more the straw that broke the camels back. regardless of what you think about that action, it is true every single tiny actual piece of direct action is called an op on here
FWIW I don't know if Jane's revenge is an op, I just don't trust the source reporting on it. Both in the sense that he's clearly a useful idiot for the state department, and in the sense that I don't trust him and others like him to verify their own sources. It seemed like he's taking whoever gave him the info at face value.
Like not everything is an op, but we can use better sources than self-claimed experts on extremism, OSINT, and anyone whose solution to geopolitics is supply random groups with drones and stinger missiles.
I'm not gonna defend Robbert Fedivans, I'm just pissed off at the dismissive rhetoric 1 day we say kill cops bomb those who fight against womens rights then like... people do that and suddenly they're all feds
The issue with the Umbrella Man narrative was that it gave the libs an opening to label any kind of violence or direct action as done by fascists, rightists, or provocateurs. It supported the rationale for the peace-police, and strengthened the idea that fighting the cops is bad. To say that Umbrella Man was an undercover agent was to trade in the currency of "he did something that was bad because it ruins our peaceful reputation and we wouldn't do something like that".
If the Wisconsin Family Action building was damaged by their own people to collect insurance or something, though, there's no mischaracterization or wrong that's been done.
Is this a subtweet about the "Jane's revenge" post?
more the straw that broke the camels back. regardless of what you think about that action, it is true every single tiny actual piece of direct action is called an op on here
FWIW I don't know if Jane's revenge is an op, I just don't trust the source reporting on it. Both in the sense that he's clearly a useful idiot for the state department, and in the sense that I don't trust him and others like him to verify their own sources. It seemed like he's taking whoever gave him the info at face value.
Like not everything is an op, but we can use better sources than self-claimed experts on extremism, OSINT, and anyone whose solution to geopolitics is supply random groups with drones and stinger missiles.
I'm not gonna defend Robbert Fedivans, I'm just pissed off at the dismissive rhetoric 1 day we say kill cops bomb those who fight against womens rights then like... people do that and suddenly they're all feds
deleted by creator
The issue with the Umbrella Man narrative was that it gave the libs an opening to label any kind of violence or direct action as done by fascists, rightists, or provocateurs. It supported the rationale for the peace-police, and strengthened the idea that fighting the cops is bad. To say that Umbrella Man was an undercover agent was to trade in the currency of "he did something that was bad because it ruins our peaceful reputation and we wouldn't do something like that".
If the Wisconsin Family Action building was damaged by their own people to collect insurance or something, though, there's no mischaracterization or wrong that's been done.
We shouldn't cry when we get a freebie.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator