There have been 104 terrorist attacks against protesters since George Floyd protests began - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15123625
Unthinking Majority wrote:Maybe to a far-left Marxist a moderate looks like a Nazi
:lol: You are no moderate. @KurtFF8 is correct in his assessment. You are consistently right-wing in most of your views.

The view that Antifa is a terrorist organization is VERY right-wing.
#15123643
Unthinking Majority wrote:FBI: "Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

So as far as I'm concerned this describes the behaviour of just about every government, nation and tribe in history.

I was outraged, absolutely outraged by the criticism of Al Qaeda's tactics on 9/11. particularly since most Americans and most westerners thought it was perfectly fine to exterminate eight hundred thousand Iraqis including half a million Iraqi children in order to keep the Jews of Israel safe and keep the Middle East safe for the West's oil exports. Myself, Osama Bin Laden and George Galloway stood shoulder to shoulder on our intransigent opposition to the Iraqi sanctions, although we parted company on the solution, I being an anti fascist supported the removal of Saddam and majority Shia dominated rule in Iraq. Fascists like George Galloway and Osama Bin Laden naturally opposed that.

Now I know I know, many people will say that the deliberate genocide, the extermination of the German urban working class was OK because, reducing German war production counted as a direct military objective, that made it fine and moral. But you can't say that for Churchill's bombing of German civilians during the battle of Britain. No Churchill's tactics were identical absolutely identical to Osama Bin Laden's. Churchill's bombing's of civilians had no military value. He was quite clear that he was going to keep bombing German civilian targets until he goaded Hitler into attacking British cities and thereby take the extreme pressure off fighter command. In the same way Al Qaeda's attacks were not meant to achieve military objectives. Osama Bin Laden was clear he was going to keep attacking American targets till he goaded the Americans into invading and occupying Afghanistan.

I must take my hat off to Osama's genius. If Osama had asked me for advice, I would have said oh come on Osama stop fantasising! The Americans are never going to be so stupid as to try to occupy Afghanistan. Although I doubt even he could have predicted Laura Bush's "No Afghan School Girl Left behind." :lol:
#15123652
Unthinking Majority wrote:There's no universal 100% agreed upon definition of "terrorism". This is the definition that US federal law uses. It is considered terrorism under US law, therefore within US borders these people are committing acts of terrorism when they burn cop cars and set buildings ablaze in order to achieve political goals. It's also terrorism with these rightwing nutjobs shooting up mosques etc for political reasons. Obviously, as I've said several times, the latter is worse than property destruction. I am equating the two in that they're both terrorism and violent, destructive, anti-social behaviour. I'm not equating the two in that killing someone (as is more common among far-right terrorists) is far worse and far more violent and anti-social than destroying property. One is worse than the other, but neither should be supported or given a pass.


No, that's the definition that the FBI, one agency, uses. Terrorism as a definition even within US law is quite varied in its scope depending on the agency or law you're referring to. Again you're just nitpicking to fit into your support of Trump's narrative.

Even in the case of a protester spontaneously burning a cop car does not fit the definition of terrorism in any meaningful way. Again, this is just your right wing bias trying to paint what is actually mostly a peaceful movement, as a group of terrorists. Even the cases where the protests are "violent" it's usually against something like a cop car or an empty building. To add the label terrorism is extreme. Typical for Proud Boys supporters like yourself though.


Well the man was black and was at a Breonna Taylor protest getting PO'd at cops. But hey, maybe a fool cop was doing something illegal and abusive to him first, who knows, we'll have to see the case unfold. What you need to realize is that i'm equal opportunity when it comes to my dislike of violent fucktards. I literally don't give two fucks what their ideological leanings are. I'm actually agreeing with you in condemning these rightwing morons driving cars into people whose politics they don't like.

My goal is this: no more unnecessary violence. No more a-hole cops killing people they shouldn't, no more far-left dummies burning and looting cities, no more far-right fools strapped and shooting up people. I support the peaceful protestors 1000%, I also want to see massive police & justice system reform & make bad cops accountable.


It's very telling that you start this with "Well the man was black." Not surprising because most Proud Boys supporters like yourself usually have difficulty masking their racism. But ultimately you've been unable to demonstrate that even that case was an act of terrorism or that the person was even a part of any organized group.

You don't support the protesters, stop pretending.


Maybe to a far-left Marxist a moderate looks like a Nazi 8)


You are not a moderate. I'm not sure why you're pretending to be one, it doesn't give your far-right arguments any more validity.
#15123666
AFAIK wrote:Also lol at maz posting a video defending a terrorist that clearly shows the driver stealing from protesters before running them over. Definitely submit that piece of evidence to bolster the prosecution's case.


When did you become in favor of people blocking traffic, harassing motorists, damaging their vehicles and pulling a gun in shooting at them as they attempt to get away?
#15123669
Blocking traffic is certainly not a effective protest strategy. Not sure what that achieves other than pissing off a bunch of people that are trying to get on with their day. People generally don't like getting shit ramrodded down their throats or being preached too, especially in a disruptive manner.

Thus, it's no surprise people would get all road ragey and start running people over. The question is, in each of these cases, what is the exact intent? Is it people that are against protestors, or just people that are pissed off the protests is getting in their way? Were all these case situations where protestors were actually blocking traffic? Lots of questions. Everything is case by case.

Each side will claim what is convenient to them.

I could see right wingers claiming it's great to kill these protestors. I could see left wingers claiming these are all anti-protestor racists,etc. The truth is always in the middle, and I'm sure for some of these killers, they were just unhinged and the purpose of the protest just doesn't matter.
#15123693
Well right wingers take offense to black athletes who sit quietly in a corner or children who miss a day of school to point out that we're living in the end times. Meanwhile Extinction Rebellion won major concessions from the gov't by blocking traffic.
#15123712
KurtFF8 wrote:No, that's the definition that the FBI, one agency, uses. Terrorism as a definition even within US law is quite varied in its scope depending on the agency or law you're referring to.

That's not the FBI definition, it's the definition from the US Code of Federal Regulations which most federal departments and agencies use. You can't even read your own links because you have 5th grade reading comprehension skills. You are a closet alt-right Nazi and we can all see that. You pretend to be a communist in order to push your very pro-Trump, pro-Nazi views. I can't believe you support Nazism.

Even in the case of a protester spontaneously burning a cop car does not fit the definition of terrorism in any meaningful way. Again, this is just your right wing bias trying to paint what is actually mostly a peaceful movement, as a group of terrorists. Even the cases where the protests are "violent" it's usually against something like a cop car or an empty building. To add the label terrorism is extreme.

I have never painted peaceful protestors as terrorists you fool. Your brain has serious cognitive and reading comprehension problems.

It's very telling that you start this with "Well the man was black." Not surprising because most Proud Boys supporters like yourself usually have difficulty masking their racism. But ultimately you've been unable to demonstrate that even that case was an act of terrorism or that the person was even a part of any organized group.

Do you think a black person who attended a Breonna Taylor protest is part of an alt-right white supremacist group? Use your brain for once, you race-baiting fool.

You don't support the protesters, stop pretending.

You're a violent and hateful communist thug who supports Maoist China and now fascist China and red dictators the world over. I can tell from your posts you're actually a closet neo-Nazi and a Trump and Proud Boys supporter who likes to accuse others of being such in order to bring them into the cloth. I will not be fooled. Take your far-left and far-right BS elsewhere. I don't debate with people who argue in bad faith, I will ignore your posts from now on.
#15123715
Rancid wrote:Blocking traffic is certainly not a effective protest strategy. Not sure what that achieves other than pissing off a bunch of people that are trying to get on with their day. People generally don't like getting shit ramrodded down their throats or being preached too, especially in a disruptive manner.

Thus, it's no surprise people would get all road ragey and start running people over. The question is, in each of these cases, what is the exact intent? Is it people that are against protestors, or just people that are pissed off the protests is getting in their way? Were all these case situations where protestors were actually blocking traffic? Lots of questions. Everything is case by case.

Each side will claim what is convenient to them.

I could see right wingers claiming it's great to kill these protestors. I could see left wingers claiming these are all anti-protestor racists,etc. The truth is always in the middle, and I'm sure for some of these killers, they were just unhinged and the purpose of the protest just doesn't matter.

Jesus an actual rational post in this thread not steeped in some hell-bent far-left or far-right bias.
#15123720
AFAIK wrote:Well right wingers take offense to black athletes who sit quietly in a corner or children who miss a day of school to point out that we're living in the end times. Meanwhile Extinction Rebellion won major concessions from the gov't by blocking traffic.

Yes the best way to gain concessions from government is through illegal physical coercion. Anytime you don't agree with the government, just block traffic and disrupt public infrastructure until you get your way. "You aren't getting to work today unless the government meets my demands". Any government that concedes to these types of bullies are fools who only encourage this type of behaviour.

I have no issues with supporting action on climate change and police reform and in fact support it, but I have issues with the tactics. Many posters on this forum lack the intelligence to see the difference though, in their frothing ideological rage.
#15123833
Unthinking Majority wrote:That's not the FBI definition, it's the definition from the US Code of Federal Regulations which most federal departments and agencies use. You can't even read your own links because you have 5th grade reading comprehension skills. You are a closet alt-right Nazi and we can all see that. You pretend to be a communist in order to push your very pro-Trump, pro-Nazi views. I can't believe you support Nazism.

I have never painted peaceful protestors as terrorists you fool. Your brain has serious cognitive and reading comprehension problems.

Do you think a black person who attended a Breonna Taylor protest is part of an alt-right white supremacist group? Use your brain for once, you race-baiting fool.

You're a violent and hateful communist thug who supports Maoist China and now fascist China and red dictators the world over. I can tell from your posts you're actually a closet neo-Nazi and a Trump and Proud Boys supporter who likes to accuse others of being such in order to bring them into the cloth. I will not be fooled. Take your far-left and far-right BS elsewhere. I don't debate with people who argue in bad faith, I will ignore your posts from now on.


Are you done with your temper tantrum?
#15123881
Yes all Americans feel deeply ashamed of every act of civil disobedience that occurred in their nation's history. Just ask them about the Boston Tea Party. A dark dark day in their country's past.
#15123945
AFAIK wrote:Yes all Americans feel deeply ashamed of every act of civil disobedience that occurred in their nation's history. Just ask them about the Boston Tea Party. A dark dark day in their country's past.


Against a Monarch...... now it is violent attacks by thugs and criminals, against law abiding fellow citizens.
#15123952
Oxymoron wrote:... now it is violent attacks by thugs and criminals, against law abiding fellow citizens.


That seems like a good way to describe these attacks against protesters.

———————-

@Unthinking Majority

I think people get fired or punished for protesting peacefully, like Kaepernick, or the racers who wore Breonna Taylor shirts on the podium. There is no “right” way to protest.
#15123954
Pants-of-dog wrote:That seems like a good way to describe these attacks against protesters.

.

Ok Goebelles, blaming victims for assault by the Rioters.

On November 9, 1938, in an event that would foreshadow the Holocaust, German Nazis launch a campaign of terror against Jewish people and their homes and businesses in Germany and Austria. The violence, which continued through November 10 and was later dubbed “Kristallnacht,” or “Night of Broken Glass,” after the countless smashed windows of Jewish-owned establishments,

The Nazis used the murder of a low-level German diplomat in Paris by a 17-year-old Polish Jew as an excuse to carry out the Kristallnacht attacks.
Marxism is Oligarch Astroturf

Wouldn’t know as I haven’t read anything by the[…]

Appalling simply appalling, why can't people thin[…]

Good post Stormsmith. American prisons are a nati[…]

The First amendment restricts the government, not […]