DHS issues warning for violence and terrorist acts by Trump supporters.

[hal2kilo]

if it was just him, and merely violent rage without a threat, I dont think its terrorism.
Terrorism is using fear to push a political agenda, sometimes with blackmail or extortion before the violence in the hope some government will do what you want to appease you.
Random violent nuts arent always trying to achieve something practical. Sometimes its merely an outburst with no goal. Most mass shootings fall into that category as well. Yes they are planned, but not thoroughly and with no end game.

How equivocating.

 

[MrSquished]

We’ll let’s take a look at what you’ve said in this very thread shall we?


Here you are complaining that white right wing conservatives are victims, targeted for being caught in the capitol trying to illegally overturn the will of the people through violence while at the same time that blacks protesting to be treated as the law says they should be treated as “perpetual violence, terrorists” but suggest they were not being targeted by the government.


Applying your own damn definition. Timothy Mcveigh bombed the OKC Federal building because:


therefore according to you - not a terrorist.


Right. In your own words. Trump supporters trying to overthrow the will of the people is a group that doesn’t do terrorism while BLM protesting is terrorism.


In one phrase you suggest (weakly) not all BLM protesters were terrorists but in the next all either were and those that weren’t aided those that were (which is you effectively saying they all were)

I think your final sentence gets to the heart of your issue. You view yourself as a “citizen” but not those protesting and would have been terrified of a BLM protest if you had been anywhere near one.


Black group protesting with some individuals breaking the law - terrorists
Radical white conservatives attacking cops threatening politicians and trying to thwart the will of the people while all were breaking the law and egged on by their politicians of choice - not terrorists


Where above you ascribe terrorism to an entire group that are minorities (BLM) here whites can only be individual terrorists.

So you go on to say out of one side of your mouth you want to hold everyone individually responsible but out the other that minorities and whites are to be treated differently (group responsible vs individual responsible; protesting for equal treatment under the law is terrorism, protesting and violence for extralegal powers not terrorism)

You’ve obviously “mindlessly” swallowed a lot of propaganda in your life and instead of thinking critically about it used your intelligence to justify it (poorly) to yourself.

His username is most apt. Except for the 1. He is definitely mindless, but as far as number 1 in this forum, not quite, although top 10 for sure.

 

[mindless1]

Republicans are the most dangerous terrorists in the world today.

Why do you reject plain facts?

The plain facts are these:

1) Our government agencies failed us in protecting the Capitol.

2) A bunch of nutjobs temporarily raiding it, had no chance whatsoever of changing anything, just a delay. This isn't speculation or a theory, we can see in retrospect, it is true.

3) Terrorists are not one party opposing another political party, no matter how insane and misguided their tactics. They are still constituents of the same government, not looking to overthrow it but rather to change who leads it.

Where are these "plain facts" I'm rejecting? Seems as though there aren't any or quite the opposite, that there is a middle ground that is reached using plain facts but many have a mental block against considering the reality of the situation.

 

[HomerJS]

The plain facts are these:

1) Our government agencies failed us in protecting the Capitol.

2) A bunch of nutjobs temporarily raiding it, had no chance whatsoever of changing anything, just a delay. This isn't speculation or a theory, we can see in retrospect, it is true.

3) Terrorists are not one party opposing another political party, no matter how insane and misguided their tactics. They are still constituents of the same government, not looking to overthrow it but rather to change who leads it.

Where are these "plain facts" I'm rejecting? Seems as though there aren't any or quite the opposite, that there is a middle ground that is reached using plain facts but many have a mental block against considering the reality of the situation.

They did have a chance of killing legislators. They tried. Sounds like a terrorist act to me. Our intel agencies also labeled them terrorists as well.

I guess you know better. Why is it when certain people commit crimes some are quick to label it as a mental disorder or misunderstood youth. However when others commit crimes they are inherently criminal or bad people?

By the order of you list you put first blame on the government agencies (capital police). Did you notice the different footprint for the peaceful BLM protests vs the gathering on Jan 6? In both cases there was advance warning. I wonder who/why the disparate levels of security for those two events?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Plus the only people legitimately terrorized where individuals inside the building, while everyone else was more shocked that they did not have an effective defense in place, which some agency should have foreseen as a target and this never should have been allowed to happen.

As for your prior post, I'll wait for you to fix the quote formatting to reply to it.

Holy shit that's an incredible assumption.

I was legitimately terrorized. My family was legitimately terrorized. A huge chunk of the United States was legitimately terrorized. Other people have different experiences than you, because they are different people, and they have different brains, and they are apparently more aware of other peoples' emotional distress than you are.

At the time, nobody had any idea what these people were capable of, how organized they were, if they had bombs etc.

Of course people outside were terrorized. What about the family members of congress? They weren't inside the building. Do they not fulfill your definition of terrorized?

I can appreciate how you would interpret that as terrorism based on the definition, except that they had no reasonable expectation that they could do anything more than slightly delay it.

Many of the insurrectionists wanted far more than stopping the vote. Do you really think those people wouldn't have killed/held hostage/tortured/raped members of congress if they hadn't been diverted?

 

[Roger Wilco]

The plain facts are these:

2) A bunch of nutjobs temporarily raiding it, had no chance whatsoever of changing anything, just a delay. This isn't speculation or a theory, we can see in retrospect, it is true.

What in the living fuck are you talking about? They could have killed and severely destabilized an already fragile congress during one of the most dire times in U.S. history.

These people wanted blood, not just to delay the vote.

 

[mindless1]

We’ll let’s take a look at what you’ve said in this very thread shall we?


Here you are complaining that white right wing conservatives are victims, targeted for being caught in the capitol trying to illegally overturn the will of the people through violence while at the same time that blacks protesting to be treated as the law says they should be treated as “perpetual violence, terrorists” but suggest they were not being targeted by the government.

This is a ridiculous, deceitful, false statement. Ending the "Selective enforcement" does not at all mean don't enforce against the white right wing conservatives, it means the opposite, enforce against them (against everyone) effectively, and also, enforce against all the other things that the DHS and other govermental agencies, have been sitting on their arse issuing words against, instead of acting upon. I literally, expected that the attack on the Capitol should have been mowed down with gunfire, should have never went as far as it did. Why on earth would we let the capitol be attacked? It is ridiculous, ineffective use of goverment agencies to let it happen.

Applying your own damn definition. Timothy Mcveigh bombed the OKC Federal building because:


therefore according to you - not a terrorist.

On the contrary, I already wrote asking for examples BESIDES OKC, obviously because I consider it an act of terrorism. You have a reading comprehension problem.

Right. In your own words. Trump supporters trying to overthrow the will of the people is a group that doesn’t do terrorism while BLM protesting is terrorism.

Yes, finally you got something right. The few that stormed the capitol, NOT all "Trump supporters", were not terrorists, rather nutjob insurgents, aligned with one of the political parties of the same government. BLM on the other hand, wants to oppose the government and force their will upon it. Perhaps this is a subtle difference that you can't differentiate, that there is actually a difference between terrorism and other forms of aggression.

In one phrase you suggest (weakly) not all BLM protesters were terrorists but in the next all either were and those that weren’t aided those that were (which is you effectively saying they all were)

In any offense there is a line to cross to meet some formal definition, and then there are those who knew better but were caught up in the moment anyway and through their passive participation, aided in the result. Suppose there is a group of people stoning a man, and you don't throw stones, but you are part of the mob preventing anyone from helping him. You threw no stones, but you impeded the right thing from happening. Suppose you marched on the Capitol on Jan 6, but you assaulted no one, didn't even have a weapon, were just there to protest and yet you became part of the problem.

I think your final sentence gets to the heart of your issue. You view yourself as a “citizen” but not those protesting and would have been terrified of a BLM protest if you had been anywhere near one.

I view everyone (who is), as a citizen, but the rights of one citizen do not allow to deprive the rights of another. The protestors were not civil, were blocking and preventing passage of other citizens, which is illegal, never mind the right to assemble in areas public and private. It all starts with enforcing the laws, which I have stated several times. That's how to prevent things from escalating into chaos.

Black group protesting with some individuals breaking the law - terrorists

Yes, certain participants, not all, a minority were terrorists. Some others were just expressing rage, with no expected outcome (except possibly looting), but all those breaking the law should have been removed. There is a line that is not about opinion, where laws should not be selectively enforced but rather, always enforced.

Radical white conservatives attacking cops threatening politicians and trying to thwart the will of the people while all were breaking the law and egged on by their politicians of choice - not terrorists

Yes, not terrorist. Criminals yes, who possibly should have been killed in their attempt, certainly still subject to same prison sentences for same criminal acts, but not terrorists, rather wacko members of the opposing political parts, still part of the same government. Remember, the government always consists of both political parties, regardless of which has their representative elected as president or which has control of the house or senate.

Where above you ascribe terrorism to an entire group that are minorities (BLM) here whites can only be individual terrorists.

Again a failure in your reading comprehension. No, I did not write "entire group" and no, I did not write "only individual terrorists". There are averages, and there are exceptions, and there is a gulf in between.

So you go on to say out of one side of your mouth you want to hold everyone individually responsible

Yes, finally we're getting somewhere but I suspect not for long...

but out the other that minorities and whites are to be treated differently (group responsible vs individual responsible; protesting for equal treatment under the law is terrorism, protesting and violence for extralegal powers not terrorism)

Completely wrong. It has nothing to do with whether white or a minority, only the individual responsibility of what each individual does regardless of their race. You have tried to deceptively misrepresent what I wrote, or simply have a reading comprehension problem then your imagination filled in blanks that weren't there to begin with.

I never wrote that (civil) protesting (alone) was terrorism, rather that some (people/events) during these protests were.

How incredible it is that you can't accept that white people are not a special group when it comes to law, that some are terrorists, some are not, same as any other race. You seem to be a very racist person and want to project that onto others, spreading racism instead of getting rid of it.

The fact is, race has nothing to do with classification of the individuals, their motivations, and desired outcomes. You seem to not understand what terrorism is and went off on some wild tangent due to this.

You’ve obviously “mindlessly” swallowed a lot of propaganda in your life and instead of thinking critically about it used your intelligence to justify it (poorly) to yourself.

How ironic it is that you make this statement, since I have over a lifetime learned quite a bit and you instead, have swallowed an incredible amount of propaganda over a very few years to end up with the misleading statements you're making. You are not thinking critically at all, just stuck in a mindset of steretypes and excuses instead of the two most important things:

1) Individual responsibility

2) Enforcement of laws

Some bonehead out there tried to make the leap that these two things somehow mean I was in favor of the Jan 6th Capitol attack instead of realizing that it means I am all the more against it, even to the point of mowing them down with machine guns to defend the capitol, but the crazy part is we drifted so far away from the origin of the topic which was about DHS! If DHS and other governmental agencies had done their jobs, Jan 6th would have been nipped in the bud, as would the BLM terrorists, the INDIVIDUALS, who broke LAWS, HELD ACCOUNTABLE, because the laws are enforced.

If your counter to enforcing laws is to try to imply political bias and racism, then you are utterly lost and part of the problem, which quite specifically I wrote more than once, everyone should be held accountable, not selective enforcement. Hint: That would tend to incriminate white people MORE, not less.

 

[HomerJS]

Let's be clear @mindless is attempting to equate vandalism with terrorism in the case where property damage occurred at some protests.

However the people who tried to kill, kidnap government officials, overthrow a free and fair election, attack and beat police within an inch of their lives are not terrorists. These acts were planned

 

[mindless1]

Let's be clear that HomerJS is deceitfully trying to imply that I wrote things that I did not, and does not understand the difference between the motivations that constitute terrorism and those that are due to other criminal intent.

Whether a criminal act was planned, does not shift it from insurrection to terrorism.

Yes, some BLM events were just vandalism, and some weren't, were terroristic instead, which is why individual responsibility is so very important to hold individuals accountable for only what they did, but always what they did, same as the Jan 6th Capitol attack, and same as every other crime no matter how you want to label it - labels don't matter nearly as much as enforcement does.

 

[HomerJS]

Let's be clear that HomerJS is deceitfully trying to imply that I wrote things that I did not, and does not understand the difference between the motivations that constitute terrorism and those that are due to other criminal intent.

The intel agencies of the United States say you are wrong

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes, finally you got something right. The few that stormed the capitol, NOT all "Trump supporters", were not terrorists, rather nutjob insurgents, aligned with one of the political parties of the same government. BLM on the other hand, wants to oppose the government and force their will upon it. Perhaps this is a subtle difference that you can't differentiate, that there is actually a difference between terrorism and other forms of aggression.

Wait, you actually think these people were aligned with the GOP? You think these people were aligned with the government?

These people aligned only with their demigod, Trump. That's it.

These are some of the most deranged anti-government cucks in the country and you think they weren't trying to oppose the government and force their will upon it?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I wish the two of them would stop trying to use all the words in the dictionary in each post.


I propose a 100 word per post limit.

 

[mindless1]

^ Heh, I'll keep this one to 100 characters: Unsubscribed due to waste of time.

 

[Meghan54]

^ Heh, I'll keep this one to 100 characters: Unsubscribed due to waste of time.

At least you got your handle correct....mindless, as always. Never change.

 

[NWRMidnight]

^ Heh, I'll keep this one to 100 characters: Unsubscribed due to waste of time.

Pussy! (that is 6 characters, counting the !)

 

[hal2kilo]

The plain facts are these:

1) Our government agencies failed us in protecting the Capitol.

2) A bunch of nutjobs temporarily raiding it, had no chance whatsoever of changing anything, just a delay. This isn't speculation or a theory, we can see in retrospect, it is true.

3) Terrorists are not one party opposing another political party, no matter how insane and misguided their tactics. They are still constituents of the same government, not looking to overthrow it but rather to change who leads it.

Where are these "plain facts" I'm rejecting? Seems as though there aren't any or quite the opposite, that there is a middle ground that is reached using plain facts but many have a mental block against considering the reality of the situation.

Spin, spin, spin, then some more...

 

[ivwshane]

^ Heh, I'll keep this one to 100 characters: Unsubscribed due to waste of time.

You are a waste of time and yet another traitor who is trying to redefine what words mean to protect your traitorous friends.

Your posting history exposes you for exactly what you are, as does this very thread where you tried the "who me?" schtick and were rightfully called out on it.

Take your anti government, antidemocratic bull shit somewhere else.

 

[shortylickens]

How equivocating.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, depending on the side of view they were either traitors or liberators, but insurrectionists either way.




I never stated they had a good image nor that it would lessen a risk of attack.




Semantics is all there is, when all an agency is seemingly doing is throwing words around, in what is clearly, words twisted to deceive the public from their anti-agenda, to try to play politics instead of doing their job, fulfilling the reason they exist.

I have no care in the world what they are worried about, only that they stop playing games and instead do their job, whether it be against terrorists or insurrectionists, makes no difference. That's not semantics except on their part, rather what I want is a very real, NON-semantic change, like STFU and get it done already it's your job.

Your charge that they are motivated by "politics" is just your opinion, and isn't based on any facts. It's actually pretty easy to resolve this. Either they had a factual basis for claiming a heightened alert from right wing terrorists, or they did not. If they had a factual basis, then it wasn't politics. It was just them doing their jobs.

It's too bad you ignored evidence I already provided about that factual basis. Want more? There's tons of it.

 

[mindless1]

You are a waste of time and yet another traitor who is trying to redefine what words mean to protect your traitorous friends.

Your posting history exposes you for exactly what you are, as does this very thread where you tried the "who me?" schtick and were rightfully called out on it.

Take your anti government, antidemocratic bull shit somewhere else.

Make up nonsense much? Not once have I defended the idiots committing crimes in Trump's name, quite the opposite, but feel free to bask in your delusions. Anyone can look at my posting history and see that, or did you think your jedi mind games prevent anyone from looking? lol.

You're still wasting my time and yours, the difference being that one of us is delusional and it's not me. This is why I always find myself leaving this forum, because it is a black hole for people who can't accept reality and think arguing changes that.

 

[mindless1]

Your charge that they are motivated by "politics" is just your opinion

I want some of what you're smoking if you think this is not about politics, lololololol, waste of my time again....

Feel free to pat yourself on the back for not even realizing you are wrong based on an inability to even read and understand text.

 

[zinfamous]

This is a ridiculous, deceitful, false statement. Ending the "Selective enforcement" does not at all mean don't enforce against the white right wing conservatives, it means the opposite, enforce against them (against everyone) effectively, and also, enforce against all the other things that the DHS and other govermental agencies, have been sitting on their arse issuing words against, instead of acting upon. I literally, expected that the attack on the Capitol should have been mowed down with gunfire, should have never went as far as it did. Why on earth would we let the capitol be attacked? It is ridiculous, ineffective use of goverment agencies to let it happen.



On the contrary, I already wrote asking for examples BESIDES OKC, obviously because I consider it an act of terrorism. You have a reading comprehension problem.



Yes, finally you got something right. The few that stormed the capitol, NOT all "Trump supporters", were not terrorists, rather nutjob insurgents, aligned with one of the political parties of the same government. BLM on the other hand, wants to oppose the government and force their will upon it. Perhaps this is a subtle difference that you can't differentiate, that there is actually a difference between terrorism and other forms of aggression.



In any offense there is a line to cross to meet some formal definition, and then there are those who knew better but were caught up in the moment anyway and through their passive participation, aided in the result. Suppose there is a group of people stoning a man, and you don't throw stones, but you are part of the mob preventing anyone from helping him. You threw no stones, but you impeded the right thing from happening. Suppose you marched on the Capitol on Jan 6, but you assaulted no one, didn't even have a weapon, were just there to protest and yet you became part of the problem.



I view everyone (who is), as a citizen, but the rights of one citizen do not allow to deprive the rights of another. The protestors were not civil, were blocking and preventing passage of other citizens, which is illegal, never mind the right to assemble in areas public and private. It all starts with enforcing the laws, which I have stated several times. That's how to prevent things from escalating into chaos.




Yes, certain participants, not all, a minority were terrorists. Some others were just expressing rage, with no expected outcome (except possibly looting), but all those breaking the law should have been removed. There is a line that is not about opinion, where laws should not be selectively enforced but rather, always enforced.



Yes, not terrorist. Criminals yes, who possibly should have been killed in their attempt, certainly still subject to same prison sentences for same criminal acts, but not terrorists, rather wacko members of the opposing political parts, still part of the same government. Remember, the government always consists of both political parties, regardless of which has their representative elected as president or which has control of the house or senate.




Again a failure in your reading comprehension. No, I did not write "entire group" and no, I did not write "only individual terrorists". There are averages, and there are exceptions, and there is a gulf in between.



Yes, finally we're getting somewhere but I suspect not for long...



Completely wrong. It has nothing to do with whether white or a minority, only the individual responsibility of what each individual does regardless of their race. You have tried to deceptively misrepresent what I wrote, or simply have a reading comprehension problem then your imagination filled in blanks that weren't there to begin with.

I never wrote that (civil) protesting (alone) was terrorism, rather that some (people/events) during these protests were.

How incredible it is that you can't accept that white people are not a special group when it comes to law, that some are terrorists, some are not, same as any other race. You seem to be a very racist person and want to project that onto others, spreading racism instead of getting rid of it.

The fact is, race has nothing to do with classification of the individuals, their motivations, and desired outcomes. You seem to not understand what terrorism is and went off on some wild tangent due to this.



How ironic it is that you make this statement, since I have over a lifetime learned quite a bit and you instead, have swallowed an incredible amount of propaganda over a very few years to end up with the misleading statements you're making. You are not thinking critically at all, just stuck in a mindset of steretypes and excuses instead of the two most important things:

1) Individual responsibility

2) Enforcement of laws

Some bonehead out there tried to make the leap that these two things somehow mean I was in favor of the Jan 6th Capitol attack instead of realizing that it means I am all the more against it, even to the point of mowing them down with machine guns to defend the capitol, but the crazy part is we drifted so far away from the origin of the topic which was about DHS! If DHS and other governmental agencies had done their jobs, Jan 6th would have been nipped in the bud, as would the BLM terrorists, the INDIVIDUALS, who broke LAWS, HELD ACCOUNTABLE, because the laws are enforced.

If your counter to enforcing laws is to try to imply political bias and racism, then you are utterly lost and part of the problem, which quite specifically I wrote more than once, everyone should be held accountable, not selective enforcement. Hint: That would tend to incriminate white people MORE, not less.

Look, isn't it easier to just type: "The official charges and claims against these people are far too close to how I think, what I want in life, my core ideology, and exactly what I look like...it's really discomforting to call that terrorism! I refuse to believe it!"

This is just bleeding all out of your lame equivocating to try and classify terrorism as a color and culture thing, without trying to admit that is clearly what you think.

 

[shortylickens]

You keep on use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

equivocating

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of equivocating by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

 

[zinfamous]

You keep on use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

equivocating

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of equivocating by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

I've only used it once!

 

[hal2kilo]

I've only used it once!

Apparently, he's ignoring the definition he posted, and just disagrees with the meaning of words.