|
|
|
- Thread starter TO City of Light
- Start date
Asterix
Active Member
So let's get this latest theory straight and within context.
You are saying the cops recruited a known hooligan to do their dirty work. Surely when this guy is brought before a judge he'll be spilling his guts about how the police told him to cause trouble as that would presumably give him an excuse to avoid facing any serious punishment.
Have the police accounted for this eventuality? Maybe you'll say they offered him enough money to keep his mouth shut and take the full rap. (What's "enough" money? $10,000? $100,000?) What's to guaranty he doesn't change his mind or get sloppy and accidentally let slip in the future? After all, this guy isn't exactly the most upstanding of citizens who can be trusted to do the right thing. What happens when a nosy reporter gets wind of this, confirms the guy got a $100,000 cheque deposited just before the summit and runs the story on the front page?
Yeah, that all sounds like a very reasonable and plausible explanation.
Do you even think about the stuff you make up before you post it for all to see?
Peepers
Banned
If he was recruited and directed by undercover cops he himself would not know the identity of the cops. None-the-less this might be a good defense strategy for his lawyer to pursue. He should request that the police reveal the identity of every undercover cop that had infiltrated these groups.
Asterix
Active Member
He wouldn't have to know the identity, but he would be able to provide something of a description (unless you are saying he was contacted purely by untraceable, anonymous email or phone calls), to say nothing of that big bank deposit.
As for a good defense strategy, are you saying his lawyer will stand up and suggest that some guy he can't name or describe came up to him on the street, told him to trash a police car and so therefore must be an undercover cop? What's the difference between this and saying God told him to do it?
Unless he's got a smidgen of proof (like a good description of both the undercover cop and the process of contact as well as proof of compensation), then he might as well go with the God defense.
I still don't have any reason to believe you actually think these things through before you go online.
bigkiwibird
New Member
I wonder how many times this guy has spotted Elvis walking about?
Catapult
Active Member
There are so many people with their heads in the clouds! Do you really think Iran was trying to be helpful in their advice or criticism? Any criticism by Iran has zero credibility for the reasons others have pointed out. I suggest using any statements by Iran to support one's position regarding the G20 events is silly and in fact will undermine your position. That being said, maybe we should follow Iran's ways and execute some of the people involved in the protest (I have to say I'm joking as there will undoubtedly be people that think I'm serious).. Here's a quote from Wikipedia re the big protests there recently "Police and the Basij, a paramilitary group suppressed both peaceful demonstrating and rioting using batons, pepper spray, sticks and, in some cases, firearms. The Iranian government has confirmed the deaths of 36 people during the protests,[48] while unconfirmed reports by supporters of Mousavi allege that there have been 72 deaths (twice as many) in the three months following the disputed election.[49][50] Iranian authorities have closed universities in Tehran, blocked web sites, blocked cell phone transmissions and text messaging,[51] and banned rallies...On May 9, 2010, five of the prisoners convicted on various charges relating to the protests were executed in secret. Reportedly, neither their families or their lawyers were notified of the execution. It is believed that as least 25 other men and women now are scheduled to be executed in on charges relating to the protests."
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
So we've gone from surely he's an under cover cop acting as agent provocateur, to being recruited by the cops to do these things, to being recruited by undercover cops. What next were they super duper undercover ops by the men in black? Mind control from his Bell Expressview satellite?
At some point your going to have to provide some proof to your theories rather than simply depening the conspiracy that you precieve. Maybe it was a professional protestor who dressed like an undercover officer in order to garner this type of discussion/criticism of police.
***Edit***
And furthermore why would someone hired by cops (undercover or not) be outfitted in police gear? Wouldn't that be the dumbest most incompetent person ever?
Last edited:
He doesn't have to provide proof. Just ask the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Peepers
Banned
Not at all! What if he was set up as a "straw man" as part of a false-flag operation? Could it be that he was outfitted in police gear on purpose so that he would attract the interest of the so-called "conspiracy theorists" ? In this way the "conspiracy theorists" can be discredited when he is eventually arrested. This is an age old practice in the world of covert operations. The planners will always put out disinformation in the form of crazy theories that can easily be disproved. After enough of these crazy theories are disproved the public comes view anyone who questions the official version of a story as "conspiracy theorists wearing "tin-foil hats" no matter how legitimate the questions. We can see how well this has worked in this particular forum. Anyone who questions if Police had a hand in promoting the violence is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" who needs his head examined.
A good example of how this works is 9/11. In the aftermath there were many legitimate questions about whether Bush and members of his administration had prior knowledge of an attack but allowed it to occur to suit their agenda (much like Toronto Police allowed vandals to go on a rampage). The legitimate questions were soon drowned out by the crazy theories such as the Pentagon was hit by a missile or the WTC was brought down by pre-planted explosives etc. I have no doubt that intelligence operatives were behind these crazy theories. Its the perfect way to discredit those people who have legitimate questions.
Last edited:
Asterix
Active Member
Well, when I see a 'legitimate question' that can pass even the most basic smell test, I'll be sure to let you know.
So far, nothing has. Try thinking your theories through next time if you don't want to come off looking like a whack-job conspiracy nut.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I don't care about the theories. I am glad to see that the public and police partnered up to bring the vandals to justice.
nfitz
Superstar
gristle
Senior Member
Given your claimed certainty, can you provide any actual proof to support your assertions, or are you merely stating an unfounded belief?
tkip
Active Member
This is always the case with conspiracy theories. There's no proof. Yet those who believe in them want others to just accept them at face value. And I personally think Peepers is a bonafide "whack-job conspiracy nut".
Coltaine79
Active Member
Probably never?
The mentality of the "cops can do no wrong" crowd was made amply clear by Rob Ford's statements during the most recent mayoralty debate...
I can't believe Ford makes the same mistake as so many of the low IQ retards online who use the terms "protester" and "vandal" interchangably...
And God forbid Sarah Thomson should stick up for those who believe in their constitutional right to protest/assemble... !
This thread has gotten quite far off-track because of ONE wing-nut, but let's not forget there are about 4-5 posters here who have the EXACT same opinion as Rob Ford when it comes to the police.