Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

Options
1…292293295297298…306

Comments

  • Options
    #8822
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,491 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    You obviously don't know your history and this is likely why you don't see how close Portland/broader US mirrors our history.

    All parades in NI were banned at the time of Bloody Sunday. Only a week before in the same areas there was another protest march that turned violent, seeing British forces using excessive force to put down minor acts of violence from protesters when they weren't allowed take protest route they wanted. All sides knew there was a likelihood, if not a guarantee, that there would be similar violence on Bloody Sunday.

    Thankfully, so far there hasn't been a massacre like Bloody Sunday but there has been daily acts of excessive force by US forces that has lead to serious injuries to protesters. You and many here are cheerleaders for US forces coming down hard on protesters for not following commands, but just remember you're cheering for similar actions by British forces in the north, beating or firing rubber bullets at large crowds due to a stone or two being thrown at police wearing full body armour. Just know which side you're on.

    Are you a Loyalist?


  • Options
    #8823
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Just stop.

    Point out where I'm wrong.

    I'm sure plenty of bootlickers at the time, that like in this thread, claimed the protesters 'shouldn't have been there' or 'shouldn't have caused trouble'.

    History doesn't look kindly on them today, nor how the US forces used excessive force during the Civil Rights protests, and I doubt history look kindly on how US forces are acting now.


  • Options
    #8824
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Danzy wrote: »
    Are you a Loyalist?

    Not in the slightest. Why would you say that?


  • Options
    #8825
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Just stop.

    Burning federal buildings is acceptable. Attacking police is acceptable.

    Police trying to maintain law and order is Hitler


  • Options
    #8826
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Danzy wrote: »
    A disgraceful comparison and surely only meant as a slight to the dead of Bloody Sunday.

    The only people that are slighting the dead are those that are cheering for US forces using excessive force to shut down protests, similar to how British forces used to do it on a regular basis in the north.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8827
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Burning federal buildings is acceptable. Attacking police is acceptable.

    Police trying to maintain law and order is Hitler

    it genuinely feels like thats the argument being made.


  • Options
    #8828
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    The only people that are slighting the dead are those that are cheering for US forces using excessive force to shut down protests, similar to how British forces used to do it on a regular basis in the north.

    You keep saying the word protest while video evidence shows riots.

    Weeks and weeks of riots. 5 people shot last weekend alone.

    Are you repeating the word protest on purpose?


  • Options
    #8829
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    You obviously don't know your history and this is likely why you don't see how close Portland/broader US mirrors our history.

    All parades in NI were banned at the time of Bloody Sunday. Only a week before in the same areas there was another protest march that turned violent, seeing British forces using excessive force to put down minor acts of violence from protesters when they weren't allowed take protest route they wanted. All sides knew there was a likelihood, if not a guarantee, that there would be similar violence on Bloody Sunday.

    Thankfully, so far there hasn't been a massacre like Bloody Sunday but there has been daily acts of excessive force by US forces that has lead to serious injuries to protesters. You and many here are cheerleaders for US forces coming down hard on protesters for not following commands, but just remember you're cheering for similar actions by British forces in the north, beating or firing rubber bullets at large crowds due to a stone or two being thrown at police wearing full body armour. Just know which side you're on.

    Starts with "you obviously don't know your history" and then posts a dumpster fire of ridiculous opining.


  • Options
    #8830
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Burning federal buildings is acceptable. Attacking police is acceptable.

    Police trying to maintain law and order is Hitler

    I never said it was acceptable, what I'm saying is that their reaction to these activities is completely excessive.

    'Attacking police' (in reality throwing a few stones at fully armoured officers or vans) was a regular excuse for British forces to baton, gas, firing rubber or real bullets in the north during the Troubles.

    At least I can see what side you'd be on if it was happening today.


  • Options
    #8831
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    An imagined eye injuries that you're as likely to get at a local disco vs an actual serious head injury... :rolleyes:

    A serious head injury can be avoided if you take a route straight through what is known as... Not being a gobsh1te.

    She could have avoided it, not by ducking or rolling, but by staying at home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8832
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    I never said it was acceptable, what I'm saying is that their reaction to these activities is completely excessive.

    'Attacking police' (in reality throwing a few stones at fully armoured officers or vans) was a regular excuse for British forces to baton, gas, firing rubber or real bullets in the north during the Troubles.

    At least I can see what side you'd be on if it was happening today.

    and if Bloody Sunday was about stealing nike shoes and smashing capitalism I might have agreed with the brits on that one too, thankfully it wasn't and the comparison makes no sense.


  • Options
    #8833
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    I never said it was acceptable, what I'm saying is that their reaction to these activities is completely excessive.

    'Attacking police' (in reality throwing a few stones at fully armoured officers or vans) was a regular excuse for British forces to baton, gas, firing rubber or real bullets in the north during the Troubles.

    At least I can see what side you'd be on if it was happening today.

    You're tried that comparison repeatedly yet it still isn't working.
    Is that it? Anything left in the tank?

    Thousands of people on the street, buildings being burned and looted, people and police being attacked and assaulted.

    What do they expect? Seriously
    These riots have gotten completely out of hand. What started out as legitimate protest has turned into mayhem and destruction.

    Law and order must be restored. It is absolutely vital


  • Options
    #8834
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    nullzero wrote: »
    Starts with "you obviously don't know your history" and then posts a dumpster fire of ridiculous opining.

    Claims 'ridiculous opining' but fails to point out items where I was factually incorrect :rolleyes:

    Feel free to fact check these events:
    - Marches were banned at the time of Bloody Sunday
    - There was a march the weekend before that turned violent when the protesters weren't allowed go the route they wanted
    - Republicans used minor acts of violence against British forces that then responded with excessive force


  • Options
    #8835
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    nullzero wrote: »
    A serious head injury can be avoided if you take a route straight through what is known as... Not being a gobsh1te.

    She could have avoided it, not by ducking or rolling, but by staying at home.

    Like protesters on Bloody Sunday. You feel fine to victim blame one person but not others


  • Options
    #8836
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    and if Bloody Sunday was about stealing nike shoes and smashing capitalism I might have agreed with the brits on that one too, thankfully it wasn't and the comparison makes no sense.

    So police using excessive force is ok when you don't agree with why people are protesting?

    I know plenty in England had no issues with how British forces acted in the north. They must be like you.


  • Options
    #8837
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So police using excessive force is ok when you don't agree with why people are protesting?

    I know plenty in England had no issues with how British forces acted in the north. They must be like you.

    I don't agree that the police in the US are using excessive force. I would agree the protestors are using excessive force, I don't think youre going to listen to a reasonable argument about why I believe that, so were done along this line.


  • Options
    #8838
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So police using excessive force is ok when you don't agree with why people are protesting?

    I know plenty in England had no issues with how British forces acted in the north. They must be like you.

    You are purposely blurring the lines. You said you dont agree with people burning buildings and looting yet that is what is happening and heavily outnumbered police are responding.


  • Options
    #8839
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Like protesters on Bloody Sunday. You feel fine to victim blame one person but not others

    Get a grip.


  • Options
    #8840
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    You're tried that comparison repeatedly yet it still isn't working.
    Is that it? Anything left in the tank?

    Thousands of people on the street, buildings being burned and looted, people and police being attacked and assaulted.

    What you are describing is a milder version of what was happening in the north during the troubles, just with many more dead police/army.
    What do they expect? Seriously
    These riots have gotten completely out of hand. What started out as legitimate protest has turned into mayhem and destruction.

    Please point to where this was happening in Portland when that woman was being shot in the head.
    Law and order must be restored. It is absolutely vital

    I'm sure the British had the same mindset.


  • Options
    #8841
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I don't agree that the police in the US are using excessive force. I would agree the protestors are using excessive force, I don't think youre going to listen to a reasonable argument about why I believe that, so were done along this line.

    Well giving up before you even try doesn't lend any credibility that you could 'reasonably' make that argument.

    Again, I'm sure there were plenty in England who were of the same opinion, that their forces weren't using excessive force and the protesters deserved it. I'm not surprised people here have the same warped opinion and you're entitled to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8842
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    nullzero wrote: »
    Get a grip.

    You're all for victim blaming people you disagree with politically but it suddenly becomes a bad thing when you're on their side.


  • Options
    #8843
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    You're all for victim blaming people you disagree with politically but it suddenly becomes a bad thing when you're on their side.

    I wasn't victim blaming anyone.

    I simply stated that as a mother of 3 kids she may have been best advised to avoid a riot.

    You really need to step back and look at the utter garbage you're posting here.

    Repeatedly using the term "victim blaming" doesn't validate the ridiculous nonsense you're posting.


  • Options
    #8844
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    nullzero wrote: »
    I wasn't victim blaming anyone.

    I simply stated that as a mother of 3 kids she may have been best advised to avoid a riot.

    You really need to step back and look at the utter garbage you're posting here.

    Repeatedly using the term "victim blaming" doesn't validate the ridiculous nonsense you're posting.

    Claiming the victim wouldn't have been hurt if there weren't at the location where the event happened is practically the definition of victim blaming.

    Posting 'garbage' yet you still haven't fact checked one thing I said :rolleyes:

    I get it is tough to realise you'd be cheering on the paratroopers but that is the side of history you're on. Celebrating excessive force by the authorities to shut down protests because of minor acts of violence.


  • Options
    #8845
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,052 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Lot of people here seem very confused about what a riot is in Portland and when it’s declared. Declaration has to occur on at least a per nightly basis, the police haven’t just labeled the past 2 months “a riot.”

    People have the right to protest and the right to attend them, it’s their prerogative. You’d expect if you aren’t rioting to be regarded in kind. Are we saying this mother was a rioter? Come off it. I shared the video a few hours ago of someone else acting nonviolently who was shot square in the face and underwent reconstructive surgery. For holding a boom box and tossing a spent munition back across the roadway.

    As for any idea that Portland is “out of control” “need to restore law and order” - these protests are essentially confined to a single city block, with the federal courthouse as the epicenter.


  • Options
    #8846
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Overheal wrote: »
    Lot of people here seem very confused about what a riot is in Portland and when it’s declared. Declaration has to occur on at least a per nightly basis, the police haven’t just labeled the past 2 months “a riot.”

    People have the right to protest and the right to attend them, it’s their prerogative. You’d expect if you aren’t rioting to be regarded in kind. Are we saying this mother was a rioter? Come off it. I shared the video a few hours ago of someone else acting nonviolently who was shot square in the face and underwent reconstructive surgery. For holding a boom box and tossing a spent munition back across the roadway.

    I think the difference between a riot and a protest is understood perfectly well.

    I personally made the point that Portland has seen a lot of these events become violent in the recent past.
    As a person who is responsible for a number of children, even though attending the protest is something she was within her rights to do, she was knowingly entering a situation where violence was a reasonably obvious outcome.

    The issue here is that she is happy to have herself portrayed as a mother when the story of her injury at the hand of law enforcement is being concocted to have the greatest emotional impact with any readers of her story, whilst at the same time she was acting in a manner that is unbecoming of any mother or father by attending an event, the likes of which has descended into violence in the recent past, with the understanding that violence would occur.

    Citing an example of somebody being shot in the face after throwing a missile (spent munition box as you describe) at an event that had degenerated into violence, with a rubber bullet is strange.
    Again, a good way to avoid being shot in the face with a rubber bullet would be to one avoid the event and two, of you do go, don't throw things.
    Plenty of people didn't get shot in the face in Portland when this was going on, because they stayed the hell away from protest that was only going to end one way.


  • Options
    #8847
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,508 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Claiming the victim wouldn't have been hurt if there weren't at the location where the event happened is practically the definition of victim blaming.

    Posting 'garbage' yet you still haven't fact checked one thing I said :rolleyes:

    I get it is tough to realise you'd be cheering on the paratroopers but that is the side of history you're on. Celebrating excessive force by the authorities to shut down protests because of minor acts of violence.

    I haven't fact checked you?

    You compared a massacre of 14 people carried out by the British military to a skirmish between police and some middle class eejits in an American city where nobody died.

    Stating that a parent should avoid such a situation is not victim blaming. Again you're banging this drum, tell a lie big enough and repeat the lie and people will come to believe it eh Goebbels?

    Please cite an example of me "celebrating" anything yet alone the use of excessive force by authorities.
    Questioning the logic of attending a protest when it is known that it will turn violent is not the same as celebrating the actions of the authorities present at the protest.
    You are putting words in my mouth, how dare you say that.


  • Options
    #8848
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,070 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Biker79 wrote: »
    Here we are again, painfully pointing out reality to juvenile idealists who prefer to live in fantasy land.

    The only one living in a juvenile fantasy is you and with each reply you display it more.


  • Options
    #8849
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,017 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Mr. Karate wrote: »
    They practically endorsed it recently in Dublin when they disrupted the rally.

    No. Nobody endorsed paedophilia.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #8850
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    I think the difference between a riot and a protest is understood perfectly well.

    I personally made the point that Portland has seen a lot of these events become violent in the recent past.
    As a person who is responsible for a number of children, even though attending the protest is something she was within her rights to do, she was knowingly entering a situation where violence was a reasonably obvious outcome.

    The issue here is that she is happy to have herself portrayed as a mother when the story of her injury at the hand of law enforcement is being concocted to have the greatest emotional impact with any readers of her story, whilst at the same time she was acting in a manner that is unbecoming of any mother or father by attending an event, the likes of which has descended into violence in the recent past, with the understanding that violence would occur.

    Citing an example of somebody being shot in the face after throwing a missile (spent munition box as you describe) at an event that had degenerated into violence, with a rubber bullet is strange.
    Again, a good way to avoid being shot in the face with a rubber bullet would be to one avoid the event and two, of you do go, don't throw things.
    Plenty of people didn't get shot in the face in Portland when this was going on, because they stayed the hell away from protest that was only going to end one way.

    The issue is that you seem more likely to be attacked by the police than anyone else. For absolutely no reason. Whatever family she has back home is irrelevant. In the circumstances, the police are using undue force and placing plenty of lives in danger. You are victim blaming when you're saying that she shouldn't have engaged in her democratic right to protest.

    Gas canister being fired into medic tents as well.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8851
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The issue is that you seem more likely to be attacked by the police than anyone else. For absolutely no reason. Whatever family she has back home is irrelevant. In the circumstances, the police are using undue force and placing plenty of lives in danger. You are victim blaming when you're saying that she shouldn't have engaged in her democratic right to protest.

    Police allowed protesters to do their thing outside a courthouse until almost 1 am. People started to vandalize the building and police asked them to move on. The vast majority did but those who remained started to throw bottles and stones

    Police then took charge of the situation


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement