These boots are made for walking

[mogster]

and they'll walk right over you.


From this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2962268

Does this make any effect on how you view the official version of 'reality'? I consider this proof of foul play, but are looking forward to see interesting ways of explaining it away as coincidence.

A peaceful demo made a violent demo, by police in false flag attire. Their only reason for doing this was to make the demo violent, so the police could attack the peaceful demonstrants and end the demo. Tear gas, rubber bullets - it's no Sunday walk when police intervene and do 'crowd control'.

From Portland in 2003:

[CGowen]

1. Bush said the NAU is just a conspiracy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3465985&mesg_id=3465985



And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old -- you can call them political scare tactics. If you have been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.

[mogster]

2. It's the term slapped

on all things that may benefit from not being mentioned. Until it comes across as reality, of course, but then it's too late to turn things around.
I do some 'boots debate' back home now, and the fact that three demonstrators wear the same boots, and in addition, this is the same boots worn by the police, just doesn't settle as something out of the ordinary with some people.

[JAbuchan08]

68. "you get used to that kind of technique"

"you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist."

kind of like Saddam's conspiracy to possess WMD?

[LARED]

3. Watching too much CSI can cause this reaction

If you go to Vibram website you will find that that sole is sold under their line of Industrial, Fire/police, and, military soles. Carried by a number of different footwear manufacturers

http://www.vibram.us/products/products.asp?Product=Industry

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mogster]

7. Thanks!

Hey - I had not read that before ;-)

[mogster]

6. You know, I don't have a TV set

So I don't watch CSI. But I've debated some Norwegians about this that seems to carry your point of view.

But anarchists don't wear uniforms, LARED, at least not those real ones. To the contrary, those that I know often wear different socks on each foot and are very individually oriented in their clothing. Here you have three wearing the same boots.
In addition, those boots are a exact match with the police boots, pattern, type and all.

[HamdenRice]

11. So now lared that the police have publicly admitted that these guys were police

how can you spin your defense of all official stories, no matter how absurd?


Really, speak up. How does your defense of all things official square with cops admitting that the guys pushing throught he crowds, holding rocks and trying to stir up trouble actually were police?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/249291

Quebec police admit agents posed as protesters

CP/CUPE HANDOUT

In this handout photo provided by CUPE, police and 'protesters' clash in Montebello, Que. on Monday, Aug.22. Quebec provincial police confirmed Thursday, Aug. 23, that the three protestors shown being detained here were Quebec provincial police undercover officers.

MONTREAL—With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit Thursday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protestors at this week’s international summit in Montebello, Que.

...

Earlier, both the QPP and the RCMP had denied altogether any of their officers were involved.

[LARED]

16. Sounds like routine police work to me.

Send in a few police impostors to draw out the violent protesters, so they can be removed before inciting violence, hence allowing the protest to peacefully unfold. Sounds SOP to me.

Of course you choose to characterized this as "cops admitting that the guys pushing throught he crowds, holding rocks and trying to stir up trouble"

The question to you is how do you defend your consistent embellishment of facts, and why would you not support the police if their intent was to remove potentially violent protesters?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrgerbik]

26. by who's standards

are you basing this absurd statement that this is routine?

ROUTINE? :rofl:

I sure as hell don't like to know that the people who are supposed to SERVE us are involved in shadowy, CIA style tactics to try and discredit, charge and maybe even jail us just for voicing our opinions.

To whom are the police held accountable to, if not us?

[LARED]

27. If you think about it

the police by using the tactic of trying to identify protesters that have violent intentions and removing them from the protest helps everyone involved.

This is a standard tactic used by police departments in order to protect themselves and other people.

Is that the case here? I don't know.

[JAbuchan08]

69. Identifying violent protestors by inciting them to violence?

Sounds pretty standard alright

[mrgerbik]

13. deleted by poster

[greyl]

14. Are Vibram soles only worn by cops? No.

The fact remains that being convinced someone is a cop only because of the boots they are wearing is technically referred to as hasty conclusion, biased inductive logic, and stupid.

Post 141 in the thread linked to in the OP did a much better job of presenting a case than noting the similarity of footwear ever will. I think LARED was encouraging the use of solid logic, not saying it's impossible that the guys were undercover cops.

[mrgerbik]

19. true

and I agree with your position. What I don't agree with LARED's seemingly absolute belief in the "powers that be" and their intentions as totally benign. Always doubting peoples research that contradict his/the OCT's worldview before actually taking a look at it is not proper debating, IMO. The OCT's blinders seem to be on extremely tight and sometimes when things like this do slip out, it's nice to see that our point of view is somewhat vindicated.

edit: I deleted that post because I realized that I won't stoop to such a level.

[LARED]

29. Ok so we have some options here

1. The police were trying to flush out violent protestor (Makes some sense)

2. The police were trying to start a riot (makes no sense)

3. The police were doing the bidding of some other entity that wanted to make the protesters look bad and wanted a riot (Why and who?)

4. Other reasons unknown to me


Number 1 seems to make the most sense. It may not have been executed well, but at least it seems the sane option with the idea that the police are just trying to do a difficult job.

[HamdenRice]

40. lared you are either the most naive person ever born or

you have an agenda.

But let me provide you your first education in how the world actually works. For your first assignment, read all 47 reports of the Goldstone Commission.

When you have completed this reading assignment and joined the reality based community, then perhaps we can have a conversation.

[LARED]

43. Well I do appreciate the offer to improve my education

but as new student of Professor HamdenRice, perhaps you can explain why the Goldstone Commission is germane to what ever point you are trying to make? What is your point anyway?

It's not clear to me how the events posted in this thread are related or material to issues in South Africa over fifteen years ago. In a different government, a different set of laws (or lawlessness), in a part of the world very different than Canada and the US in terms of human rights, social and political structures. But you know this already.

Seeing as you now claim to be part of the reality based community (welcome home) I'm certain you will provide a cogent and reasonable response to my question. Try not to get it deleted by the MODS.

[John Q. Citizen]

80. Lared worships authority, and can't fathom that they aren't always acting in good faith.

He's completely innocent of an agenda.

For him, it's complete naivete. He can't fathom his dear big brother as being anything other than benign and loving, and good.

[John Q. Citizen]

79. Cops start riots all the time. Where have you been? Heck there have been

been police riots where all the demonstrators are cops and they start burning things to get there demands met, like higher pay, better hours, etc.

Ever hear the term agent provocateur?
Do you believe that term is just something someone made up?

Ever hear any first hand stories from people who protested in Seattle during the WTO meetings?

Ever hear of Co-intel? Do you believe that wouldn't ever happen again?

In the case of the protests in Canada, the cops denied they had plain-clothes officers dressed to look like protesters in the crowd, until after the video evidence came out.

Then they admitted it. If it was just an innocent police effort to flush out the non-existent violent protesters, why lie about it until they are caught red handed?

[Fainter]

39. Yes! Too Much Programming Can Cause Your Reaction Too. n/t

[LARED]

4. Hey for $92 you can buy your very own

"jackbooted government thug" boots online.

http://www.shoeline.com/asp/dcpItem.asp?style=B350-1575

http://www.weinbrennerusa.com/dspNavCategory.cfm?catid=14&subcatid=18&level3=45&productid=269#

[mogster]

8. You are so yesterday in your comments, LARED

Police-issued boots identified fake protesters
Protest organizers on Wednesday played the video for the media at a news conference in Ottawa. One of the organizers, union leader Dave Coles, explained that one reason protesters knew the men's true identities was because they were wearing the same boots as other police officers.

Coles said on Wednesday that the only thing he didn't know was whether the men were Quebec police, RCMP or hired security officers.

" believes that the security force at Montebello were ordered to infiltrate our peaceful assembly and provoke incidents," said Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html?ref=rss

So, will you now debate the topic?? ;-)

[Sweet Pea]

9. Jeez....

I have a pair of black work boots that have a Vibram sole.

Does that mean I'm missing out on some unknown pay?

That is just completely absurd, equating a photo of the sole of a boot as some sort of secret security cabal.

Someone's tin-foil hat is on just a tad too tight. Loosen it up a bit.

[mogster]

10. I don't think you're missing out, no

[HamdenRice]

12. Jeez

The police have officially admitted that the "protesters" were indeed undercover police officers.

[mrgerbik]

17. She aint so "sweet" now n/t

[mrgerbik]

15. Keep kicking this thread

to show the people in denial of a corrupt power structure a clear example of the tactics used by said people to slowly push agendas that would otherwise be strongly opposed and most likely shot down. These thugs were there to incite violence and cast a dark shadow over the peaceful protesters that were there legally... no doubt about it. Watch the video.

Thank god they folded so quickly and admitted what they did. A question does remain as to why they would admit this, as it would seem easier to just take the tried-and-true method of denial and let the story bury itself. People like Lared gladly play investigator and take up the front lines in "debunking" it on the internet.

[LARED]

31. What agenda might the powers that be, be pushing

by having the police start a riot?

[The Doctor.]

63. Vilify protestors.

Make them unpopular, make their position unpopular.

Works like a charm.

[John Q. Citizen]

81. An excuse to beat the crap out of protesters and send a message to others

about why they too wouldn't want to protest.

Ever been in a protest where the cops started bashing heads, Lared?

[Andre II]

85. Welcome on planet earth, lared!

It's always good to have a good morning laugh!

Why did the police in Geneva in 2001 know personally members of the Black Block?
Why did the police plant evidence in the Diaz school in Geneva?
Why did the G8 demonstrations discredit the movement in the eyes of world public?

Why did the German police had a one member inside the demonstration as well?
Why did he ty starting a riot according to other members of the demonstration?
(In any case if police members inside a demonstration act clamly and peacefully how come they are uncovered?)
Did you see the nice stone in the hand of the policeman in the video of the OP?
Why did two members of the US secret service have a small amount of Semtex in their car when approaching the G8 meeting in Germany this summer? (official explanation that they wanted to test German ssecurity...)
Why?
Maybe all these questions are linked together.

And here a very simple one:

Why did members of the extreme right wing in Italy kill in the 70s three members of the Italian police in the Pateano killing?
Why did the Italian police was part of the cover up and didn't try to get the truth out?
Why was this and all similar killings in Italy ALWAYS blamed on the extreme left?

[Ezlivin]

18. Lared and Sweat Pea - pwned!

N/T

[jberryhill]

21. Did anyone get pre-riot pictures or videos of the undercover guys?

That would be perfect.

Having admitted there were undercover officers in the crowd, the argument seems to be about whether the undercover officers were inciting the violence.

Cameras are good for ending he-said, she-said assertions in that kind of argument.

[mogster]

34. Well, if you followed this news

From when it broke, you can have no doubt that these undercover police officers were searching out the Union members who were having a peaceful demo.



The video shows the Union leader trying to chase them away, clearly suspicious about their intentions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

As it is, I'll take his suspicion and knowledge about this particular police squad as a good indicator to their intentions.

[jberryhill]

35. Well that pretty much nails it

...and no, I don't follow every story from when it broke, which is why I was curious.

No, there is no good reason for a plainclothes officer to be carrying a rock and wearing a mask at a labor protest.

[HamdenRice]

22. Second time that Canadian police found to be rock throwers

Commentary on latest scandal mentions that Canadian police were rock throwers in 2003:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/stuart_neatby/1339

"During a trial against protest organizers of an anti-G20 demonstration in Montreal in 2003, police were forced to admit to having 23 plainclothes officers infiltrating a demonstration of about 1000. Video recorded at this protest also indicates that these undercovers were involved in throwing objects at police, likely in order to justify a police attack."

<end quote>

OCTabarnacles respond: The rocks actually spontaneously levitated out of the undercover police officers hands toward the uniformed police officers, because such police conspiracies are impossible, because "too many people would have to be involved."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

23. Canadia police in masks, armed with rocks according to Globe & Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070824.VIDEO24/TPStory/National

"A video of the demonstration broadcast on the Internet - which shows three men with bandanas across their faces and large rocks in their hands taunting union members before being handcuffed and escorted away by police in riot gear - was at the centre of a controversy that erupted following the North American leaders meeting."

<end quote>

OCTabarnacles respond: The video just happened to capture police engaged in standard operating procedure of peacefully infiltrating the crowd when by "coincidence" a newspaper blew into the face of the undercover cops, simulating a bandana, and at that exact moment, parts of a concrete facade fell off a nearby building, which the officers fortuitously caught, preventing injury to others.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LARED]

28. SOP

"Their mandate was to seek out and identify non-peaceful demonstrators to avoid having things boil over," a statement issued by the force read. "At no point did Sûreté du Québec policemen act as agents provocateurs or criminals."

Spin it anyway you like Hammey, but it seems to be a good idea to me.

[jberryhill]

38. The guy had a rock in his hand

I can understand having plainclothes police scattered around as witnesses in case things get out of hand.

But this ain't that.

If a plainclothes is trying to blend in for legitimate public safety purposes, why does he have a rock in his hand?

For self protection? Against whom? The people he's blending in with? No. Besides, he can perfectly well carry a concealed GUN, mace, or other weapon because.... HE'S A POLICE OFFICER.

The role of police at protests is to ensure public safety, including to protect the rights of the protestors to peaceably assemble and exercise their first amendment rights. That's perfectly legitimate.

I can't in my wildest imagination believe how someone with a mask and a rock in his hand is intending to carry out those legitimate purposes.

[LARED]

41. My two cents on this

The tactic of having police pose a protesters to in order to flesh out violent protesters is fairly common. I've read about it, there have been television shows about this tactic and based on the reporting around this story it has been done in the past. If properly done, I am OK with the practice as it has also become common to have radicals and anarchists show up at peaceful protests in order to stir up trouble for the simple reason they want a confrontation with police. This puts the police, peaceful protesters, and the general public in danger.

The police clearly have it in their best interests to have a peaceful protest. And most police I know are quite adamant about the right of free speech, and the right to assemble. During a protest they are also obligated to protect protesters as well as themselves and the general public and their property. I am always willing to give the police the benefit of doubt before speculating that they are somehow the puppets of some evil corprocrate that is inciting violence for as of yet divulged reason. As many seem to be doing here.

I believe a few months down the road the video shown will be used as a training tool to show police what not to do. It appears to me to be a poorly executed operation. I am guessing the rock was given to him by a protestors and he was using it to try and draw out people intent on violence. As you point out someone with a mask and a rock in his hand is not doing that for legitimate purposes. It would be useful if you are trying to find people in the crownd that are thinking about using the rock.

What I find strange is the attempt to conflate this police tactic (whether one thinks its a good or bad tatctic) with this NWO nonsense.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. I have to disagree with you on this, LARED.

Those cops were up to no good. The rock in his hand could have been enough reason to let loose the rubber bullets and tear gas. To imply that some other protester handed the cop that rock is a HUGE stretch considering the demeanor of the other protesters. Even if someone DID hand the cop the rock, he would know better than to approach a locked-and-loaded police line with that rock in hand - unless he was looking to start trouble.

I don't think there needs to be some grand conspiracy to believe cops would pull this kind of shit. Cops don't like protesters and people they believe to be "hippies" who don't respect their author-a-tie.

I followed this story as it broke on DU and it was pretty clear these guys were cops. The boots were a tip-off but the way they interacted with the uniformed police prior to and during their "arrest" sealed it for me. The way the undercover cops were able to approach the police line, have a conversation and then get "arrested" with almost kid-gloves didn't pass the smell-test.

[LARED]

49. I agree

this could certainly be a case a few cops acting criminally.

My theory that the cops were handed the rock by other protester is mentioned in one of the news stories, and it's true that approaching the police with a rock could have provoked the police to react, that would mean the other police did not know who they were, something I doubt is possible.

My bottom line on this is that I like the police and believe honest citizens should support them, not act like all of them are thugs. So until established they were acting maliciously, and not just stupidly I am willing to wait for the facts to be known.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. It could be a case of a bunch of cops acting criminally. Why not? Are those

criminal cops still on the force?

Did they get charged and kicked off? Why not?

[HamdenRice]

48. "have it in their best interests to have a peaceful protest" -- OK let's start w/ Econ 101

lared seems to have a mind that is uncontaminated by even the slightest hint of social science, economic, or historical information in order to write a post like this.

So let's start with a basic theory of how bureaucracies, not just police, operate. You seem to believe that the main interest of police is upholding the law. It isn't. Economics tells us that the main interest of each police officer is his or her own well being.

Police officers are not primarily interested in protecting the citizens or upholding the law. It is in getting paid and promoted. Police officers advance in their careers by making arrests. It doesn't matter whether the arrested person actually committed a crime or would not have committed a crime in the absence of police behavior (unless the police force builds disincentives in for false arrests). The main interest is making arrests. If a gathering is peaceful, then the police officer is not making arrests. So they either need to arrest people for minor infractions (see, eg, the behavior of the NYPD during the Republican convention) or they need to generate behavior that leads to arrests.

That's econ 101.

[LARED]

50. Such a mess of confusion

you're really not ready for the prime time Professorship yet

Economics tells us that the main interest of each police officer is his or her own well being.

Very good insight. You have shown that at least on occasion having touched the reality based world. I'm surprised a DU'er of your vast intellect did not pick up on this theme and draw some better logical conclusions, as a very strong interest of all people is the interest in preservation of self. Every policeman wants to go home unharmed and alive. In the last few years the type of protests in this story have a history of turning violent. Police know they turn violent because a small group, or groups of radicals want open confrontation with police and start problems by throwing rocks, throwing cherry bombs or Molotov cocktails or worse. This is why police infiltrate protests in an effort to find the radicals and remove them. This is an a dangerous tactic, but they believe it is worth it in order to protect themselves, the protesters. and private property. (speaking of economics 101)

But sadly it is straight down hill after that.

Police officers are not primarily interested in protecting the citizens or upholding the law. It is in getting paid and promoted.

Your knowledge of human behavior and economics is obviously limited if you really believe this. Police are motivated to become police because of the same reasons most people choose a vocation. They like the work, it gives them satisfaction. Most are also deeply motivated to help other citizens. Do you know any police? Have you every talked to one? Pay is a secondary but important motivator for most.

Police officers advance in their careers by making arrests. It doesn't matter whether the arrested person actually committed a crime or would not have committed a crime in the absence of police behavior (unless the police force builds disincentives in for false arrests). The main interest is making arrests.

Interesting theory. Outside of you beleiving this can you produce a fact or two to back up your opinion? So making frivioilous, illegal arrests are the path of career growth? If that was the case the jails would be full of citizens being arrested for trival matters. Face it Hammey you just don't like the police, and you spin this nonsense to justify your dislike. You can do much better.

If a gathering is peaceful, then the police officer is not making arrests. So they either need to arrest people for minor infractions (see, eg, the behavior of the NYPD during the Republican convention) or they need to generate behavior that leads to arrests.

Because I sort of like you I'll refrain from pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

[HamdenRice]

47. The police, caught red handed, deny any wrongdoing

and that's enough for lared! (Strange that so many Canadian politicians have a different view; must be crazy conspiracy theorists!)

Of course, no criminal caught red handed would lie about his criminality. Reminds me of all those jokes they used to tell down south, the punchline of which always was, "chickens? what chickens? I ain't stolt these chickens!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Another case solved and closed by the ever inquisitive detective lared!

[HamdenRice]

24. Rock wielding masked police officer incident now growing scandal; police to make further statements

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/24/ot-montebello-sq-070824.html

On Friday, politicians and protesters alike were still demanding answers about the incident.

Quebec Opposition public security critic Sylvie Roy, ADQ MNA for Lotbinière, said in an interview that the province's Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis has to answer for the police actions.

<end quote>

OCTabot response: Member of Parliament Roy is obviously a gullible conspiracy theorist, as are the police spokespersons who are preparing to make a further statement.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

25. Communications workers union demands inquiry in growing provocateur scandal

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2007/24/c2008.html

CEP calls for independent judicial inquiry into Montebello cover up

OTTAWA, Aug. 24 /CNW Telbec/ - The man who "unmasked" the police officers
posing as protestors at the Montebello summit earlier this week says an
independent judicial inquiry into the conduct of the security forces and their political masters is needed.

"It is bad enough that a police force in Canada thinks it has the right
to infiltrate peaceful protests in such a way but the real issue is who
ordered them to do it?" said Dave Coles, President of the Communications,
Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.

"The fact is that these three police officers jeopardized the safety of
everyone in that protest, not to mention the safety of the three political leaders, by trying to incite violence during the summit.

<end quote>

OCTabot response: All the CEP is doing is making unproven allegations of a conspiracy. Obviously, if anything happened at all, it was a few bad apples, and the idea that these rock wielding, masked police officers answered to "political masters" is obviously an anti-Semitic slur.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Laurier]

45. So, the bottom line is "Blame Quebec"?

Um, okay.

[SidDithers]

30. Were the 9/11 hijackers wearing the same boots?...

is that what you're suggesting here?

Sid

[mogster]

33. Lol, you know

That was actually funny ;-)
No, Sid - they had shoes with box cutters embedded in the sole, somewhat like Reid.

[jberryhill]

36. THE BOOTS FELL RIGHT INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS!

...within a few days we'll have someone posting pictures from ground zero or Shanksville that will show the same boots among the debris.

Or else CB_Brooklyn will provide irrefutable evidence of video fakery in the alteration of images to get rid of the boots.

Nebula will post one of his visual puzzles showing a boot kicking the towers and asking us to explain it.

We Are Change will chase random politicians around New York demanding to be shown the soles of their shoes.

Flatulo will explain that understanding the topology of knot-tying requires a physically-correct computer model.

PetGoat will remark that any distinction between "boots" and "shoes" is mere sophistry.

Andre II will point out inconsistencies among 9/11 Commission witness testimony about what they were wearing on their feet that day.

Boloboffin will ask SeemsLikeADreem "WTF would you know about boots or shoes, since you go barefoot anyway?"

AzCat will explain that the presence of boots logically implies wearing socks underneath, even if we don't have pictures of the socks.

CGowen will say that ever since 9/11, air passengers have to take off their shoes so the TSA can check to see who to let through as part of a false flag operation.

And WildBilln64 will Kick....kick....kick...kick...

[CGowen]

42. makes absolutely no sense

Reid was in Dec 2001 but TSA policy depends on the type of shoes

"TSA has always been alert to the danger of a 'shoe bomb' attack. It has been noted that al Qaeda has trained people to make and use shoe bombs, as highlighted by the Richard Reid incident in December 2001,"
http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2003/press_release_0322.shtm

Am I wearing the right shoes?


You are NOT REQUIRED to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, TSA screeners may encourage you to remove them before entering the metal detector as many types of footwear will require additional screening even if the metal detector DOES NOT alarm.

Footwear that screeners will encourage you to remove because they are likely to require additional screening:

* Boots
* Platform shoes (including platform flip-flops)
* Footwear with a thick sole or heel (including athletic shoes)
* Footwear containing metal (including many dress shoes)

Footwear that screeners are less likely to suggest you remove includes:

* "Beach" flip-flops
* Thin-soled sandals (without metal)

TIP: Since a thorough screening includes x-ray inspection of footwear, wearing footwear that is easily removable helps to speed you through the screening process.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050227220554/http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=183&content=09000519800b68b8

web page active until Jul 06

[jberryhill]

52. Well... you see.. that's the point

People are "encouraged" to remove boots so that when the NWO agents show their boots to the TSA guys, then the TSA guys know to ignore all of the bombs and weapons the NWO guys are taking on the planes.

[Kingshakabobo]

51. LOL......

:rofl:

You are a real asset to the 9/11 dungeon. A paid CIA NWO asset, but an asset none the less.

[Laurier]

53. That's a keeper :)

:rofl:

[frylock]

55. Police admit agents posed as protesters; One carries large rock to protest.

care to mix in a little crow with that giant helping of smugness? Perhaps you're too busy working on your next Titanic comparison.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1671292
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/249429

[jberryhill]

60. Umm... dude, what crow?

Please read my posts above on the main topic.

These guys were obviously there to stir up trouble, and the police department should get a good spanking - like the Seattle PD recently having to pay out $80K or thereabouts for similar shenanigans.

The question came up as to why this was posted in the 9/11 forum in the first place.

I don't see the connection here, unless the Quebec PD was "in on it" somehow, but figgered that someone must have a connection in mind in order to post this discussion here.

Lighten up once in a while. It won't kill you. If you read what I posted, you'll notice that I had plenty of mirth to go around, including the predictable responses of my coworkers here in bunker 39 - DU NWO patrol.

[frylock]

62. it's all a big joke..

fuckin hilarious.

[mikelgb]

32. I love that this post is in our beloved 9/11 forum

[jberryhill]

37. Oh, that's easy

The Quebec police inserted provocatuers into a peaceful labor protest.

Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

It's just simple logic and physics.

[frylock]

54. a conspicous lack of apologies from the usual suspects..

just more spinning and bullshit. Just admit you were wrong on this and issue an apology already.

[LARED]

56. I agree

A peaceful demo made a violent demo, by police in false flag attire. Their only reason for doing this was to make the demo violent, so the police could attack the peaceful demonstrants and end the demo. Tear gas, rubber bullets - it's no Sunday walk when police intervene and do 'crowd control'.

This is definitely spinning, and the poster should apologize.

[redqueen]

57. You did see this, right?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/249429

[seemslikeadream]

59. Quebec police admit agents posed as protesters

I did :hi:

[redqueen]

61. Oh yes... I'd imagine you wouldn't miss it!

:hi:

[frylock]

58. keep trying

[mogster]

64. Oh, grow up, LA RED

When I posted this item, this was still an unproven case. The police had not yet admitted to their undercover activity. Then, in mid-thread so to speak, the whole story is confirmed, yet you don't shift one inch in your argumentation. I've posted three blog posts about this back home, with the same timeline as here at the DU; original report, internet rumours and investigation and final confirmation. The exact same thing happened: denial, even after the story was confirmed. I don't like to rub it in, so I leave them to it. But you'd wonder what it would take to convince people some times.

As it is, this have a lot to do with 911, as I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity">this event belongs in the pre-911 incident picture, and also had direct consequences for the topic at hand:


"(T)he WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, which was to be the launch of a new millennial round of trade negotiations, occurred on November 30, 1999, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened in Seattle, Washington, USA. The negotiations were quickly overshadowed by massive and controversial street protests outside the hotels and the Seattle Convention Center, in what became the second phase of the anti-globalization movement in the United States. The scale of the demonstrations—even the lowest estimates put the crowd at over 40,000—dwarfed any previous demonstration in the United States against a world meeting of any of the organizations generally associated with economic globalization (such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or the World Bank)."

World Trade Organization, World Trade Center - it's so 911, isn't it? You don't have to take that as the final proof that 911 was an inside job, but I'm a socially interested guy and wonder how forty thousand rioting, but very well organized, protesteres seemed to the plushy guys inside - the fat cats used to large drinks and easy money. With no mentionable resistance for nearly two decades.

Further, this event was the start of a new doctrine within the police and int. services as far as demonstrators go:

"Law enforcement reaction
Although local police were surprised by the size of N30, law enforcement agencies have since reacted worldwide to prevent the disruption of future events by a variety of tactics, including sheer weight of numbers, infiltrating the groups to determine their plans, and preparations for the use of force to remove protesters.

At the site of some of the protests, police have used tear gas, pepper spray, concussion grenades, rubber and wooden bullets, night sticks, water cannons, dogs, horses, and occasionally live ammunition to repel the protesters. After the November 2000 G-8 protest in Montreal, at which many protesters were beaten, trampled, and arrested in what was intended to be a festive protest, the tactic of dividing protests into "green" (permitted), "yellow" (not officially permitted but with little confrontation and low risk of arrest), and "red" (involving direct confrontation) zones was introduced.

In Quebec City, municipal officials built a 3 metre (10 ft) high wall around the portion of the city where the Summit of the Americas was being held, which only residents, delegates to the summit, and certain accredited journalists were allowed to pass through."

Now, in the summer leading up to the attacks:

"The Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest from July 18 to July 22, 2001 was one of the bloodiest protests in Western Europe's recent history, as evidenced by the death of a young Genoese anarchist rioter named Carlo Giuliani during two days of violence and rioting by fringe groups, and the hospitalisation of several peaceful demonstrators. Police have subsequently been accused of brutality, torture and interference with the non-violent protests. Several hundred peaceful demonstrators, rioters, and police were injured and hundreds were arrested during the days surrounding the G8 meeting; most of those arrested have been charged with some form of "criminal association" under Italy's anti-mafia and anti-terrorist laws."

And the rest is, as they say, history. Now anti-terror laws are the daily life for everybody, not only WTO protesters, and everyone is under surveillance. What power they didn't have in 1999 they have now. Maybe we are all WTO protesters today?

I know protesters can riot, LARED. I don't need to hide that fact. I don't split people into innocent and guilty by the church-like lines you do, nor do I cry for Starbucks broken shop windows or the ruffled feathers of the financial elite, but THIS demonstration at THIS point in time, was peaceful. That's what we're talking about. People have the right to demonstrate and speak their mind without being taken out by fake anarchists.

This episode points to the wider problem; the war on the people made possible by undercover goverment activity, provoking an authoritarian reaction in response to a crime that does not exist.

[LARED]

66. I have changed my view on this, It is you that has not

Their only reason for doing this was to make the demo violent, so the police could attack the peaceful demonstrants and end the demo. Tear gas, rubber bullets - it's no Sunday walk when police intervene and do 'crowd control'.

Do you still believe that?

I originally thought the boot thing was just mere coincidence. It wasn't. The events have shown so far that I was correct in my assessment once I has more information, in that it was the police trying (and doing a lousy job) to find violent protesters and remove them. (something I maintain is good police work if done properly) I have stated if they were indeed trying to entice violence against the protesters they should be held accountable.

[mogster]

70. 'Do I _still_ believe that'?

The video clearly shows what's going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
Police in anarchist gear trying to make the protesters look violent, and stop the demo. The Union leader states that this is a demo for 'grandfathers, grandmothers' and 'put the rock down, this is our line'.

What have happened between the police confession and now to make me change my mind, LARED? When did 'still believe' become a part of this debate? ;-)

'I have stated if they were indeed trying to entice violence against the protesters they should be held accountable'

Yeah, it's the big if, isn't it? First deny that they were police, then deny that they were in fact doing what everybody can see that they're doing, when that fact is confirmed.

[LARED]

71. The video clearly does not show that

Their only reason for doing this was to make the demo violent, so the police could attack the peaceful demonstrants and end the demo. Tear gas, rubber bullets - it's no Sunday walk when police intervene and do 'crowd control'.

I've changed my view once I had additional information. Can you admit you were wrong?

[mogster]

72. I leave it up to people to decide for themselves

I have a problem in taking you seriously, and this thread is not about you and me anyway, LARED ;-)

[LARED]

73. Not to worry

I have problem taking seriously CD advocates.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. We aren't that gullible, even if you are.

[truthpowertruth]

65. lared, I'm curious

What is your job? Are you currently employed?

[LARED]

67. Yes, currently employed

as the manager of a small engineering group. I have not been out of work in over twenty five years.

How about you?

[truthpowertruth]

74. Student

It's funny, a lot of the managers I know don't have this much time debating 9/11 on the internet. Maybe you're special.

[greyl]

75. Apparently, he's managing just fine. My question to you is,

are you learning anything?

[John Q. Citizen]

84. I learned that spinners spin and keep on spinning. It's kind of obvious....

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

76. High School or College? nt

[truthpowertruth]

77. College

I'm studying psychology. My personal psychological analysis of 9/11 "debunkers" is not particularly flattering.

[LARED]

78. Really? Not flattering?

What does your analysis tell you?

[HamdenRice]

86. I haven't studied psychology

but I agree that the unique "point of view" of certain OCTabarnacles is probably best explained through some theory of psychopathology. Something along the lines of good Germans/utter obedience to authority -- as revealed in this very thread.