Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Which I provided "Examples" of. Well done

Isolated examples are not proof when it comes to the beliefs or actions of millions of people.

The way you're twisting logic is akin to pointing to two examples of NFL fans being racist and claiming all NFL fans are racist.

You're simply wrong. You have no evidence that millions of the BLM movement promotes or condones violence, especially when there are many, many more examples of those involved in the movement rejecting and condemning violence.

Until you find any evidence to support your beliefs there is no point in continuing to go around in circles on this.

Foxtrol

Bambi wrote: »

Why would you only start counting terrorist deaths after 09/11/2001? Why not 08/11/2001?

Seems an odd date start counting on, is there some significance to it?

Gas stuff altogether

Sure why don't we keep going back? Include all the lynchings and other acts of terrorism by racists against black people since the end of slavery? Maybe even include all the deaths during the civil war, though that might be more treason than terrorism.

How far do you want to go back?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Convenient that you gave up when asked to provide some evidence that Americans were suffering oppression under a putative Trump tyranny.

Actually no. I gave up when we spent 2 pages arguing about what constituted tyranny. There was no budging you off your ridiculous definition.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Actually no. I gave up when we spent 2 pages arguing about what constituted tyranny. There was no budging you off your ridiculous definition.

You gave up when asked to provide anything to substantiate your claim of tyranny being present under Trump.

I also didn't define tyranny, I answered what I would consider grounds for armed resistance of the government. No shock you'd spin a false narrative, easier than backing up your assertions.

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

Why would you only start counting terrorist deaths after 09/11/2001? Why not 08/11/2001?

Seems an odd date start counting on, is there some significance to it?

Gas stuff altogether

In fairness it's a pretty reasonable thing to do.

If you want to simply count incidents instead of body count you can leave 9/11 in. The massive scale of 9/11 skews the data.

Incidently the lads responsible for 9/11 We're pretty right wing themselves, just not Christian.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You gave up when asked to provide anything to substantiate your claim of tyranny being present under Trump.

I also didn't define tyranny, I answered what I would consider grounds for armed resistance of the government. No shock you'd spin a false narrative, easier than backing up your assertions.

That's a lie. I asked you for your definition of tyranny, in relation to the ownership of guns and you gave it. I disagreed until I was blue in the face and then gave up.

We never got into the meat of the debate because of your black and white view of tyranny.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

That's a lie. I asked you for your definition of tyranny, in relation to the ownership of guns and you gave it. I disagreed until I was blue in the face and then gave up.

We never got into the meat of the debate because of your black and white view of tyranny.

Thankfully the thread is there for for folks to read, instead of relying on your creative recounting of things.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thankfully the thread is there for for folks to read, instead of relying on your creative recounting of things.

I agree, everyone can read your nonsense for themselves.

Foxtrol

Right wing militia groups at it again, showing why the US government sees them as being the greatest terrorist danger.

The coverage and faux outrage at BLM protesters shouting at politicians after the RNC convention will be far greater than this.

https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1314228123559436289?s=20

Frankie Machine

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm not surprised you're finding things amazing when you're still struggling with basic concepts between the difference between the BLM movement and BLM organisation (despite this being explained to you over and over again). The former has no leadership the latter does (though even then it is generally very decentralized to local groups).

It says it all that for your demand for evidence systematic racism we were able to provide numerous peer reviewed studies, which you refuse to accept, yet for your claim that the BLM movement promotes or condones violence all you can provide is statements from randomers, promoted by right wing media.

You've made it obvious you have nothing tangible to support your point of view aside from how you feel. It really makes discussions pointless.

Is that a useful distinction to make though, between the 'movement', and the 'organisation' ?

The organisation is building the movement, as a stated aim.

AbusesToilets

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Is that a useful distinction to make though, between the 'movement', and the 'organisation' ?

The organisation is building the movement, as a stated aim.

It's handy when one wants to sidestep difficult questions pertaining to said groups.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's handy when one wants to sidestep difficult questions pertaining to said groups.

So is the FBI director wrong then AT ? He’s on record as saying that there’s no organisation to target and last I checked neither BLM or antifa or any other group of that persuasion has been arrested by the FBI on charges of to kidnap a governor of a US state.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is the FBI director wrong then AT ? He’s on record as saying that there’s no organisation to target and last I checked neither BLM or antifa or any other group of that persuasion has been arrested by the FBI on charges of to kidnap a governor of a US state.

I love the dichotomy where it's stated that there's no organisation, yet millions of dollars are taken in as donations, and groups all across the country riot in the streets, causing billions of dollars in damage. I guess they just spontaneously materialise into existence, all with matching outfits and slogans.

Foxtrol

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Is that a useful distinction to make though, between the 'movement', and the 'organisation' ?

The organisation is building the movement, as a stated aim.

I really don't know why it is such a difficult concept for some to understand, it is nearly like they are doing it purposefully.

It is like MAGA, Trump started the movement and there is an organization around it that fundraises millions but they don't control every single person that wears a MAGA hat or organizes a MAGA event.

The obvious key difference is that the BLM organization have been much more direct with telling the people involved in their movement to be non-violent and denounces them when they do wrong.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I love the dichotomy where it's stated that there's no organisation, yet millions of dollars are taken in as donations, and groups all across the country riot in the streets, causing billions of dollars in damage. I guess they just spontaneously materialise into existence, all with matching outfits and slogans.

It’s a movement not an organisation according to the FBI director. The civil rights movement raised money so I’m not sure why that’s relevant. According to the FBI there is no organisation or structure so they can’t say if we go after person X who’s the ring leader etc. They were protesting. The rioting that happened isn’t reflective of that movement but a common theme by leaders in the places there were riots was that they weren’t locals. Unlike the crowd in Michigan who are charged with trying to kidnap a governor which I don’t see you condemning.

Frankie Machine

Foxtrol wrote: »

I really don't know why it is such a difficult concept for some to understand, it is nearly like they are doing it purposefully.

It is like MAGA, Trump started the movement and there is an organization around it that fundraises millions but they don't control every single person that wears a MAGA hat or organizes a MAGA event.

The obvious key difference is that the BLM organization have been much more direct with telling the people involved in their movement to be non-violent and denounces them when they do wrong.

OK, but one way or another, it makes the organisation an irresponsible one surely ?

Denouncing the actions of a movement you've built but can't control seems like empty words to me.

Frankie Machine

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It’s a movement not an organisation according to the FBI director. The civil rights movement raised money so I’m not sure why that’s relevant. According to the FBI there is no organisation or structure so they can’t say if we go after person X who’s the ring leader etc. They were protesting. The rioting that happened isn’t reflective of that movement but a common theme by leaders in the places there were riots was that they weren’t locals. Unlike the crowd in Michigan who are charged with trying to kidnap a governor which I don’t see you condemning.

Yet it's an organisation according to itself.

Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization

https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

An organisation that is building a movement, according to the same page I linked to.

So BLM makes the distinction for itself between it's organisation and it's movement.

The FBI may be referring to the latter rather than the former, but it means you are wrong to suggest that it is the latter, rather than the former.

Foxtrol

Frankie Machine wrote: »

OK, but one way or another, it makes the organisation an irresponsible one surely ?

Denouncing the actions of a movement you've built but can't control seems like empty words to me.

I don't agree. Take another example, the IFA isn't irresponsible if they have a soccer game and someone wearing an Irish jersey gets drunk and goes looking for a fight or drink drives afterwards.

There are so many examples of different organizations not being held accountable for the actions of members that support them, especially when linked to a wider movement.

A different standard for some reason is expected of BLM (though the likely reason for this is pretty obvious).

Itssoeasy

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Yet it's an organisation according to itself.



https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

An organisation that is building a movement, according to the same page I linked to.

So BLM makes the distinction for itself between it's organisation and it's movement.

The FBI may be referring to the latter rather than the former, but it means you are wrong to suggest that it is the latter, rather than the former.

Okay so the FBI director was wrong.

I didn’t make any suggestion independently of what people far more in the know said. So no I’m not suggesting anything.

Foxtrol

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is the FBI director wrong then AT ? He’s on record as saying that there’s no organisation to target and last I checked neither BLM or antifa or any other group of that persuasion has been arrested by the FBI on charges of to kidnap a governor of a US state.

As expected, none of the usual suspects will want to talk about those right wing terrorists.

Nor will they want to comment on the Orthodox Jews with Trump flags 'rioting' over the last few nights in NYC against COVID lockdowns. Really noticeable how gentle the cops were to them compared to BLM protesters - not a riot helmet, shield, baton, pepper spray, or tear gas to be seen. Don't take me up wrong on that, it is a much better way to police volatile situations than the usual NYPD escalation tactics they use against BLM.

https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1313809461748924416?s=20

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

As expected, none of the usual suspects will want to talk about those right wing terrorists.

Nor will they want to comment on the Orthodox Jews with Trump flags 'rioting' over the last few nights in NYC against COVID lockdowns. Really noticeable how gentle the cops were to them compared to BLM protesters - not a riot helmet, shield, baton, pepper spray, or tear gas to be seen. Don't take me up wrong on that, it is a much better way to police volatile situations than the usual NYPD escalation tactics they use against BLM.

https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1313809461748924416?s=20

What is there to talk about? The FBI did a good job and disrupted a terrorist cell before they attacked. Same as they have done previously. High fives and cocktails after the debrief.

I don't see evidence of a riot in that video. Did they attack and Rob people, smash up businesses.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What is there to talk about? The FBI did a good job and disrupted a terrorist cell before they attacked. Same as they have done previously. High fives and cocktails after the debrief.

I don't see evidence of a riot in that video. Did they attack and Rob people, smash up businesses.

Like this guy?

https://twitter.com/CapehartJ/status/1311652095167205376?s=19

Or this guy?

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1312486807670386688?s=19

Frankie Machine

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't agree. Take another example, the IFA isn't irresponsible if they have a soccer game and someone wearing an Irish jersey gets drunk and goes looking for a fight or drink drives afterwards.

Actually, and assuming you meant to say FAI, that is not so. There were massive consequences for ALL English clubs in the wake of Heysel. And in the immediate aftermath of Lansdowne Rd. in '95, a lot of commentary and speculation by senior figures in English football that England would lose the Euro '96 tournament.

So there is plenty to suggest that broader organisations pay the price for the misdeeds of their followers. Even when they end up not having to do so, the anticipation of it speaks for itself.

There are so many examples of different organizations not being held accountable for the actions of members that support them, especially when linked to a wider movement.

A different standard for some reason is expected of BLM (though the likely reason for this is pretty obvious).

That's a different argument, and amounts to 'others get away without accountability, therefore why shouldn't BLM'.

That's a slippery slope argument, and I dont think its credible for you to suggest that BLM are held to SUCH a radically different standard.

I suppose unless MAGA start inflicting the same amount of arson and criminal damage, we may never know.

Frankie Machine

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Okay so the FBI director was wrong.

I didn’t make any suggestion independently of what people far more in the know said. So no I’m not suggesting anything.

You intended to suggest something via the convenient use of another person's words.

Seems that even being 'far more in the know' than you are, amounts to not much.

🙂

AbusesToilets

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Or the 14 right wing white supremacists arrested for plotting to kill Michigan governor and take over the state government building.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/national/2020/10/08/13-charged-in-plots-against-michigan-governor-police/



As i pointed out earlier in thread, there has been hundreds of right wing terrorist plots and attacks, but hey look over there at black lives matter.

Link to the hundreds of attacks please.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What is there to talk about? The FBI did a good job and disrupted a terrorist cell before they attacked. Same as they have done previously. High fives and cocktails after the debrief.

If BLM or an ANTIFA group planned to kidnap and kill a republican governor you'd lose your mind over it. You aren't able to get over the words of a few random people associated with the BLM movement.

I don't see evidence of a riot in that video. Did they attack and Rob people, smash up businesses.

So you'd have no issues with BLM protesters setting fires in the middle of the street and refusing to clear when told by the police?

Here is the group attacking journalist.

https://twitter.com/jangelooff/status/1314027740102889474?s=20

Retr0gamer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Link to the hundreds of attacks please.

You've no problem posting circumstantial evidence yourself and never do this when called out on it yourself. Hypocrite.

Foxtrol

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Actually, and assuming you meant to say FAI, that is not so. There were massive consequences for ALL English clubs in the wake of Heysel. And in the immediate aftermath of Lansdowne Rd. in '95, a lot of commentary and speculation by senior figures in English football that England would lose the Euro '96 tournament.

So there is plenty to suggest that broader organisations pay the price for the misdeeds of their followers. Even when they end up not having to do so, the anticipation of it speaks for itself.

That's a different argument, and amounts to 'others get away without accountability, therefore why shouldn't BLM'.

That's a slippery slope argument, and I dont think its credible for you to suggest that BLM are held to SUCH a radically different standard.

I suppose unless MAGA start inflicting the same amount of arson and criminal damage, we may never know.

At no point have I said that those involved in looting or rioting shouldn't be held accountable, however it is wrong to try to paint all those tied to a group or movement with the actions of the few worst (I'd argue many times those rioting and looting aren't even tied to BLM but that is another argument).

MAGA supporters have killed many more people than BLM and Antifa combined and several other plots have been foiled. Once again, for some property seems more important than life.

A certain element of posters here (especially on the toxic current affairs forum) are much more outraged by the words BLM protesters have said than the plans, attempts, and actual murders by right wing groups. Given that hypocrisy it points to an obvious rationale for doing so, to disrupt the message of the protests (just like people who were against the civil rights movement did).

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Link to the hundreds of attacks please.

This document contains a listing of 150 plots or attacks between 1993 and 2017.

The list is not even a true representation of the full volume, as they carefully don't include huge gun or explosive seizures from right wing groups when there was no target known nor does it include attacks without premeditation, even if there was obvious right wing links.

I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/CR_5154_25YRS%20RightWing%20Terrorism_V5.pdf

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

This document contains a listing of 150 plots or attacks between 1993 and 2017.

The list is not even a true representation of the full volume, as they carefully don't include huge gun or explosive seizures from right wing groups when there was no target known nor does it include attacks without premeditation, even if there was obvious right wing links.

I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/CR_5154_25YRS%20RightWing%20Terrorism_V5.pdf

We're delving into history now. I thought this thread was related to present day activities. What would the number of people killed by black criminals be in the same time frame? Rampant whataboutery as usual.

MAGA supporters have killed many more people than BLM and Antifa combined and several other plots have been foiled. Once again, for some property seems more important than life.

Source for this.

Foxtrol wrote: »

If BLM or an ANTIFA group planned to kidnap and kill a republican governor you'd lose your mind over it. You aren't able to get over the words of a few random people associated with the BLM movement.

I'm not generally one to lose my mind over anything, thankfully. Hysterics seem to be the domain of folks on your side of things. Comparing a foiled plot to widespread rioting and destruction is ludicrous, not even remotely akin.

So you'd have no issues with BLM protesters setting fires in the middle of the street and refusing to clear when told by the police?

Here is the group attacking journalist.

https://twitter.com/jangelooff/status/1314027740102889474?s=20

So that's no to property destruction and general violence then? If they have broken the law, then they ought to be prosecuted accordingly.