It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black lives matter movement = Domestic Terrorism

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: Kali74 Ok Kali lets us look at what you said. "Taking over a library with words is not terrorism nor was it associated with BLM". You must not have seen the video www.youtube.com.... Rioting is a terrorist threat.
Rioting is 1) Technically a turbulent and violent disturbance of peace by three or more people acting together. 2) an assemblage of people who are out of control, causing injury, or endangering the physical safety of others and/or themselves, causing or threatening damage to property, and often violating various laws both individually and as a group. The common thread is that the people in a riot have the power through violence to break the public peace and safety, requiring police action.

"Terrorism" as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "


So, Tea Party events with numerous Second Amendment advocates were terrorist? Think about it, there's far more evidence for that statement, given the rather simplistic criteria you're using here, than against BLM.

Is the Tea Party also a "terrorist" group then? Are the various private "militias"? How about the Republican Party? For that matter, how about the US Government itself?


edit on 28-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9

"1. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned.


When you say "of color" is that anyone who is not pure white? Sweet!! My wife and kids are now "of color" so where do I go to get the benefits they have "of color" rights to? Blacks are about 13% unless you live in Chicago then it is 33%, and such a fine town it is.
edit on 28-11-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



I believe it was in the list of demands made at either Amherst or Princeton. They wanted to go after people who had stated that All Lives Matter (not just faculty by the way it was worded) and one of the punitive measures they were to undergo was extensive re-education in race sensitivity.


I found a source for you:

Black Justice League also asks for university to publicly acknowledge former US and school president’s vocal support of racism and segregationist policies

WE DEMAND cultural competency training for all staff and faculty. It was voted down on the grounds of trespassing freedom of speech last spring semester. We demand a public conversation, which will be student led and administration supported, on the true role of freedom of speech and freedom of intellectual thought in a way that does not reinforce anti-Blackness and xenophobia. We demand classes on the history of marginalized peoples (for example, courses in the Department for African American Studies) be added to the list of distribution requirements. Learning about marginalized groups, their cultures, and structures of privilege is just as important as any science or quantitative reasoning course. We propose that this requirement be incorporated into the Social Analysis requirement.


Students are protesting and making demands - I agree with most of them with the exception of the space to be provided for only black students. I guess they don't get the irony :-)

Demands made by protesting students on campus are not fascist - unless student protests that demanded an end to the Vietnam War were also fascist in your book? Protesting is a right - their list of demands is part of that protest

I guess the word forcibly was a personal choice?

edit on 11/28/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, Tea Party events with numerous Second Amendment advocates were terrorist? Think about it, there's far more evidence for that statement, given the rather simplistic criteria you're using here, than against BLM.

Is the Tea Party also a "terrorist" group then? Are the various private "militias"? How about the Republican Party? For that matter, how about the US Government itself?



The word terrorist has been used a good deal for both groups.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If they can demand that anyone they find who advocated support All Lives Matter must take race sensitivity course, that is force. No?

If that demand went through, then someone who said ALL LIVES MATTER has to take more classes, likely on their own dime, or face consequences related to refusing: not graduating, expulsion? How is that not fascism or force?



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, Tea Party events with numerous Second Amendment advocates were terrorist? Think about it, there's far more evidence for that statement, given the rather simplistic criteria you're using here, than against BLM.

Is the Tea Party also a "terrorist" group then? Are the various private "militias"? How about the Republican Party? For that matter, how about the US Government itself?



The word terrorist has been used a good deal for both groups.


Yep, and usually rhetorically, although, there is far more evidence over years of threats of violence to achieve political goals on one of the two and it ain't BLM.

EDIT What about you XTRO? Is BLM a terrorist group? Is the Tea Party?
edit on 28-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: NOTED



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


If they can demand that anyone they find who advocated support All Lives Matter must take race sensitivity course, that is force. No?


No

They can demand whatever they want. Doesn't mean they'll get it. A demand is like a request in this situation. I'm not sure how they plan to force anyone's hand on this. Kinda part of the dice roll of protesting

If they resort to violence - you might then be able to call this something else. If they resort to violence - I'll be surprised, disappointed and angry. Doesn't look like that's what's going to happen:


Alumni have shown support by calling the president's office. Black professors have sent us food. Friends have brought us blankets. We have support--now we need help in dismantling the legacy of white supremacy and anti-Blackness on campus.

*When the president did not sign, some students spent the night on the floor of his office, while others slept outside in tents. Public Safety protected the building, and left the students who slept outside without protection.

Fascist nut jobs - the lot of them

I guess it's all about semantics - again - right?

:-)
edit on 11/28/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

EDIT What about you XTRO? Is BLM a terrorist group? Is the Tea Party?


I say neither is...lol Both groups are people who feel the government is not in support of their best interests, and I would say that 50% of the time they have a point and 50% they are full of crap, so I don't think that either are really a good example of what a terrorist is all about.


edit on 28-11-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
This isn't the twilight zone. BLM is not a terrorist group.

If you fear them you should take some insensitivity training, and grow a pair.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66

EDIT What about you XTRO? Is BLM a terrorist group? Is the Tea Party?


I say neither is...lol Both groups are people who feel the government is not in support of their best interests, and I would say that 50% of the time they have a point and 50% they are full of crap, so I don't think that they are really is a good example of what a terrorist is all about.



Fair enough. I don't agree with your statistical breakdown but I can see and understand your sentiment.

I'm interested to see if OP has a comment on applying the same criteria to one group as the other.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63


You must not have seen the video


I watched the video

:-)


Rioting is a terrorist threat.


Do you actually know what a riot is? No wonder you're scared



"Terrorism" as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "


Terrorists hurt people - they aren't merely noisy in a library or commons area

I'm beginning to think you don't think that black lives matter :-)

Seriously - get a grip


edit on 11/28/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Also remember that use of the phrase "list of demands" harks back to demonstrations of the 60s and 70s.

There has also been a list of somewhat ludicrous "Demands" made by a Black Student Group at Emory University, which is EASILY one of the most liberal and "PC" conscious universities in the world even to the extent that I find it utterly obnoxious.

It's a social trend at the moment. Some real issues will be addressed, perhaps. Most of the nuttery will fade.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'm interested to see if OP has a comment on applying the same criteria to one group as the other.


It really depends on their actions and would be more associated not as a whole group but with small segments of the group that lets say did pretty violent acts unless the whole group went totally bonkers.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'm interested to see if OP has a comment on applying the same criteria to one group as the other.


It really depends on their actions and would be more associated not as a whole group but with small segments of the group that lets say did pretty violent acts unless the whole group went totally bonkers.


Yes. Absolutely.

Thus the reason that referring to "them" and "they" without prejudice is meaningless to a great extent.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
If they would have coined themselves as "Everyone's lives matters" maybe people would actually take them seriously.

Until then all the group is doing is bringing more and more bad light upon itself and is recently turning into a joke.

Smh



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66Well then I will play into your statement. Our founding fathers where also terrorists. They even took up arms and beat the British to form this country. You can dispute the simplistic view I have but you cannot deign the fact those students choose to disrupt their fellow student that where studying, causing fear and panic amongst the students. By doing so they are terrorists.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63

I really dislike the BLM movement and the way they protest and their hypocrisy but they still have every right to protest.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63

Still not terrorism no matter what they were saying, and using the chant doesn't necessarily mean they are involved with the BLM movement, as I said these students are involved with 1950.

Rioting is a crime, destruction of property is a crime, arson is a crime, assault is a crime. Separate crimes each carrying it's own finable or imprisonment punishment if found/pleading guilty. None, even combined are acts of terror. This is Federal and or State law within the the US.

If you want to change State and Federal definitions of Terrorism go ahead and try. Start a movement. Write to your Representatives. But be careful what you ask for, the laws regarding Terrorism have already been changed and threaten every citizen of the United States if ever taken to the extremes of these new definitions. And do remember that those willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither and you risk your own freedom to freely associate, protest or redress your government by seeking to restrict others. Struggle is sometimes messy, the Civil Rights movement certainly was but we are the better for it or do you disagree?

ETA: I meant to add this as well. An elderly gentleman made this statement to the Chicago Tribune reporter that was covering the Blackout Black Friday protests yesterday at the Magnificent Mile shopping district in Chicago (ironically another ATS user made a thread on this also, demanding that the activists be labeled terrorists for effective shutting down Black Friday shopping in the area):


Others took a more draconian line. Vince Tribo, 84, was out shopping for underwear. He said he lived in Flossmoor but also keeps a downtown condo, and that he "doesn't really believe in protesting."

"I grew up in Italy under Mussolini — I wasn't brought up with all this," he confided with a smile, gesturing to the crowd, which was chanting that McDonald had been shot 16 times. "There was more discipline and law and order."

"My mother always said that before Mussolini came to power it was lawless," he added, before gesturing to the crowd again and adding, "it was like this."


Chicago Tribune

Sounds like the three of of you should get together and have tea or coffee.
edit on 11/28/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Fascism is one thing, terrorism is another. However, there are far deeper problems and grievances that are legitimate within the African American community, that many either are not wanting to admit to, or shy away from.

Look at the policies and laws that were brought on the books, where it tried, in a noble effort to help them up, giving them a large hand up, and hand out. That has created part of the problem, the other part is acceptance on both sides of this issue. And neither side is willing to budge or consider that the other side may have valid points that are both reasonable and fair.

Change starts with the individual, not hoping for a better tomorrow, or a better life, but working on achieving such, and as sad as it may be, the society conditions are often stacked against the individual who dares to look outside of the box, and try to make a difference, often from both inside and outside.

Do the BLM have valid grievances, yes there are some points that we should concede that are valid, however, they should also look and take responsibility for their own actions as well. Both sides on this issue are at fault and it perpetuates time and time again moving forward steadily and causing an ever growing rift. Both sides, have to give and work to find a common goal. Though I do not believe that the BLM is a terrorist group, I think that they are loud, but not a threat or a danger.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63
Yes, but here is the thing: Is it a matter of freedom of speech, or it is a viable threat?

You see in this year alone one could say that more extremist have come up and around. Would you not agree that calling for the death of one group, mass murder or genocide is not a terrorist action? Or how about the group who is armed with loaded weapons, standing in front of a mosque, would those also not be considered to be terrorist, causing fear and terror of those inside of such?

The BLM movement is a nuisance, exercising its freedom of speech and to protest. Going in and shutting them down will do nothing but cause more problems and widen the rift, like picking at a sore, and making the situation a bit worse than it already is.

Right now they are venting, let them vent and scream, eventually the movement, is going to fall away and die down as they are alienating the very people that they need for support to get any real changes done. They are quickly becoming a political tool that is used by the politicians, and next year is an election year on top of it all.

The question is which side will give first and what will be the implications and fall out from such? Dartmouth and other colleges can not afford to have this go on for too long, as then they will lose students from coming in, thus the various colleges will come out with new rules to ensure that it is a peaceful and constructive learning community. The politicians will further pull left or right, and they will have an influence on the planks and platforms of the various politicians in the upcoming election.

Are some of their points valid, yes. Not all of them but some of them and ultimately it will take some time to get to the heart of the matter and figure out what is and is not valid and how to correct it.

I would not give it much longer, as the public is losing interest in this and ultimately they are going to find out that once that happens, they have lost all support. This happened with the occupy movement, where it was in the public eye for a bit, and then it ultimately went away. And if many of those students doing this, have any sort of grant or funding for their schooling, it could work against them.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join