You're absolutely right about the effect of exaggerations, hyperbole, and inflammatory language, especially in RAIM's case (don't even get me started), however the slogan merely gets attention, as RAIM and the like piss that attention away by shooting their mouths off unchecked by their minds. But if we use the attention grabbing power of strong statements, and I mean to utilize the window of opportunity, then we can keep a consistent message that really draws authority into question, realistically, and I don't think the slogan on the banner is the death nail in that effort. It is usually that groups like RAIM just keep spewing the same crap instead of elaborating. It helps to be consistent, rationally and ethically, as long as a solution can be seen as feasible. But just being consistent on the surface, like RAIM, does absolutely no good, you're right, and even can be detrimental. Perhaps we should suggest publicly that cops who do strive to not fulfill their role as murderers, what is expected of them implicitly by the corporate state, are like conscientious objectors in the military, and should be afforded such status. The question then is how to put that form of conscientious objection into legally pertinent terms and identifying and defining the substance of it. If such status were recognized then we could actually get statistics on police personalities, and then we'd know whether or not there are a few bad apples or the whole force is bad apples with a few exceptions. What would that mean for the legitimacy of the state? I'm sure you can imagine.
"All cops are murderers" poses the question of why do we need cops? What is it about us that makes police, rationally speaking, necessary? We create our own criminal population and cops play a key role in that process, then they are charged with holding us all hostage to their Hobbesian delusions. 'Murderer' in the sense of that slogan is more of a job title than a statement about their personalities. Cops striving to never shoot their weapons is a dereliction of duty under the false premise of 24 hour threats to security. Consider who's security this is. It is only people who by any moral rationalizing deserve what they get, or inevitably constitute themselves as legitimate targets. Cops are charged with the task of protecting thieves, liars and thugs of capital, not all of us. Their presence in our communities, in essence and effect, works to divide us and pit us against one another. They can't claim there are winners and losers by chance in a free market when they select the losers arbitrarily. The cops don't all know that they are supposed to be cold blooded murderers, but most of them do get it. Those who strive not to be that way are not a majority or the departments would all crumble under their dissent, and their dereliction of duty, just as with such cases of soldiers in war, to dissidents against this evil system, are therefore "patriots." We should not expect them to be rewarded for that by their bosses, but we can surely appreciate their refusal to carry out their role as murderers. But you must remember, if you want security, you want murderers. If you want freedom from criminals then you want revolution. Be consistent.
The reason why cannabis was even criminalized was because a few powerful, greedy men's empires were threatened by the hemp plant. marijuana conspiracy <-- this article does a good job of explaining how that happened. One of the government's most successful tricks up its sleeves are taxing things that they deem morally reprehensible. The people always subscribe to this because they're afraid of being judged by others that are also subscribing to these, i guess "misinformed ideologies," and give the gov more and more control over our personal lives. We live in an age of gov induced hypersensitivity, and now any little annoyance that is able to be stigmatized w/ propaganda is indulged as a legitimate problem. Pretty soon they're going to start persecuting ppl for wearing white, since it reflects light the best and technically would put the ppl around them at a greater risk for skin cancer (bad example, I know, because at least cancer has been proven to harm your health, unlike weed). Yea, it's ridiculous sounding, but the logic is exactly the same as ppl that can't stand being around smokers. The government is the one instilling a sense of corporeality and attachment to our bodies, which is just another exercise in using fear (the only thing that governments are good at) as well as an attempt at preserving our bodies to increase productivity to the state (what other governments were health nuts for this same reason? oh yea, the nationalist socialist party).The same goes for the way the gov targets certain items to hike up the taxes on, such as "sin taxes." Like almost all laws passed in this country, there's always some corporate bullshit behind it. I took a free smoking cessation class back when I was in college, and it seemed like they legitimately wanted to help me until they started throwing expensive teeth whitening products at us at the end. (I remember one of the brands was malibu bright, which is by no means a cheap complimentary toothbrush if that's what you were picturing). They should just call it "the government needs an excuse to take more of our money" tax
I'm glad people did this. Banner drops are more empowering and effective than small symbolic protests. But please be more thoughtful in choosing your words. In fact, all cops are not murderers. Some have never fired their gun in anger on duty. You could have just said "cops are murderers" instead, because that is true. Some cops are murderers. Now, all cops may be complicit in murder by participating in the police culture of silence, but that is different. If that was your point, you could say "All cops are complicit in murder." Furthermore, exagerations, hyperbole, and inflamatory language do no good. That's what RAIM does. Neither the Whether Underground nor the Black Panthers could play down their rhetoric with either the authorities or their own self image. It turns people off and makes radicals appear delusional, as if they weren't already portrayed that way by the state.
I 'm still doing more research, but it sounds like if we get enough people (homeowner's) we can make them all step down. I have a few friends in different HOA across Colorado and they have all had problems with locally managed HOA's, what I would like to see happen is to be managed by an outside managing company. Bank IFSC code Get rid of the district delegates and run it like a normal business
We had some similar cases with activists but they were mainly thrown out of court i do internships with some boston lawyers and helped with a few people who were arrested and got ACOD for the most part.
Troll on, RAIMer. No Tiqqun in your repertoire? The crimes, particularly crimes within a revolutionary's region, are important to pay attention to because they represent a rupture in the status quo as well as demonstrate the violence equated with non-assimilation into an oppressive culture and existing within a culture of manipulated scarcity. Sociopaths are not the norm. Crime = Poverty = Systemic failure of capitalism's social engineering and hierarchy. Nothing to do with inflating ranks, particularly because conceptually the "party is invisible."
Combine the natural violent tearing of social fabric with legitimate organizing for cultural and social revolution (which you and I have pretty clearly different ideas about, which, who gives a shit?) and rebel insurrection, and there is a force that can change things for good. I don't need any proselyting about the third world, because by putting the third world on such a pedestal, you discount global struggles that go beyond the bounds of a narrow class analysis as well as deny advances made by first world revolutionaries that brought progress to people all over the world. What was all that said by Che Guevara about American radicals being in the belly of the best?
And on a note of clarity, you are speaking to an anonymous person who may or may not even live in Denver, and I just engaged in a little dialogue with you, albeit with a bit of hostility. You don't know what I do and I don't know who you are or what you really do. This is all anonymous posturing on the internet and I'm going to choose to refrain from it from here on out. That isn't to say I don't think this developed into an interesting discussion or perhaps challenge that both of us may have learned something. And I think that's just terrific.
You claim we don't contribute to "open revolt", whatever that is, by not breaking enough windows. And you go off on something about ivory towers and Home Depot. And what projects have we coopted? Do you have any serious critique or just recycling old buzzwords to substitute for actual thought?
You end by signing off "social war." Social War is a current anarchist trend, also called insurectionist anarchism. There is a local blog calling itself Til It Breaks: Denver Social War. The first page has these headlines: Summit County crime spree ends in arrest; Jewelry store robbed in Castle Rock; Boy Scout gear swiped from Aurora church parking lot(Yep, Boy Scouts got robbed, the revolution is just around the corner). Granted it does have more political topics on there, but the emphasis on this and similiar blogs out there is reprinting police blotter reports. How is a bunch of reports of vandalism and armed robbery contributing to the global revolution? Are all these robbers and vandals aware that they do their acts because of the "social war," or just to get cash or thrills? Nice way to inflate your ranks, and your self-importance. Hey, I saw some guys in Lodo pissing on a wall outside! Social War!
And while were at it, why don't you attack the anarchists in Denver who organized the rally for Oscar Grant, for "participate in ineffectual protest and symbolic actions within the spectacle?" Don't get me wrong, I'm glad someone here did something on this, but it doesn't live up to your standards of "open revolt."
If you don't like RAIM because we don't smash enough stuff, then we probably don't want you or need you. This infantile trend of glorifying petty crime will likely pass like other trends before it when its adherents burn out or move on to other trends. RAIM looks at the global system of the Third World exploited and oppressed by the First World, and sees this unjust system ending when the oppressed peoples of the world end it through global peoples war. The majority of the First World, a minority in the world, benefit from this system and will oppose any change in it. A minority of First World peoples will support this betterment of humanity, but it will be a minority. RAIM looks for those few who are committed in the long term to aid in this global struggle in the most effective ways they can where they are. Who will study and do whatever work they can to aid the Third World masses. And considering our small size and resources we have achieved a lot comparatively. Sorry if we don't fulfill your instant gratification right away, but revolutions don't work out that way. And don't get us wrong, we have nothing against your tactics, but we don't see much of them around. So if you believe that smashing stuff is something revolutionaries should do them go ahead and do it. Practice what you preach.
great job, making this a highly visible issue all over Colorado should be a priority for those seeking justice for Marvin Booker. Thank you for your actions and stay safe.
breaking windows or any other form of property destruction that costs a target money is "direct action" and to claim that "first worldist poseurs" (what? A Maoist using geopolitics as an excuse to participate in ineffectual protest and symbolic actions within the spectacle while preaching for the distant-future Maoist revolution rather than contribute to open revolt? Say it ain't fucking so! I can make generalizations too : ) ) have no political analysis beyond breaking windows is pretty short sighted. What the fuck made them so mad they would choose specific targets, take the time to claim the action and explain their motives? Oh fuck... I don't know... Political analysis? Do first-world Maoists sit atop ivory towers or do ya'll make yours out of industrial purpose bamboo from Home Depot? Who are you not waiting for? Where are you going? Have you changed anything for anybody?
Nope. Go back to co-opting other people's projects and hoping that one day, there will be enough brainwashed statist-kkkommunists than imperialist bullets you misguided twits.
-social war, up the sectarianism and no tolerance for authoritarian buuuulllllllllshiiiiiiiiit
When was there any direct action in Denver, by whatever tendency? You cant fault us for something that doesn't exist. And we are not out to prove anything to anyone, much less the First Worldist poseurs who's political analysis doesn't go beyond breaking windows that are quickly replaced. If you can do something better then by all means do it. We won't hold our breath waiting for you to though.
ya'll talk a pretty big game but when was the last time direct action (or any other meaingful act of resistance) was attributed to the "revolutionary maoists" in Denver? Any time I see anyone from RAIM in the street, they generalize about how evil white people are as a whole, march around cutely and then go home. For all of this militancy from RAIM's "media wing" there sure isn't any to be found within its ranks or in the streets.
Fuck the police. Groups need to stay on this issue and turn the heat up on the city. This tape needs to be released, and this story needs to stay in the consciousness of the population, because undoubtedly it will disgust and enrage anyone who watches it. If there is no justice for Marvin Booker, there will be no peace for the city authorities. I hope Denver shows up to fight for this.
One does not talk to sleeping people. They'll mumble something about elephants, or let out a whine. Waking, struggling people we can talk with. This leads to a second series of questions about the banner in Boulder. Parts of it read like demands, but to whom? "Free the debt slaves." Who can free debt slaves but themselves? The appeal to usurp the profiteer is presumably made to workers, but then it smacks of some sort of dictatorship of the proletariat. Big words are cool but that phrasing is somewhat harder to digest than "Kill the rich," or "Fire the bosses." At least it's not trying to 'speak truth to power.' In Denver some students' message to the politicians was "You cut, we bleed" (a reference to the budget cuts). How pathetic. If one is going to say anything to the rich and powerful, it should be "You cut, you bleed." Better yet to say nothing and make it manifest in stealth.
download books | geo tv live
This should be front page news! Tell your friends friends! All Cops Are Murderers!!!!!!
This was great article! Thanks for the post!
This reminds me of the struggle to save the International Hotel, in San Francisco, in the 1970's. For an interesting bit of history on that, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-H...
I think Mesa State must also be aware of the similarity. That seems the likely reason for the press blackout (broken by HF!NMD!) and the rapid-fire demolition schedule.
It was good to see a response. The venue for the trial was switched from Oakland to LA. This was no accident. LA has not convicted a cop in a police shooting since 1983. Oscar Grant was murdered and there is little doubt if you look at the video it is found on Google.
At least consider that when you target me and me only with sarcasm, straw-man arguments and personal attacks I'm only going to respond the way any human would respond. You are calling my criticism "insults." I'll admit that in the last comment in response to the critical comments whoever you are made prior I was pretty harsh. My criticisms may have been insulting but no more or less, nor in any different way, than the insulting criticisms thrown at me in previous comments to which I was responding. If you don't want me to take it personally then don't make it personal. Anonymously posting attacks on my psychological well-being is a blatant personal attack and is also equally "neither necessary nor accurate." Elaborately attacking me over nothing and adding to it an attempt to back me into a corner by statements like:
"Your pondering that some kind of 'false flag' operation to take down indymedia took place instead of coordinated radical action reeks more of paranoia than sensible analysis."
Later, and most especially:
"Cut back on the Alex Jones ..."
Are, again, 'neither necessary nor accurate'.
These statements, which are nothing more than personal attacks against me and not actually criticism in any serious sense are not only short-sighted and arrogant, but they indicate a serious deficiency of observational skills. For one, I did not attempt to do an analysis in my first comment, rather I simply expressed my distrust and suspicion about the claims made by FBI Special Agent Kowalski and no one else. I would have slammed the posters of the articles on this website about the ICE office and Wells Fargo had I really cared whether or not they were true. I don't care, and if they are true then GOOD! Fuck ICE and Wells Fargo and then some. My point, reiterated yet again (because you are apparently not reading much before you respond), is that if the FBI claims such and such incidents of vandalism occurred and a blanket accusation against anyone who may be associated with a generalized ideological label like "anarchist" is made by FBI agents, whether explicitly or implicitly, then the burden of proof is on the agents and not you, and such blanket accusations could be used against anyone and everyone involved or associated with anarchist organizations and/or activity by political authorities (Police, DHS, FBI, FPS, ICE etc.), and you can count on them doing just that. I made the same point in the article about the Juggalos being blamed implicitly by corporate media for a stabbing that occurred outside an ICP concert. They paint the picture with a broad brush just so they can crack down on every political opponent they theoretically shouldn't have because theoretically they shouldn't be political, but we know they are. If one supposed 'anarchist' uses the title of 'anarchist' to take credit for an act of vandalism, regardless of whom or what was targeted, then that supposed 'anarchist' could be construed as selfishly and cowardly making patsies of her/his comrades. Rather than making that argument I chose to question the integrity of the claims made by political authorities, namely the one FBI agent whose name made the Indy news. That way we have a chance to deflate the trumped up hype-based case being developed by PIGS against people of conscience via semantics and hyperbole.
For two, my disgust with the likes of Alex Jones is something I never hide and knowing that about me is a good way to figure out how to piss me off and attempt to make me feel paranoid. This may serve an egomaniac by relieving the pain of their emotional insecurities briefly, but it is a foolish thing to claim that such is any form of honest and constructive criticism. It is nothing less than Chauvinist. It is also dangerously irrational because the perpetrator of such thoughtless criticism gains nothing and takes a major risk by doing so. The reason it is a risk to attack someone and try to evoke their paranoia is that when translated into the language of behavior, that is doing rather than just thinking, feeling or saying, the feeling of paranoia's behavioral equivalent is physical violence, and as I prefer to back up my points, the person who gets credit for this claim is a psychotherapist who worked in prisons by the name of James Gilligan M.D., in his book Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic (Vintage Books, Random House, 1996-1997).
Here is a link where you can order the book from Amazon if you don't find it at a bookstore or library.
Because I maintain my self control doesn't mean you, or whomever, won't make the mistake of trying to intellectually emasculate someone else at some point in the same way who perhaps lacks self control, and how will they likely react? By causing physical harm, if not to you then perhaps to some innocent person with no knowledge of what set them off in the first place. So maybe you should think before you try to humiliate someone and evoke their paranoia just to boost your own ego. Obviously you do no one any good, including yourself, and may even be responsible, directly or indirectly, for your own or someone else's suffering as a result when you attempt to deflate someone's ego so far that they feel cornered and threatened, or exposed and thus humiliated. I'll take responsibility for my harsh comments, and I do genuinely apologize if I angered, humiliated or offended anyone, however it would be much appreciated if you would not accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing, and especially if you don't want me to take a personal attack personally. Just use a little foresight. That's all I ask of you.
"More than one person was using this account in this discussion. I for one, was only trying to answer your questions, but apparently you are too skeptical to do that over this medium."
This statement doesn't make sense. How is it my place to 'do that' when to 'do that' is defined as your answering my questions? Also, why are you answering my question? My question is for the FBI, and I asked it in the comments section of this article for reasons of substance (had I asked elsewhere they could respond by pretending to be ignorant, here they can't deny the context of my question, plus this is a public forum where everyone can read the question), and I don't recall asking you or anyone else but the FBI any actual questions of relevance, besides, the irrelevant questions (statements I put in the form of a question for purposes of respect and integrity) were never actually answered with any substance. Someone who logged in with the "spamsucks" account then claimed to be an administrator and stated that I was debating more than one unidentified 'spamsucks' person who contradict each other rather than one person contradicting her/his own statements, and stating that some want of avoiding detection by some technology was the reasoning without supporting that claim with say a link to some evidence that such technology exists rather than just dropping names, maybe an online article about the technology, anything really, followed by what I presume is support for this claim, namely something that happened to some unspecified "German" after 9/11 (at least specify which 9/11 - there was a 9/11 in 1973 in case you forgot) quite frankly doesn't prove squat, and certainly is not what I would consider convincing support for the argument you're making.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand, why should we believe the FBI agent whose allegations could be used against every anarchist whether they were aware of such vandalism incidents or not? We don't want to hand them (the pigs) some free ammo to use against us all in the press, the courts, the legislature and most detrimentally the executive power of the governments of this society, do we? How will that serve the success of our efforts and not derail them? If the FBI says anarchists committed a crime then we will all suffer for the acts of a couple of people, and if it never happened then we are suffering because of a lie. Power is premised on lies, so to defeat power we can refute lies with truth, but it helps if we actually do it, and timing definitely counts in many instances, and sometimes we don't know the truth or the lies because we have no reason or evidence upon which to do so, so that is when we can yank the truth out of the liars (in this case the FBI) by using inquiry - questions. That is all my first comment was. A question, not a critique, not an analysis, and not a pitch to start a pissing contest with freshmen students of poly sci or philosophy or whatever. If you aren't the FBI then why even chomp down on the bate set out for them and not you?
Right on Denver ABC!
More than one person was using this account in this discussion. I for one, was only trying to answer your questions, but apparently you are too skeptical to do that over this medium. And I would bet that at least some of the people doing these actions
didn't know if it would be picked up by the press or not, but were willing to try, while others might have not cared at all, and done them solely for the sake of the limited effects of the action itself, and or its limited inspirational effect in the small group of people who read this site. There are plenty of good arguments against the bringing down oppression criticism, but I don't care to go
into them right now. Don't take stuff so personally. Many of your insults were neither necessary nor accurate. Good night.
But as a Springs resident, one thing I can say is that the city's people, police and City Council have gone out of their way to help the homeless and have shown an outpouring of support in helping keep them alive during the winter, and to connect them with the many services and shelters available. (One of which is the Marian House, not Miriam House, which provides free meals daily to the homeless with no strings attached). While I'm normally ashamed of much about this city, I am proud of this. And they aren't just kicking out the homeless people (unlike Boulder, which just put their homeless on buses as seen on geo tv live and pdf books to get rid of them); even though the no-camping ordinance passed after months and months of ever-growing Tent Cities, defecation in rivers, burning of donated clothing, and trashed and abandoned camps, the police never did and will not now just ship them out.
What they said was the following:
"White Power you gosh damn nigger, go back to Africa."
Then they repeated "white power" a few more times, and then he said "this is the [Quinn, maybe Flinn?] brothers go back to Africa" again, and the women later said "explosion ho." That was the threatening part. Then he ended the call by calling me "nigger" one more time. I have the message saved in my voicemail if anyone has a better mechanism for recording it on an mp3 if it becomes necessary to make another recording.
i can hardly understand that shit, other than opening with "white pouter"
First of all, "spamsucks," I don't know who I'm debating here. You won't use your real name, and I'm not about to ask you to do so, but if you are a different person than the others using 'spamsucks' and posting comments mostly attacking me and avoiding the issue presented by the article then I'd say you should at least differentiate yourself from the others, or you're contradicting yourself. As far as how you think I'm acting like Alex Jones, and I'm glad you're not fan of his but you clearly don't have any real understanding of his deceptive methods beyond the typical amateur assumptions, I don't blame government provocateurs for anything, and I've never actually met one. But then why would they need 'provocateurs' when they can just sit back and watch people like you do what you're doing now and they have confidence that we won't get anywhere, and probably a good laugh. Feel insulted? Good, you should. Grow a backbone and go tell them you don't appreciate it. It's your problem, not theirs, and I will not let you make it mine no matter what! They don't have to do anymore COINTELPROs as you quacks do a fine job of that for them.
Now, had you paid attention to the article to which these comments are posted, even just the headline, you'll see it is about an FBI agent hassling indymedia. That is not a conspiracy theory and I didn't write the article anyway. I'm only asking a question, something Alex Jones rarely does if ever. Asking questions is how you find information.
Furthermore, if the vandalism was not reported in the corporate press then your whole point about how I'm somehow deflating the salience of some rebellion you claim to be occurring, merely by asking a logical question, has just been nullified. If you are the same person who claimed that above then you are now contradicting yourself. How is the salience of any issue or action raised by those little posts on this website?
Did you not say?:
"While your comments are sound but speculative at best, I find it a tad irresponsible to diminish the fact that there are combative, aggressive anarchists willing to act directly against oppression in this area."
Yes I'm willing to accept 'speculative at best' as that is all I aimed to do, speculate a little. See what comes out. So why are you responding with such vigor?
Then you said: "I am as shocked as you are these incidents didn't make the mainstream press."
I'm not shocked at all that they didn't make the mainstream press, and wonder whether they ever happened because they weren't documented anywhere but police reports (police are allowed to lie, how far will they stretch that freedom? Again, a question and not a conspiracy theory) which is according to you and not the police or FBI, or anyone; and on the Colorado Indymedia website. I didn't even see police reports, nor insurance claims, but all of those can be altered and even fabricated - so that doesn't mean a conspiracy is underway but it does reduce the reliability of such information. An independent source would suffice. Just one single independent source of that information. Is that too hard for you?
Then you said "remember there is probably a reason for [a mainstream press white out] as well: to keep the fact that there are militants out there striking blows hushed, especially because of the explicit ideological identities."
Are you telling me that isn't a paranoid delusion tantamount to a conspiracy theory? That's all it is. You don't actually know for a fact that that is true and are basing that one what exactly? The fact that it is historically documented by folks like ... well speak of the devil ... the same authors and professors I cited in above comments, but you didn't bother to provide citation, so now we can't even say that much.
Then you said "attacks like these ... raise the visibility and relevance of these groups to a huge swath of the population."
Sure that may be true were the story to be carried anywhere, corporate mainstream press or not, besides this one little website, the readers of which are pretty far from being 'a huge swath of the population'. That is a delusion of grandeur if I've ever heard one.
Now you're saying, if you are the same person, and I can't prove that you are so we have only your honesty to rely upon:
"It suprises me that as an anarchist you rely so much on the corporate press and other authorities or 'experts' to tell you what is true." First of all you do not define me and I do not define you. I'll tell you if I'm an 'anarchist' or not, and I'll define what that means when it is a label I choose, but if I identify as anarchist and someone commits a crime affording responsibility for it to any and all 'anarchists' then I have to deal with the repression that person provoked. Don't go calling me "comrade" after you pull that kind of crap. That is antithetical to the notion of solidarity by logic. Logic is clearly a subject with which you struggle as you continuously use fallacious arguments to attack me while I'm really trying to pose a question on the FBI agent who showed up at Denver Open Media and not anyone else. Why are you so defensive of actions you can't even prove ever occurred which could be used to initiate a crackdown on dissidents? The only thing I'm trying to derail is any possible attempt to carry out a crackdown on 'anarchists' by cops. We have had enough of this and too many 'anarchists' are political prisoners now. Why are you trying to derail my questioning the FBI agent's integrity?
The corporate press never seems to have a problem reinforcing the stereotype of the "bomb throwing anarchist" which is all too often used to manufacture consent for repression of said political dissidents by the corporate press and their police cohorts. Even Howard Zinn's work documents similar occurrences. I have read A People's History of the United States more than once, and I can tell you are just reading it now for the first time. Furthermore, did you forget about the Green Scare? Or for that matter the Red Scare? I'm not citing Alex Jones but Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, as well as Howard Zinn at this point. You, however, provide no support for your arguments whatsoever beyond fallacies and speculation of the speculator, which is me in this case.
Phil even argued that I was wrong, I needed to do more of a "Google search" (Google is corporate) and he claimed the report had made the corporate media, however he provided a link to a story that was completely unrelated. I have not seen any reports anywhere but here. There, I made it clear. Understand yet?
If this is the only media where the reports appeared then you are not raising the salience to a large portion of the population, plain and simple. I wish that weren't true but it is.
"And language analysis is just what it sounds like, looking at different pieces of writing and determining that they have the same author or not." Oh, so my assuming that all the above comments by 'spamsucks' are the same person because of their writing style would be what you call 'language analysis'. And because any Bachelor degree holder should be able to do that, does that incriminate them all as somehow not trustworthy by what you arbitrarily define as 'anarchists' without any other anarchist's consent?
"I made the Alex Jones comment because you're acting exactly like Alex Jones, in that whenever anything violent or controversal happens you blame it on government provacateurs or in this case, a made up government story." And what example of my blaming 'government provocateurs' besides this one, although I didn't actually do that here either, can you point out? Saying that I do this 'whenever anything violent or controversial happens' is a pretty bold statement. Do you just speak from your gut and never bother to check your own statements? In fact, when have I ever explicitly blamed 'government provocateurs'?
If Ringo says that picture files are not secure I'll take his word for it. I don't care if they're secure or not, but that information; which you provide and not Ringo, you merely sat in on a workshop he held; fails to satisfy my original question. I asked, and will hereby ask again, what other independent sources for the information that such and such places were attacked besides 1) random anonymous postings on one indymedia website and 2) an FBI agent? Thus far no one has bothered to look into that or much less consider it. To me that says the FBI agent is LYING! Get it? Or does that conflict with your ultra-rationalist cold war logic (or lack thereof)? Ringo also said the FBI is able to lie to illicit consent or information and you didn't need to ask him that, it's in the article! Why don't you read?!?
"Do you have any idea how much vandalism happens all the fucking time? Even political vandalism? Do you think it get reported on every time?" I don't know and I don't care. That is a red herring. What evidence exists that these incidents actually happened, independent of the person making the accusation, namely SA Kowalski? Quit with the fallacies already and try finding an answer to the question or shut up. It shouldn't matter to you anyway.
First people (mostly anonymous posters) say it was reported in the corporate press, then they say it wasn't and accuse the one asking a question of relying on the corporate press to get the truth for merely asking if it was in the corporate press, or ANYWHERE ELSE for that matter!
So, out of insecurity no doubt, you are pretty much defending the FBI agent. Way to go champ. real revolutionary of you. This discussion is ridiculous, and now over.