If only saying like that actually made them true. Oh, I wish I lived in your simplistic world…
You don’t need three paragraphs to make your point. You’d likely need far more. Refusing to actually defend your position informs me more that you haven’t thought about it enough to defend it though. You’ve heard someone else say they’re terrorists and took their word on it without considering why that would be true or not.
Most of the protests nothing happened. Frequently, cops targeted them and antagonize them. Sometimes cops infiltrated them and acted as agent provocateur to get people to commit these acts (there is video evidence of this).
Regardless, it doesn’t undermine anything. Any sufficiently large group will have these things happen even without provocation. It doesn’t change the fact that there are fundamental issues that still haven’t been addressed.
Calling every group you don’t like terrorists doesn’t tell you anything. In the civil rights era, MLK’s peaceful protests were frequently called riots because people who benefitted from the status quo didn’t like them. Meanwhile police were beating them, shooting them with fire-hoses (or worse), and doing whatever they could to them and they weren’t called terrorists because they are the state.
Terrorism is a loaded word intended to draw an emotional response. It doesn’t give any information on the morality or legitimacy of a group. Discuss their actions and their goals if you like. The word terrorism is mostly useless.
You are wrong. I don’t need a 3 paragraph narrative to make my point. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
If only saying like that actually made them true. Oh, I wish I lived in your simplistic world…
You don’t need three paragraphs to make your point. You’d likely need far more. Refusing to actually defend your position informs me more that you haven’t thought about it enough to defend it though. You’ve heard someone else say they’re terrorists and took their word on it without considering why that would be true or not.
How would you defend rioting, property damage, and street crime? You imply there is justification.
Most of the protests nothing happened. Frequently, cops targeted them and antagonize them. Sometimes cops infiltrated them and acted as agent provocateur to get people to commit these acts (there is video evidence of this).
Regardless, it doesn’t undermine anything. Any sufficiently large group will have these things happen even without provocation. It doesn’t change the fact that there are fundamental issues that still haven’t been addressed.
Calling every group you don’t like terrorists doesn’t tell you anything. In the civil rights era, MLK’s peaceful protests were frequently called riots because people who benefitted from the status quo didn’t like them. Meanwhile police were beating them, shooting them with fire-hoses (or worse), and doing whatever they could to them and they weren’t called terrorists because they are the state.
Terrorism is a loaded word intended to draw an emotional response. It doesn’t give any information on the morality or legitimacy of a group. Discuss their actions and their goals if you like. The word terrorism is mostly useless.
Cops targeted them, LMAO.
Do you think they didn’t? I can provide evidence they did if you like. Can you do the opposite?
Why would I have to? You are a hard left fool.
Better than being a fool just to continue being an asshole.