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.

 

#BlackLivesMatter Sets Up "Decoy" Protest in Attempt to Shut Down Airport

page: 21
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They also didn't feel the need to recklessly loot as a sign of protest as well. As a matter of fact, they actually kind of defined what "civil disobedience" is.




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Sigh.

Property damage is not violence, rioters are not organized enough to pursue a meaningful political aim, and the Baltimore rioters do not speak for BLM or vice versa.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Vector, here is the definition of violence

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I've seen the protestors do no such thing, I did however see how 3 white guys shot at a group of non-violent BLM protestors not too long ago.
edit on 25-12-2015 by theySeeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Yeah this has always been the way with protests, whether they're on public or private property. But now because it's black people they're terrorists?.....so very very pathetic...


Well let's be clear, it is only SOME black folks who are acting like irrational fools. BLM continually scream, foam at the mouth and bully people, which is very counterproductive.

Also, one bat crazy lunatic who shares this mindset recently attempted to commit mass murder, and succeeded in causing great bodily harm to many, as well as the murder of one on the Vegas strip. ~$heopleNation



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Sigh.

Property damage is not violence,

Really? what would you define it as?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Sigh.

Property damage is not violence,

Really? what would you define it as?


You know, I think you've got a point there. You could call damage to inanimate objects a form of violence. Just not comparable to violence against living things. So, do you honestly believe that all property damage intended to achieve a political aim is terrorism?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

What else would be the point?


edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Sigh.

Property damage is not violence,

Really? what would you define it as?


Apparently violence is just normal everyday thing around his house. Guessing he lives in Syria somewhere. Damaging property or threatening someone. I could say if you don't do what I want I will destroy tour home or business. Could threaten to make sure you can't open your business mafia used this one its called extortion.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme

No, Actually all that you seen were reports that 3 masked men fired into a crowd of BLM protesters, which somehow they knew they were white.

You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.

So it sounds more like a false flag event, or maybe one of the BLM protesters was a gang member.

I mean if we are going to just make reckless assumptions with no evidence to back them up. ~$heopleNation


edit on 25-12-2015 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Prezbo369





Yea lets not call an apple an apple.


You should probably supply context and sourcing for those photographs. One is of rioters in Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident. The other is of FSA fighters in Syria. What is your point in comparing the two with no context or explanation?


Think they are trying to point out vandalism is another form if terrorism. It can be but not always depends on if it is intentional. For exmple trying to shut down an airport intentionally that is terrorism. But if a random riot broke out closing the airport the intent wasn't there. It was just a consequence of the riot. In the case of BLM they are intentionally trying to disrupt society in order to change policy. That is the very definition of a terrorist.


They might be trying to say that.

The two photos I posted were for contrast. Only one of them depicted "terrorists". You assumed they both did. Media has done it's job.


Neither of them depicted terrorists. Neither of them depicted BLM protestors.

Definition of terrorist.

a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


Definition of terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


oops meant to edit, not reply to myself


Sigh.

Property damage is not violence,

Really? what would you define it as?


Apparently violence is just normal everyday thing around his house. Guessing he lives in Syria somewhere. Damaging property or threatening someone. I could say if you don't do what I want I will destroy tour home or business. Could threaten to make sure you can't open your business mafia used this one its called extortion.


Let's keep it civil. I think painting rioters with the terrorism brush is unreasonable. You don't agree, that's fine. Suggesting I am "Damaging property or threatening someone" because I don't share your interpretation is quite unreasonable.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.


So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

They were British Terrorists.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

They were British Terrorists.


They were Colonials. They were people like John Adams, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and John Hancock. If you're willing to label them terrorists, I must at least concede that you're not being hypocritical. Bravo. Do you think their actions unjustified?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Ok let me clarify

They were indeed British Terrorists. They also simultaneously were American Revolutionaries. Terrorism is subjective to the victim, not the offender.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.


So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?


Yes it is the piston tea party however was a strike against the east India trading it was there tea and they considered them a foriegn enemy. It was not domestic terrorism at all. They didn't attack colonials. They needed to garner their support a lesson BLM needs to learn don't piss off the locals.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme

No, Actually all that you seen were reports that 3 masked men fired into a crowd of BLM protesters, which somehow they knew they were white.

You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.


Which is what I mean when I say "I saw how".


originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme


You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.


Actually there were arrests, because the racist idiots were dumb enough to make a video of them with their masks while waving their guns around- looking like ISIS terrorists. This video was made on the way to the shootings.


www.youtube.com...

Four Men Held In Connection With Shooting Of Minneapolis Protesters
www.huffingtonpost.com...

- www.huffingtonpost.com...

Man Charged In Shooting Of Black Lives Matter Protesters
- www.huffingtonpost.com...


Prosecutors charge 4 in shooting of Minneapolis protesters
bigstory.ap.org...

But hey, if you want to make things up to justify your points, what ever. There really is a conspiracy against blacks, and the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about while being so emotionally caught up says alot about the current state of society.

You are part of it's cancer, literally the opposite of what this website was intended for - to be AWAKE. I know there will be complete silence from you, not a peep, because you won't even be man enough to admit you were wrong, instead you'll hold on to the same ideas justify your racism.

What did you say again?


originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme
I mean if we are going to just make reckless assumptions with no evidence to back them up. ~$heopleNation



Oh.

edit on 25-12-2015 by theySeeme because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2015 by theySeeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Forgot to mention they ADMITTED to the shootings.
edit on 12/25/2015 by Blaine91555 because: Removed insulting remark against the TAC



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join