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.

 

Is Donald Trump a thug? Are we going to see more violence at political rallies?

page: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



You seem to be hiding behind the fact they have not publicly given us details of the conversations and tactics they planned.


I've not hid behind anything. In fact, I've been trying to highlight that very point. To make a claim that they are terrorists you have to have certain information. Information you and I do not have. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to conclude that your assertions come from a position of ignorance.



This is the only reason they would not be charged in a court of law, but the actual events showed us what happened.


The events do not show us what occurred behind the scenes or in the discussions of the organizers.



If you really want to live in a world where you believe moveon.org is not responsible and told their supporters to be loving, peaceful and courageous, that is up to you.


Again, I do not deal in belief. Belief is for fairy tales and religion. I like facts. And the fact is you have very little facts to come to the conclusion this was a terrorist act. It's your religious-like belief.



I wonder if a group of thousands of Trump supporters rioted at a Bernie rally and he admitted organising the event and hurling insults at Bernie in his statement about the event would you be saying the same things? I don't expect an honest answer.


Yes. That still is not terrorism.



I would be calling him a terrorist too if that happened.


I'm sure you would, but as you have proven you have no factual understanding of the charge....only belief.
edit on 18-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I know people who were there. It was the Trump fanatics who turned violent on the protesters.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



You seem to be hiding behind the fact they have not publicly given us details of the conversations and tactics they planned.


I've not hid behind anything. In fact, I've been trying to highlight that very point. To make a claim that they are terrorists you have to have certain information. Information you and I do not have. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to conclude that your assertions come from a position of ignorance.



This is the only reason they would not be charged in a court of law, but the actual events showed us what happened.


The events do not show us what occurred behind the scenes or in the discussions of the organizers.



If you really want to live in a world where you believe moveon.org is not responsible and told their supporters to be loving, peaceful and courageous, that is up to you.


Again, I do not deal in belief. Belief is for fairy tales and religion. I like facts. And the fact is you have very little facts to come to the conclusion this was a terrorist act. It's your religious-like belief.



I wonder if a group of thousands of Trump supporters rioted at a Bernie rally and he admitted organising the event and hurling insults at Bernie in his statement about the event would you be saying the same things? I don't expect an honest answer.


Yes. That still is not terrorism.



I would be calling him a terrorist too if that happened.


I'm sure you would, but as you have proven you have no factual understanding of the charge....only belief.


You are most certainly hiding - you refuse to see what is in front of your own eyes and hide behind the fact the terrorist organisation responsible has not pleaded guilty in advance. Of course they are going to hide and you are hiding with them.

Beliefs are not exclusive to fairly tales and religion. I have looked at a number of sources of information and have made my mind up on what is known. No sane person, outside a court room, waits for 100% proof before taking a position. That is the purpose of the courts (which also almost never have 100% proof either). This is not a court room, which you seem not to understand. Life is also not a court room.

Given the definition of terrorism, I will continue to call the thugs that used violence and intimidation 'progressive terrorists'.

Trump has been accused of being a bigot, racist, neo nazi, Hitler copy cat because he has said 'i'd like to punch him in the face'. You have also been pretty vocal on this and yet you expect me to believe you would not condemn him if he organised a group of thousands to do what the progressive terrorists did? Give me a break.

Interesting you would claim I have been proven to have no knowledge. Pretty big statement. I guess 100% proof is only needed when it suits. Is that the sound of hypocrisy I hear??? Not surprised





posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You are a f**king moron. Go on mods, remove my post but it had to be said. I'm sorry.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


"Acts of terror" - This is response to your other ridiculous statement, over-exaggerating the actions of protesters.


Do you want to know what real domestic terrorism is? Research the Tulsa Riots and 'Black Wall Street'. That was real domestic terrorism. A self-funding, thriving community, free of white influence, burned to the ground over charges that could not be proven. The same people guilty of the burning of Black wall street, are the same people defending Donald's hateful rhetoric.

You are a fool.

edit on 18-3-2016 by FelisOrion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: UKTruth

You are a f**king moron. Go on mods, remove my post but it had to be said. I'm sorry.


OK, so far I have been accused of being a religious extremist, racist and f*cking moron. Great set of arguments and typical of the personal attacks thrown as a solution to all challenges to the lefts version of events.


edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: UKTruth


"Acts of terror" - This is response to your other ridiculous statement, over-exaggerating the actions of protesters.


Do you want to know what real domestic terrorism is? Research the Tulsa Riots and 'Black Wall Street'. That was real domestic terrorism. A self-funding, thriving community, free of white influence, burned to the ground over charges that could not be proven. The same people guilty of the burning of Black wall street, are the same people defending Donald's hateful rhetoric.

You are a fool.


I already know what it is - as defined by the FBI , which I have already posted.
Let's use the actual definition rather than making comparisons to events.

edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

How about, you actually read up on the Tulsa Riots and see why I called it an act of terror? No, you won't because it contradicts your narrative of the protesters being 'terrorists'.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: UKTruth

How about, you actually read up on the Tulsa Riots and see why I called it an act of terror? No, you won't because it contradicts your narrative of the protesters being 'terrorists'.


We're not talking about the Tulsa riots.
The FBI definition of domestic terrorism has been posted. How severe one terrorist act is vs another is not the debate.
San Bernadino was not as bad as Paris.
Not sure where you are coming from?

edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I know people who were there. It was the Trump fanatics who turned violent on the protesters.


We have already heard from plenty of people who were there.

Both sides have already revealed that the 'protesters' turned up to intimidate and partake in violence. Plenty of specifics on this, whether its twitter feeds from the people who were there to cause chaos telling us that they wanted to kill, or those bringing guns and firing them, or those openly threatening people if they voted for Trump, to those Trump supporters and reporters in the venue who relayed the events as the protesters starting violence before the event was cancelled and ramping it up afterwards.

We also saw clearly 'protesters' carrying on the violence and intimidation long after the event had been cancelled.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


We have already heard from plenty of people who were there.


You mean you have been reading right wing propaganda on the web. There are many sites that have been fabricating tweets, then claiming they were "deleted."



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


We have already heard from plenty of people who were there.


You mean you have been reading right wing propaganda on the web. There are many sites that have been fabricating tweets, then claiming they were "deleted."


No - broad cross section, as always. Can't stand extreme right wing BS either.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



You are most certainly hiding - you refuse to see what is in front of your own eyes and hide behind the fact the terrorist organisation responsible has not pleaded guilty in advance. Of course they are going to hide and you are hiding with them.


What is in front of my eyes is a bunch of people, on both sides, that took things a bit too far. To call them terrorists is absurd. That term is used to heavily by those that are just as likely to be afraid of their own shadow.

Not to mention it's also an insult to the fighting men and woman that take on real terrorists.



No sane person, outside a court room, waits for 100% proof before taking a position. That is the purpose of the courts (which also almost never have 100% proof either). This is not a court room, which you seem not to understand. Life is also not a court room.


That is a logical fallacy. I believe it is called a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.



Given the definition of terrorism, I will continue to call the thugs that used violence and intimidation 'progressive terrorists'.


By all means, go ahead. Considering that you have already conceded on the terrorist aspect earlier in the thread, it only serves to make you look more ridiculous than you already do.



Trump has been accused of being a bigot, racist, neo nazi, Hitler copy cat because he has said 'i'd like to punch him in the face'. You have also been pretty vocal on this and yet you expect me to believe you would not condemn him if he organised a group of thousands to do what the progressive terrorists did? Give me a break.


I like to be consistent. Why would I call it terrorism? Just because you like to bastardize the meaning and context of the word to fit your political purposes, does not mean I would do the same.

Trump and his supporters are many things, but it would be absurd to call them terrorists.



Interesting you would claim I have been proven to have no knowledge. Pretty big statement. I guess 100% proof is only needed when it suits. Is that the sound of hypocrisy I hear??? Not surprised


How was I hypocritical? I have shown many times that I have a very good understanding of how a terrorist is defined. You simply what to quote the Oxford dictionary and leave it at that. Then when you are confronted with the legal definitions that clearly show these people are not terrorists, you want to complain about court room talk and actual proof.

This has become quite hilarious. It's like watching a person punch themselves in the face repeatedly.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I have already given you the definition of terrorism, which you were unaware of.
That is the definition I am using. You may use any other definition you please, it just won't be consistent with the actual definition.

Not all terrorists are machine gun/machete wielding extremists that the fighting men and women of the armed forces are engaged with. Cyber terrorism, for example, is another form of terrorist activity that does not involve acts of violence and murder.

If you truly believe you have to be 100% certain before taking a position and that works for you, then fine. We'll just agree to have a different approach. I would expect you, therefore, to have no views on any subject that has not been through a court of law and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Correct?

Do you think it absurd to call Trump a racist, bigot, neo-nazi, Hitler copycat?




edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Appeal to Definition from logicallyfallacious.com



Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Definitions of Terrorism - Wiki



There is no universal agreement regarding the definition of terrorism.

Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.

To avoid this kind of confusion, the most common definition of terrorism is used, which includes the following:

It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change.

It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on behalf of their respective governments.

It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.

It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is immoral or wrong in themselves).



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



I have already given you the definition of terrorism, which you were unaware of.


I am well aware of it. I just don't happen to think it's that simple.



That is the definition I am using.


Because it fits your agenda...logic be damned.



If you truly believe you have to be 100% certain before taking a position and that works for you, then fine.


Seems logical to have proof before you condemn someone to guilt. Your proof consists of Youtube videos and tweets that have absolutely no context. Even using your simplistic definition, it's illogical and laughable.

It's a joke.



Do you think it absurd to call Trump a racist, bigot, neo-nazi, Hitler copycat?


A neo-nazi or a Hitler copycat? Yes, that is a bit too far. Racist or bigot, that is up for debate. Plenty of youtube videos to be found showing his bigotry, or at least him using language that appeals to racists and bigots.

According to your previous statements, a Youtube video is all you need to come to a conclusion.

So the real question is: Considering what Trump is on the record as saying, do you believe he is a racist or bigot?
edit on 18-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
IBID



As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I have already given you the definition of terrorism, which you were unaware of.


I am well aware of it. I just don't happen to think it's that simple.



That is the definition I am using.


Because it fits your agenda...logic be damned.



If you truly believe you have to be 100% certain before taking a position and that works for you, then fine.


Seems logical to have proof before you condemn someone to guilt. Your proof consists of Youtube videos and tweets that have absolutely no context. Even using your simplistic definition, it's illogical and laughable.

It's a joke.



Do you think it absurd to call Trump a racist, bigot, neo-nazi, Hitler copycat?


A neo-nazi or a Hitler copycat? Yes, that is a bit too far. Racist or bigot, that is up for debate. Plenty of youtube videos to be found showing his bigotry, or at least him using language that appeals to racists and bigots.

According to your previous statements, a Youtube video is all you need to come to a conclusion.

So the real question is: Considering what Trump is on the record as saying, do you believe he is a racist or bigot?


Just because you think it is more complicated it does change the definition. Its a working definition used by the FBI.
It doesn't fit my agenda (if I actually had an agenda). It just is. It's the definition. Understand?

How have you determined that Trump might be a racist and bigot? You have no proof of it at all. Certainly not 100% proof. So why are you willing to say it's up for debate and not to call it 'a joke' or 'ridiculous'? Given what you have been saying you must want to be 100% sure until you even associate that label with him?

I have watched and read pretty much everything said by Trump publicly (and also had relayed things not public) and am happy to post all of the information that leads me to believe Trump is not a racist or bigot at all.

Can you post anything to show that the Chicago incident was driven by peace, love and courage? That's what moveon.org say of their movement and in their statement about Chicago (which I posted and rejected on the basis of what actually happened).



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
IBID



As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."


Lets stick with the FBI definiition. My view that the 'protesters' in Chicago are actually progressive terrorists is based on the definitions laid out. A debate on what terrorism is would be interesting, but I am going to use the definition I have from the people who actually police it.
edit on 18/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join