seen an Occupy sign demanding the bombing of bridges?

No, but I have seen a few of these:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

And under your standard that makes OWS anti-semitic.


That looks more like a ron paul supporter than an occupy supporter

Go ahead and label the movement with things that aren't actually part of the movement.
 
2012-05-07 02:33:38 AM  

skullkrusher: Chimperror2: skullkrusher: ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarchy is a bad idea.

otherwise known as libertarianism

not really, no. Well, I suppose pure libertarians are anarchists. Very few of them though so it doesn't make much sense to equate the two.
All anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists though the ideologically pure ones are.

Not really. Anarchists that want to blow other peoples stuff up aren't libertarians. The anarchist in this plot is also a burglar and wife-beater. That fits an anarchist profile, not a libertarian one though.

huh? Libertarianism exists on the left and the right. So does anarchism. When we hear the word "libertarian" we normally associate it with right wing minarchism but that is not the whole of the set. Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, anarcho-communists are too. They both reject coercive government but differ on what system should replace it.


Libertarian on its face respects property, rights and liberties of others. Blowing up bridges is not libertarian even if the bridge is owned by the government (or the people or a corporation). The two versions you mentioned might be ideologically libertarian but the anarchists in this story that are destroying bridges (other peoples property) are not. The whole concept of "occupy" is the opposite of libertarian and it's not left vs.right, rather trespassing and other usurpation of personal property are decidedly not libertarian.
 
2012-05-07 03:34:02 AM  
So let me get this straight:

A bunch of misfits who couldn't hack it in regular society decide to get together to sleep in the park and shake their tiny fists at the man.

Normal people get sick of their shiat, and so the cops come in and clear them out.

They get pissed, and have nothing to lose anyhow, and decide to commit acts of terror.

But we are supposed to believe that there is nothing wrong with the character of these people, they are just victims of....who? Bankers? Corporations? Business owners?

How the fark does the rest of society manage to get along, if the deck is stacked so thoroughly against the "little people"?

These assholes and their sympathizers should be rounded up and stuck on an island somewhere. You don't like a society that penalizes you for sucking? Either stop sucking, or piss off.

Too bad Australia's already taken.
 
2012-05-07 03:42:24 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I'm not sure what people think will happen when peaceful protesters are beaten, tased, gassed, and otherwise subjected to violence at the hands of authorities.


The OWS protests have been resulting in defaced and destroyed property from basically day one, plus intentionally disrupting other people's events and work and refusing to show even the slightest consideration for anyone around them. Nonviolent? Yes (well, mostly, close enough for government work). Peaceful? No, not really. Those words do not mean the same thing.
 
HBK
2012-05-07 04:21:36 AM  

Sabyen91: Silly Jesus: TheShavingofOccam123: I'm not sure what people think will happen when peaceful protesters are beaten, tased, gassed, and otherwise subjected to violence at the hands of authorities.

The authorities certainly knew what the eventual reaction would be.

[www.mediaite.com image 628x418]

[sylverblaque.files.wordpress.com image 300x225]

[prairiefirenews.com image 640x480]

[img.ibtimes.com image 640x427]

BTW, the pepper spray dispenser Lt John F. Pike of the University of California Davis police force is using is non-issue. The report of the UC Davis investigation panel said the pepper spray Pike used was in a larger can with a more forceful nozzle than the variety officially approved for the police department.

[t.qkme.me image 310x231]

Yeah, assaulting people for no reason IS against the law.


You know how I know you have absolutely no idea what happened that day? It's because of your stupid, ignorant post.
 
2012-05-07 04:27:38 AM  
Most of my friends in NYC are very liberal, and see OWS as a bunch of attention whores. They had a lot of sympathy for them until OWS tried to shut down the subway system, something mostly used by working class people to get to work.

I attempted to engage the Occupy SEC movement on my own regarding bank regulation, but something was not quite right. In their critique of the Volcker rule, there were some instances where they argued that the rule was too tough on banks.

For example, they sided with the banks against the market-making rules on credit derivatives, saying that its very difficult to differentiate between hedging trades and non-hedging trades. I expressed my disagreement with them, as this is what I used to do for a living; there are definitely ways to figure it out.

I never heard from them again, and I stopped receiving meeting notifications.

Hmmmm.
 
2012-05-07 06:25:41 AM  
That bridge was totally asking for it, standing with its legs spread like that
 
2012-05-07 07:38:53 AM  
I don't now about the Cleveland Occupy, but our small-town occupy was taken over by anarchists who's stated goals are to abolish private property.

First they tried to take over a dilapidated, empty car dealership saying it should be a community center, when it was two blocks from a beautiful multi-million dollar community center. When this was pointed out they then listed a bunch of other things they really meant, including an anarchist library, a yoga center, etc.

Next they tried to take over an old bank building, again trying to build a community center, only this time it was right across the street from another great community center. When they were immediately rousted from that location, they came back a few weeks later for "guerrilla gardening" saying they only wanted to turn the place into a community garden, only the town already has two completely open community gardens a half mile from there.
 
2012-05-07 07:49:50 AM  

RanDomino: skullkrusher
good luck finding sympathy for some scuzzy looking anarchistic terrorist wannabes who tried to blow up a commuter bridge

Never mind that they didn't before the FBI asset pushed them in that direction...

Once again, the FBI foils its own plot. Once again, you believe them.


Why am I not suprised our resident revolution chickenhawk is defending these guys.
 
2012-05-07 07:58:00 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: "We have a person facing terrorism charges on the lease of our warehouse," said one of the leaders. "If this gets into the media, it would be a disaster,"

on Occupy Cleveland's website. What a bunch of 'tards. Yes, this "would" look bad if the media got hold of it, or if anyone outside your group found out about it. You can make that harder for them by not discussing it on your farking website, 'tards.

I'm mostly laughing from the sidelines at the Occupy vs. Tea Party sideshow we have going on, but this I can't condone. Not cool, Occupy.

Zitt said Saturday that Crazy Larry was upset about the bombing.

That's hilarious.


bionicdisco.com

Not amused....
 
2012-05-07 08:14:57 AM  
El Pachuco:
The Occupy movement is inherently, avowedly non-violent.

The violence is caused entirely by the police, and by opportunists unrelated to Occupy.

The only way you can disprove the above is by posting any General Assembly anywhere advocating violence. And you can't do that, because it doesn't exist.

Right-winger activists - your team - actually kill people. Occupy is non-violent.

That's not the way it works, at least with the local occupy around here. What happens is the anarchists show up at the meetings, propose damage to property or some other violence, and they make up another name for the subset of the group that'll be taking part.
After the event and the anarchists are arrested then Occupy issues a statement of support. Its nice and neat: occupy doesn't officially condone violence and keeps their hands clean.
 
2012-05-07 08:45:49 AM  

El Pachuco: The Occupy movement is inherently, avowedly non-violent.

The violence is caused entirely by the police, and by opportunists unrelated to Occupy.

The only way you can disprove the above is by posting any General Assembly anywhere advocating violence. And you can't do that, because it doesn't exist.

Right-winger activists - your team - actually kill people. Occupy is non-violent


Can you point to a general assembely equivalent of any "right wing" group that is advocating violence?

Or just maybe you need to look at what groups actually do, not just wat they say they are for.
 
2012-05-07 09:00:52 AM  

liam76: El Pachuco: The Occupy movement is inherently, avowedly non-violent.

The violence is caused entirely by the police, and by opportunists unrelated to Occupy.

The only way you can disprove the above is by posting any General Assembly anywhere advocating violence. And you can't do that, because it doesn't exist.

Right-winger activists - your team - actually kill people. Occupy is non-violent

Can you point to a general assembely equivalent of any "right wing" group that is advocating violence?

Or just maybe you need to look at what groups actually do, not just wat they say they are for.


For the record I think most are non-violent, but I don't think you can deny the violent anarchist types are part of OWS.
 
2012-05-07 09:25:24 AM  

One Bad Apple: GAT_00:

Oh, a few. As I understand, a few bad apples should be ignored, shouldn't they?

Ignore is for the weak


It's also for those of us who enjoy engaging in rational discourse with people who enjoy it, and who don't have the desire to sift through endless "hey, look at me!" desperation posts of people who contribute nothing to the conversation, and others who take pleasure in pointing out just how stupid and deliberately obtuse those people are.

If you want to interact with the poo-flingers, have at it. The rest of us will be over here, enjoying the thread without you.

/ignore is wonderful
//ignore with the "ignore people who respond to your ignored list" option is even better
 
2012-05-07 10:12:06 AM  

ultraholland: skullkrusher: Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, anarcho-communists are too. They both reject coercive government but differ on what system should replace it.

Interesting. Rejecting coercive government, yet having two systems at odds with one another; and association with any one of these systems being wholly voluntary. How does an anarcho-capitalist operate in an anarcho-communist-dominated system (or visa versa)?


basically they require that any participation in a governing authority be voluntary, but governing authorities can exist. "free market" for government, basically. In the case of the ACs, one example is trade associations. You join a trade association and pay some sort of dues, in exchange they guarantee your transactions and protect from fraud. You also join armed home owners associations for mutual defense. If you don't like the rules of your trade association or protection service you find another. Not terribly efficient or workable IRL but that's how it goes.
 
2012-05-07 10:13:33 AM  

Chimperror2: Libertarian on its face respects property, rights and liberties of others


unless you're the sort of libertarian which doesn't. Not all libertarians believe in property rights - at least as it extends beyond your home for the most part. That's the point. "Libertarian" is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalist or right wing minarchist. Left wing libertarians exist. Noam Chomsky is one (allegedly)
 
2012-05-07 11:17:49 AM  
Chimperror2
The anarchist FBI asset in this plot is also a burglar and wife-beater.

FTFY


skullkrusher
huh? Libertarianism exists on the left and the right. So does anarchism. When we hear the word "libertarian" we normally associate it with right wing minarchism but that is not the whole of the set. Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, anarcho-communists are too.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.
Anarchism is not on the left-right scale.


ultraholland
How does an anarcho-capitalist operate in an anarcho-communist-dominated system (or visa versa)?

We laugh at them, mainly; but also keep an eye on them.


Chimperror2
The whole concept of "occupy" is the opposite of libertarian and it's not left vs.right, rather trespassing and other usurpation of personal property

Your concept of property depends on the State, to maintain title records at the very least. Which also necessitates being able to defend that list of records (or else it will be roundly ignored and effectively not exist), which means a monopolistic police force of some kind or another. Property ownership based on title, i.e. capitalism, cannot exist without a State.
 
2012-05-07 11:24:23 AM  

RanDomino: "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.


no it isn't. Anarchistic society. No overreaching coercive state. Individuals enter into voluntary agreements to protect property and ensure transactions. It is no more oxymoronic than anarcho-anything since the second the state falls, it must be replaced by a means of governance regardless of how the economy is constructed. As long as membership in that governing structure is voluntary and you or I can choose to enter the "wilderness", it is anarchy.

As it stands now, the state protects private property. In an anarchistic society, protecting property can still (and would) be done, just through different means.
 
2012-05-07 12:40:39 PM  

RanDomino: Chimperror2
The anarchist FBI asset in this plot is also a burglar and wife-beater.

FTFY




Source? usually they don't arrest and charge the informants with crimes related to their work. Kind of makes it hard to recruit the next group. Hayne doesn't appear to be related to the FBI in any way except "Wanted:"
 
2012-05-07 01:28:00 PM  

whidbey: The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.


Seriously? This is your proof that the FBI "set them up?"

This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

But I suppose I'm forgetting the 1st law of the Internet: if news makes you look bad, the news is fabricated by a conspiracy.
 
2012-05-07 01:40:41 PM  

czei: The only way you can disprove the above is by posting any General Assembly anywhere advocating violence. And you can't do that, because it doesn't exist.


But by that logic, the "Tea party" is just a non-partisan movement concerned with growing debt and government spending.

Of course, the reality is that the Tea party is overwhelmingly conservative, and Tea party candidates have focused like a LASER beam on issues like abortion, contraception, and union busting. When they actually bother to focus on economic policy, the come up with crazy-uncle ideas like selling the state house to a private developer or requiring all government debts to be paid in gold and silver specie.
 
2012-05-07 01:45:43 PM  

cman: GAT_00: cman: GAT_00: cman: Lionel Mandrake: News Flash: Large groups often contain bad eggs. Ric Romero reports at 11.

fark you

You gave no slack calling the Tea Party racist. Why should slack be given to OWS?

Have you ever seen an Occupy sign demanding the bombing of bridges?

No, but I have seen a few of these:

And under your standard that makes OWS anti-semitic.

Oh, a few. As I understand, a few bad apples should be ignored, shouldn't they?

That is exactly my point.

Both sides have used these tactics to discredit the other. Sure, there are racists on the right, and yes, there are anti-semites on the left, but its not the whole group.


Your point is shiat.

Thought you'd like to know that.
 
2012-05-07 02:23:06 PM  

Xcott: whidbey: The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Seriously? This is your proof that the FBI "set them up?"


You just don't want to believe it, do you?

This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

But I suppose I'm forgetting the 1st law of the Internet: if news makes you look bad, the news is fabricated by a conspiracy.


For you, the 1st Law of the Internet is that you really want the Occupy movement to be this horribly bad thing we should be trying to stop. And so far, it's working. Ooh Commies and anarchists in my movement? I'd better stay home.
 
2012-05-07 02:43:38 PM  

randomjsa: GAT_00: And now that we're done saying that all Occupiers are bad because two of them were, we will return to categorically denying that numerous racist Teabaggers speak for the group in the slightest and you're a real racist if you say so.

B-B-But Tea Party...!

If you're looking for racists then you need look no further than the OWS groups that contain no shortage of anti-Semitic ideas, unless you'd like to be an absolute laughing stock as you try to insist that not a single solitary OWS person could be racist in any way. I'll give you a big old hint: Racism is not a left wing or right wing thing, it's a human thing, and crosses all political, social, and economic boundaries.

But really here we have yet ANOTHER "isolated" case. How come there are no "isolated" cases of Tea Party people trying to be terrorists in spite of the fact that liberals on fark kept trying to label them as "Tea Queda" or something? I'll even give you the line the liberals would use.

'Even if this was an isolated case, it's clear that the Tea Party movement is inspiring terrorism, without their rhetoric and hate, this NEVER would have happened!'

But how could I possibly know that's what the liberals would say or do? Because that's precisely what they tried to do with the Gabriel Giffords shooting. The moment that happened liberals were tripping over each other to be the FIRST to scream that it was all those hateful right wingers fault that this had happened!

And when that turned out to be completely bogus? Well, let's just say we're still waiting for liberals to admit they were completely, totally, and utterly wrong about that.

But now we can honestly say that OWS inspired an actual attempt at domestic terrorism, and this is after we can already put out a laundry list of other crimes, diseases, and problems directly associated with OWS.

In the meantime the Tea Party never had any problems getting out there and putting their message out there in a peaceful fashion, but they're the dang ...


*sighs*

All right, let's draw you a picture. Left-wing policies (which in America manifest as what the rest of the world calls 'basic human rights') tend to attract left-wing terrorists. A straw-party movement created by the Koch brothers will not attract anything more than serious racism.

Neither one really indicates the party as a whole. However, the Tea Party having actually made part of their 'coherent' demands denial of gay marriage, hatred of Mexican immigrants, and hatred of Islam does, in fact, make them bigots.

/Also, while you're ranting...OWS kicked out the terrorists and the lunatics who were violent. The Tea Party kicked out who again for bigotry?
 
2012-05-07 03:12:47 PM  

whidbey: Xcott: whidbey: The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Seriously? This is your proof that the FBI "set them up?"

You just don't want to believe it, do you?

This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

But I suppose I'm forgetting the 1st law of the Internet: if news makes you look bad, the news is fabricated by a conspiracy.

For you, the 1st Law of the Internet is that you really want the Occupy movement to be this horribly bad thing we should be trying to stop. And so far, it's working. Ooh Commies and anarchists in my movement? I'd better stay home.


I completely believe the quoted text; I just don't see how it constitutes a conspiratorial setup, when it seems to be a description of a conventional sting operation.

You seem to be countering that I, not you, am the crazy true believer, or disbeliever, but I'm simply reading what was written and not seeing the Illuminati lizard people. Did these people plant bombs or not? If they did, how can you allege it was faked by the FBI?
 
2012-05-07 03:33:10 PM  

Xcott: whidbey: The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Seriously? This is your proof that the FBI "set them up?"

This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.


It's entrapment. (They were stupid to fall for it, though; they obviously didn't have a clue about traffic in energetic materials). Explosives are essentially impossible to buy without an elaborate legal paper trail that would get them caught even if they weren't hosting an FBI mole from day one.

People simply CAN'T buy explosives without a list of signed-and-stamped forms that could fill a filing cabinet, and they'd have to lie on those anyway. You especially can't buy enough to collapse a bridge when you're not a structural engineer who can place the charges in the best spots.

Trust me, just making explosives themselves would have been the only way to go, and it is seriously time-consuming and difficult. Just making a nitroglycerin bomb with an acetone peroxide cap taxes me to the limit, and all I'm doing is removing large tree stumps or making holes in rock. When I tried something that could be called 'safe' by a not-crazy person (picric acid initiated by HMTD packed into a straw), the HMTD went off like a gunshot, but the main charge just flew everywhere without even burning. And I actually know what the fark I'm doing, unlike those guys.

"Anarchists" lack the chemistry knowledge to make their own shiat, and random 'science clubs' can't buy it anymore. With a mole in the organization, they were doomed from the get-go.
 
2012-05-07 03:41:57 PM  

Xcott: whidbey: Xcott: whidbey: The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in "terrorism" investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the "plot," offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Seriously? This is your proof that the FBI "set them up?"

You just don't want to believe it, do you?

This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

But I suppose I'm forgetting the 1st law of the Internet: if news makes you look bad, the news is fabricated by a conspiracy.

For you, the 1st Law of the Internet is that you really want the Occupy movement to be this horribly bad thing we should be trying to stop. And so far, it's working. Ooh Commies and anarchists in my movement? I'd better stay home.

I completely believe the quoted text; I just don't see how it constitutes a conspiratorial setup, when it seems to be a description of a conventional sting operation.

You seem to be countering that I, not you, am the crazy true believer, or disbeliever, but I'm simply reading what was written and not seeing the Illuminati lizard people. Did these people plant bombs or not? If they did, how can you allege it was faked by the FBI?


You're missing the point--that there wasn't any actual "plot" until the FBI decided to further it along.

At any rate, you've got to be a bit obsessed to try and pin this circumstantial example on the whole movement.
 
2012-05-07 05:43:25 PM  

whidbey: You're missing the point--that there wasn't any actual "plot" until the FBI decided to further it along.


How could they "further" a plot that didn't yet exist? This sentence seems to simultaneously deny and admit that there was a plot.

In any case, the text that you quoted clearly described the FBI becoming involved in an existing plot, not inventing it. It would take some very powerful and intentional non-think in order to read that text and conclude that there was no actual plot, or that it was an FBI frame-up.
 
2012-05-07 06:40:24 PM  

Xcott: whidbey: You're missing the point--that there wasn't any actual "plot" until the FBI decided to further it along.

How could they "further" a plot that didn't yet exist? This sentence seems to simultaneously deny and admit that there was a plot.

In any case, the text that you quoted clearly described the FBI becoming involved in an existing plot, not inventing it. It would take some very powerful and intentional non-think in order to read that text and conclude that there was no actual plot, or that it was an FBI frame-up.


You just aren't going to give up, are you? You really REALLY want the Occupy Movement to be nothing but Josef Stalin 2: the Boogaloo and you're going to ignore any accentuating circumstances. Got it.
 
2012-05-07 09:21:26 PM  

whidbey: You just aren't going to give up, are you? You really REALLY want the Occupy Movement to be nothing but Josef Stalin 2: the Boogaloo and you're going to ignore any accentuating circumstances. Got it.


That's where you're wrong: I'm not blaming this plot on the Occupy movement at all, or arguing any connection to it.

I'm just saying that you can't deny that the plot was real, by misreading and exaggerating the FBI's role in the investigation.

It's one thing to argue that the plot had nothing to do with Occupy---it's another to invent conspiracy theories under which the plot is an FBI invention and nothing ever really happened.
 
2012-05-07 09:51:11 PM  

RanDomino: I don't suppose at this point it will do any good to point out that these guys were set up by an FBI asset with multiple felony convictions.

Look at yourselves. You keep falling for the same cheap trick. Come on.


Sounds like the FBI bought themselves a terrorist plot.
 
2012-05-07 09:58:44 PM  
media.townhall.com
 
2012-05-08 02:17:46 AM  
Xcott
This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

"The informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans, starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off the top of large buildings."

They didn't want to blow up a bridge. They wanted to break other crap. But that wouldn't have been under FBI jurisdiction. So they steered these guys toward something that straddles an interstate border.

How could they "further" a plot that didn't yet exist?

There is no way you didn't understand what he meant.
 
2012-05-08 03:11:52 AM  

whidbey:

You're missing the point--that there wasn't any actual "plot" until the FBI decided to further it along.



Umm no. That's not how it worked. There was a plot, the FBI provided materiel (fake that is) and a connection to it. These clowns were predisposed to committing a violent criminal action and all it took was the means to make it happen. They are opportunists which is no different than any other criminal. It's the same reason a "bait car" is not a setup. The criminal still has to climb inside and steal it. The fact that the bait car is owned by the G doesn't make it a non-crime to steal it. It doesn't mean the G furthered the crime along either. The placed what they believed were explosives on a bridge to destroy and possibly kill people. Sorry, it was a "bait bridge" but they still got on it and placed explosives. Have a nice long stay in prison.
 
2012-05-08 07:10:13 AM  

PsiChick: /Also, while you're ranting...OWS kicked out the terrorists and the lunatics who were violent. The Tea Party kicked out who again for bigotry?


You don't see the difference there?

How about you shoe me where OWS threw out their bigots (plenty of anti-jew stuff by them has been shown) and then you can talk abotu how the tea party is wrong for not cleaning house of their scum.


/really dislike the tea party and from what I have seen it has far more racists who are using "taxes" and "small govt" as a shield, but that statement was just moronic
 
2012-05-08 07:34:06 AM  

RanDomino: Xcott
This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

"The informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans, starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off the top of large buildings."

They didn't want to blow up a bridge. They wanted to break other crap. But that wouldn't have been under FBI jurisdiction. So they steered these guys toward something that straddles an interstate border.

How could they "further" a plot that didn't yet exist?

There is no way you didn't understand what he meant.


So it's all right with you if these people destroy a boat? Or a sign? Possibly causing casualties in both cases?

Because it's clear as crystal that they always had the interests of the 99 percent in mind, right?
 
2012-05-08 10:19:20 AM  

tirob: RanDomino: Xcott
This sounds like bog-standard strategy for an undercover sting. Wackos want to blow up a bridge, the FBI is there to impersonate a supplier and get close to the operation so that it doesn't actually happen.

"The informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans, starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off the top of large buildings."

They didn't want to blow up a bridge. They wanted to break other crap. But that wouldn't have been under FBI jurisdiction. So they steered these guys toward something that straddles an interstate border.

How could they "further" a plot that didn't yet exist?

There is no way you didn't understand what he meant.

So it's all right with you if these people destroy a boat? Or a sign? Possibly causing casualties in both cases?

Because it's clear as crystal that they always had the interests of the 99 percent in mind, right?


their actions don't speak for the group as a whole, their ties to OWS are tenuous at best but they are gonna do their damnedest to apologize for would be terrorists anyway.
 
2012-05-08 11:05:18 AM  

RanDomino: "The informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans, starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off the top of large buildings."

They didn't want to blow up a bridge. They wanted to break other crap. But that wouldn't have been under FBI jurisdiction. So they steered these guys toward something that straddles an interstate border.


Okay, I'll bite: which bridge in Cleveland, Ohio straddles an interstate border?

Also, your understanding of jurisdiction is about as bad as your geography: why couldn't the FBI get involved if they bombed a building? Did the FBI not get involved in the OK City bombing, or the first WTC bombing?

Your theory makes no sense on any grounds.
 
2012-05-08 11:36:54 AM  

RanDomino:
They didn't want to blow up a bridge. They wanted to break other crap. But that wouldn't have been under FBI jurisdiction. So they steered these guys toward something that straddles an interstate border.



That's the dumbest thing you made up all thread. Terrorism, even domestic terrorism, is covered by the FBI. Go find Cleveland on a map.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report