In response to http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=20110
The webpage cited has the title "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by Agents Provocateurs of the Police". That suggests there's proof, some evidence.
Yet in the body of the essay we read, "It is hopeful that in the days, weeks and months to come government and police will be forced to admit (under similar circumstances as in Montebello, Quebec in 2007) that much of the vandalism and fire-setting was undertaken by those encouraged, directly or indirectly, by agents provocateurs."
The author is presuming guilt before innocence (riots perpetrated by police), and guilt by association (Quebec cops did it, so Toronto must have also).
Seems that a lot of people will parrot URLs without critical thought:
1520 RT @Teradoll @CynthiaBuroughs @mparent77772: G20 agent provocs Opinions are like buttholes, everyone's got one. Proof? #g20
1545 @PPKA2 the article provides sources, check them.
1555 @Teradoll I've read every one of those URLs before. Disingenuous to label the page "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by ... Police"
1556 @teradoll "It is hopeful that in the days, weeks and months to come government and police will be forced to admit " is not proof.
1601 @PPKA2 there´s a lot more evidence that the police did something wrong in all the photos and videos than any of the people arrested
1604 @PPKA2 so you can say there´s no proof, fine...but there´s enough to make a legitimate allegation worth investigating.
1604 @PPKA2 especially considering they admitted to using provocateurs in the past.
1604 @PPKA2 well if we don´t say anything in twitter all the malformed pablum they will get is from the MSM
1605 @Teradoll oh hell yes. But I thought we lived in an innocent before guilty society. Turns out not so much, on all accounts.
1606 @Teradoll Basically I'm sick of seeing lame grade-school 'proof' that cops broke windows. Let cars get burned, maybe. Where's the admission?
1606 @PPKA2 if we don´t make accusations the police behavior will never be investigated properly
1608 @Teradoll Then accuse through non-hysterical channels. Most of Twitter is happy to eat whatever malformed pablum they're given as 'proof'
1609 @PPKA2 well if we don´t say anything in twitter all the malformed pablum they will get is from the MSM
1609 @Teradoll btw, one time a black haired spanish woman committed a crime. By your logic, that makes you suspect also. C'mon.
1610 @PPKA2 showing abandonded cop cars burning and windows being smashed w/ no police in sight and trying to link it to the arrests the next day
1611 @PPKA2 the boots were enough to make the police admit to using provocateurs in 2007...it´s not that far out.
1611 @Teradoll then call it 'potential' or 'possible' not 'proof'.
1613 @Teradoll ah yes. Only cops wear black boots. Proof, debunked: http://bit.ly/aFvZNi because 2007 QC is 2010 ON and guilt by assoc rules.
1616 @PPKA2 besides it´s more than the boots...there are videos of the cars being abandoned and the window smashers acting with no police nearby
1616 @PPKA2 1 billion dollars spent on security and there were no police on the streets where windows were being smashed?
1617 @PPKA2 1 billion dollars spent on security and they leave lone police cars in the middle of the crowd and walk away?
1617 @PPKA2 it´s more than a little suspicious
1617 @PPKA2 I know that´s not proof, but it´s enough to be suspicious
1618 @PPKA2 anyway I´m done arguing with you, but I´ll bet doughnuts to dollars we´ll get an admission in the near future.
1621 @Teradoll proof -> more than suspicious -> not proof. Nice. Guilt before innocence. Let's hear the admission.
1626 @PPKA2 on the other hand there is plenty of proof on video that the police violated several sections of the charter of rights and freedoms
1629 @Teradoll I'm not arguing other vids. Seeking proof that cops broke stuff. There was 'proof' you said. Oh wait. That got retracted.
1630 @PPKA2 and all you´re doing is nitpicking the terms I used to try and shield the police from scrutiny.
1631 @Teradoll I heard 'proof'. Shall we debate that word in legal terms? Or is fuzzy wuzzy OK for conviction these days?
1633 @PPKA2 I´m not making a conviction I´m making an allegation...there is a difference.
1634 @Teradoll You're happy to retweet convictions. The original article said "G20 Toronto Riots perpetrated by [Police]". Nice disinformation.
1636 @PPKA2 I didn´t write the article, and I didn´t ever say I agree 100% with every word written in it...nice putting words in my mouth
1638 @Teradoll sorry where's the bit where you disagreed? Just going by your tweets. You seemed OK retweeting verbatim...
1641 @PPKA2 everyone knows the headline is just an attention grabber...I hope.
1642 @Teradoll So you're OK propagating exaggerated headlines that purport 'proof'. Tell me how this helps.
1644 @Teradoll Hope away. High-school 'proof' gets seconded by in other blogs, gets raised more entrenched; the agenda-pushers win.
1645 @PPKA2 fine you don´t like the wording of the article I get it, I´m not changing your mind.
1646 @Teradoll Question 'proof'. Isn't that what we're all taught? Check primary sources. Nice thread. Godspeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment