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.

 

What's the difference between Black Lives Matter and the Oregon militia?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

You may not know and its hard to find proof bc it is easily hidden but there is racism within the system. Not all cops are bad and misuse their power, that is not what I am saying, but if even 1 does (and there's more than one), then it is a cause for a riot.

Too many times this race gets over-looked and forgotten when bad/evil has been done to them from authority figures. I hope, even though these riots are childish, they served a purpose as to never forget. There are many more instances than just Michael Brown, fyi.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Sorry man, but that was a planned march and streets were respectively blocked off. MLK never blocked traffic or innocent people from getting to point B. There are other ways of getting your point across without getting innocent people, that want nothing to do with it, involved. Being disruptive only makes people dislike you and not give half a # what your cause is.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: TheBulk

lol, so. I think they are much worse actually. Ignorance is scary as hell, especially when our political leaders have ignorance. Just think of what would happen if a Tea Party psycho became president...mandatory church? stoning non Christians, no womens rights? stoning gays?

scary





Oh wow, is that what you really think?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Spider879

Lol, "11 misconceptions about black lives matter" brought to you by blacklivesmatter dot com... BRILLIANT! Totally unbiased too I'm sure. Heh.

Yes I prefer to let them speak for themselves than to let media or their opponents speak for them, I am sure you would want the Tea Party's or the Militia to explain their own views rather than through someone else's filter.


So if the KKK released a statement as to how they're commonly misunderstood and it was posted on their own website, you would believe it? Were you ok with Darren Wilson being investigated by the Ferguson Police Department?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk



That the cop didn't know the guy just robbed a place? Are you seriously suggesting that if the cop didn't know, it never happened?

I'm not suggesting that he didn't know it is FACT that he didn't know.
Ferguson police chief: Officer didn't stop Brown as robbery suspect


Also, the teenager wasn't unarmed, but was actually trying to get the cop's weapon.

If the kid was armed then why did he try to grab the cops gun? Let me help you to understand what the word unarmed means.
unarmed
adjective
not having a weapon : not armed



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

What about those that lost their businesses and had nothing to do with the police, or those that didn't like the police either but had their businesses burned down? That was their life and now they've got nothing, all because of some idiots wanting to loot, riot, and burn things down to "make a point."

Are you hoping they blame the police for their buildings being burned and lost, or do they blame the looters and rioters?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Crazy I know, but so is the Tea Party so I wouldn't put it past them, they are capable of much worse. All they want to do is instill "American VAlues" into America. That means they do not want gays to marry and they want everyone to be a Christian. Who knows what they would do to the poor trannies, probably lock them up in an insane asylum. And the public schools would be forced to brain-wash children into being Christians. Wasn't there a lady just a week ago that said she would make church attendance mandatory if she were elected?

Just saying its possible, very possible.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Spider879

Sorry man, but that was a planned march and streets were respectively blocked off. MLK never blocked traffic or innocent people from getting to point B. There are other ways of getting your point across without getting innocent people, that want nothing to do with it, involved. Being disruptive only makes people dislike you and not give half a # what your cause is.

Being disruptive is a very long part of the American tradition of protest and no the streets wasn't cordoned off for the sake of marchers they were blocked by police with riot gear and that went on to

A Police beat down,

As a matter of fact in your face protest was what started America.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: SwillsWhat is amazing is the perception of both groups and how people react to them. You can see the clear line of the political paradigm but you also see how differently white people and black people are treated in this country.


Hmmm...methinks you're a bit off the mark, here, making this about race. The two groups--while tactics may be somewhat similar at their foundation--are completely different.

Take the Oregon Militia, for example. These guys (and gals, I believe) were obviously fully armed and ready, if necessary, to possibly use these firearms in defense of their lives if the gov't agencies got out of control. But other than commandeering a federally owned building out in the middle of nowhere to make a stand against something that they perceived as unjust by our federal government, they did nothing illegal that affected the lives of the inhabitants of Burns, Oregon.

Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, do many things that are illegal in the name of "justice." Their protests in heavily populated areas often devolve into riots where people and property are hurt, damaged, or destroyed. They bleed into the streets (and even interstates) and interrupt people who are just going on with their daily lives and not causing the BLM movement any trouble, yet BLM still finds it okay to do these things. There have been police killed on behalf of (or, at the very least, in the spirit of) the BLM movement.

Police organizations became obviously aggressive against the militia (or at least one of its memebers), trapping him on a road and then shooting him dead, regardless of if he had a weapon or not.

Police organizations become politically correct against the BLM movement, giving them space to "protest" and then having to be reactive to destruction and riots instead of stopping them from happening.

Yes, not all BLM protests turn out this way--as I've said before, the BLM-Cincinnati group has been okay so far, other than blocking I-75 illegally as a part of their protest--but way too many of them have, and often for reasons that are not even true examples of unjust police shootings as much as they are examples of stupid behavior of citizens who just happen to be black.

And to be fair, I think that what the Oregon Militia folks did by taking control of a federally funded building in the manner that they did was absolutely illegal and a terrible tactic, as I don't think that fighting what is perceived as unjust or illegal behavior with illegal behavior is an appropriate way to get one's point across. But I don't think that anyone deserved to die over it, although I think a few of them were way to willing to take it to that point.

Point being, these two organizations are quite different, and the way LEOs respond to them are quite different, but I don't think that it's in the way that you are trying to portray. To pretend that, if the militia were full of black people instead of white people, a black militia would have automatically or absolutely been treated differently is a lesson in futility, because what-ifs and biased predictions have no footing in reality.



BLM can be a very aggressive group of people when they protest, most notably when they rushed the platform during a Sanders rally. The media was not kind to them at all and the BLM protesters gave the MSM plenty to work with in demonizing them. They've been called thugs, terrorists, radicals, you name it. The most popular news network, Fox News, even compared them to the KKK.


Some of the tactics used are similar to the KKK, although I don't think the two have very similar ideologies, and if they do, I think that the amplitude of the ideologies differ, along with the motivations of the groups.

But I think that the most-notable examples of BLM being very aggressive are alluded to in my comments, and the rushing of the Sanders stage is a very, very small potato in comparison. The people who do the things that I commented about are thugs, terrorists, radicals, and everything else--both within the BLM movement and the militia group. The main difference is that these people in BLM (not the movement as a whole, but some of the people within) who resort to these tactics actually use violence in an attempt to make their point; the militia did not do that.



Here on ATS I would dare say the majority of posts I've read whenever BLM is brought up are negative using all the words I listed about to describe them and more. A big negative association posted about BLM are accusations of inciting violence against the police. BLM was born from police brutality.


No, BLM was born from the results of the Zimmerman trial and his acquittal--a confrontation and killing that, if anyone is intelligent about the laws of Florida, was legally justified under said laws.

It became a major voice after the Michael Brown shooting, which again was determined to be absolutely justified in the eyes of the law, even if those ignorant to the actual facts of the case screamed and chanted "Hands Up, Don't Shoot." (something that was shown to have been a false mantra, but still continues on to this day as if it has any truth in its foundation)


Then recently a militia led by son's of a man we've heard of before, Bundy, take over a federal building by force and they're armed. They flat out threaten the lives of any authority trying to remove them. How does the media react to them? They call them armed protesters.


And what should they have been called? From my recollection, the "threat" to the lives of LEOs was in a statement that they made saying that the only way that this will turn violent is if the FBI or LEOs initiate the violence. Sure, I guess that's a threat, but not much of one. So, what is the term that you would use to describe them? Like I said before, I think that their tactic of taking over the building was illegal--at the very least, trespassing--but they didn't use violence to do it, therefore they weren't being terrorists if you understand the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.


So when can we throw our petty political differences aside, prejudices, and come together to solve this problem?



Here's the problem with your conclusion that all of your claims are based on prejudices, political differences, and whatever: Each case is different. Michael Brown assaulted a police officer and, as the evidence showed, tried to take his service weapon. Not a smart thing to do, and it will definitely get you shot if you rush at said officer after you did all of that. That doesn't deserve demonizing of LEOs.

Eric Garner, on the other hand, should never have been put in the position of getting choked because of such a meaningless law against selling single cigarettes on the street--he didn't deserve to die, but he was breaking a law. That deserves protest, but against the ridiculous law and the force used to enforce it.

Walter Scott, in South Carolina, is a perfect example of a horrific scenario where a cop shoots a black man in the back as he's fleeing. I don't know what's was in the heart of the officer, but in any event, this scenario does deserve protesting about the life of Scott and the use of deadly force.

Everything is a case-by-case basis, and should be viewed that way. It's not ideological all the time.
edit on 4-2-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

If the kid was armed then why did he try to grab the cops gun?


He was hopped up.

Capable of anything.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: LSU0408


Crazy I know, but so is the Tea Party so I wouldn't put it past them, they are capable of much worse.


When did anybody from the Tea Party (or any of the 100 groups) burn down and loot stores?




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Have the names of the law enforcement officers that shot Lavoy Finicum been released, doesn't that usually happen?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

deja vu? I already answered this same question, no but they are much scarier



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

How do you know he was hopped up?

How do you know he was capable of anything?

Also, which weapon would you say is more deadly, a boy's young man's strong arm, or a speeding pickup truck?
edit on 4-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Spider879

Funny that the video you posted is full of clips from Democrats and the media demonizing them. While the media protects and promotes BLM.

So the vid of the Tea Party ppl spitting at congress people didn't happened??
that doesn't exist no.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Oh, no...this movement has gone waaaaaaaaaaay beyond wanting equal rights and fair treatment from law enforcement - they push the white privilege meme to the nth degree and are vocally anti-white - not "equal rights for blacks"

BIG difference.

The Oregon protest is the very definition of white privilege. Do you think if any other group of people had taken over a federal building the same way these drama queens did they would be treated the same way?


You mean like if they were to loot and riot and burn multi-million dollar businesses down, along with other businesses that belonged to locals while the police stood by and watched? Yeah, you're not biased or anything.

You do of course have proof that BLM was behind that right? It would appear that the biased one here is the one placing the blame for what rioters did on a group without proof.






You can try to tell yourself the BLM is never involved in any of this, but their chants alone are enough to make any claim of violence legit.

Yes one person holding a sign means that BLM told these people to do this. Btw nice use of a shopped image to get your point across.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: buster2010

If the kid was armed then why did he try to grab the cops gun?


He was hopped up.

Capable of anything.


Yes THC makes people extremely violent.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Agree with some of what you said, however even before BLM came about many were calling for special prosecutors to handle cases like these , because cases like these often involves local prosecutors who have a very close working relationship with LEOs , much their wins depends on them so it's not too surprising that a prosecutor who could readily indite a ham sandwich often fails to bring a cop who is accused of abusing his power to trial, this is among one of the things Blacklivesmatter folks are pushing for.
edit on 4-2-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Spider879

Funny that the video you posted is full of clips from Democrats and the media demonizing them. While the media protects and promotes BLM.

So the vid of the Tea Party ppl spitting at congress people didn't happened??
that doesn't exist no.

Ok I beleive you because U Sayz So!!



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you think the employees of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge who have not be able to go to work or attend to their duties have been put out or inconvenienced at all?

Refuge Employees Break Silence On Armed Occupation



Abandoned homes. Compromised bank accounts. Threatened family members. Constant fear.

Employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge said they’re going through all of that and more, as an armed occupation at the facility reaches its 20th day.

“I’m afraid to go back at this point,” said a refuge employee in an exclusive interview Wednesday. “I would say that this is the most disrupted my life has ever been.”


How about the residents of Harney County where roads have been closed and schools shut down?

Malheur Occupation’s ‘Heartbreaking’ Impact On County Schools




“I had a conversation with a high school student,” McBride told OPB, “and she wanted to know if someone entered the school with a gun, what was she to do. And I had a 5-year-old come up to me and say she couldn’t sleep at night, because someone was watching her in the trees.”

“This is not okay,” McBride added.

edit on 4-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join