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.

 

Does Next Level BS still think right wing terror is the biggest threat

page: 9
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Grambler

Welp, nobody died last night, but a white, right-wing terrorist killed 6 people in an attack on a Canadian mosque a couple of weeks ago.

*shrug* But that's none of my business, right?


I will post more on this when I have time.

However, there is a difference between a lone nut doing something, and thousands of people using violence to indimidate and shut down people with different political beliefs.

This is not to make light of the Quebec situation. I denounced that person on that thread, and have further stated that I will denounce all calls of violence that I feel are coming from places near my political ideology.

The truth is all groups will have the fringe loan nuts. We can go back and forth listing them, the quebec guy Dylan roof, that scumbag mysigonist kid from a couple years vs. San Bernadino, Orlando, etc. It is a sad state of affairs but these fringe people do not represent entire groups and are inevitable.

The question is, how does the groups react to these fringe? I don't think there were a lot of people praising the Quebec racist.

The difference is when large groups start to embrace violence as a strategy to si;lence their opponents. The incident we saw on Berkely last night has been repeated (mostly to a lessor extent) over and over on campuses, and many seemingly main stream people on the left are ok with most of it.

They may say the looting was bad, but they are 100% for censoring conservative speech. Hell, even celebreties were tweeting today there pleasure at silencing Milo. Most of the main stream media and even Berkely mayor (I believe) made it be known wow they were "decrying" the violence that Milo is a terrible person.

Imagine that in the Quebec story. "Breaking here on CTV. A terrible person shot 6 people in a mosque. But you know, thos people were horrible people that believe in a religion that hurts women and apostates. Anyways the violence was bad." Could you even imagine the level of outrage.

Heck, look to this thread. Many people have said that although the violence was bad, its was brought on by the right. This is insane!

We are not talking about a handful of loan nuts here. We are discussing thousands upon thousands of people on campuses and else where that feel that it is acceptable or at least arguable to use violence to silence anyone that disagrees with them.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: deloprator20000
a reply to: butcherguy

It all depends if what happened at UC Berkeley falls under the definition of "riot".


It does.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Obviously there are those that do not believe in freedom of speech.

I thought that was apparent.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The truly sad thing is they have been so deeply brainwashed by the elite left conglomerates, they truly believe they are starting a revolution..



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
What do you mean its not a danger of causing riots. Did you see Berkely last night?

The campus rioting last night was in protest at Breibart man Milo Yiannopoulos speaking. The protest got out of hand and uneeded damage was done. Should though, there not have been any protest?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: everyone

I appreciate the posts in my defense but honestly between that poster and I, Cancer is probably easier on the psyche than whatever happened o them to make them that way. I hope that person heals whatever is broken inside.


Agreed



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Grambler
What do you mean its not a danger of causing riots. Did you see Berkely last night?

The campus rioting last night was in protest at Breibart man Milo Yiannopoulos speaking. The protest got out of hand and uneeded damage was done. Should though, there not have been any protest?

It was way worse than unneeded damage, it was millions of dollars worth, and people were beaten for their political beliefs.

And violence shut down free speech.

Of course protests should have been allowed, but once violence is user it's then a riot.

I'll turn the question to you.

If you feel we should allow the free speech of the protesters, should not the free speech of the speaker also be allowed?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043



So yes what the protestors are doing right now, with their violent protest falls under Domestic terrorism

All of it - or just some of it?

Protesting is a right - violent rioting is not. There was a mix of both. Do we hold everyone - the university included - accountable?


I have never challenged a person directly before in ATS and I feel guilty.

Why do you feel guilty? I'm genuinely interested



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


If you feel we should allow the free speech of the protesters, should not the free speech of the speaker also be allowed?

Of course it should be allowed. But it wasn't the peaceful protesting that shut the whole thing down - it was the violence and rioting

Update, 8:10 p.m. A group of masked protesters, not affiliated with UC Berkeley, has started to march to Oakland, chanting, “Whose streets?! Our streets!” reports Carlo David for Berkeleyside. The university administration also released a statement strongly condemning the violence, which it said would “now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives.”

Your thread title implies that you think the left is the bigger threat. That might be true - if we're not careful. Inciting to riot is hard to prove, but people are being provoked. It's up to people who want to protest, and who have that right not to allow themselves to be pushed in that direction

For another thread maybe - but I think if we were all being honest, and took a closer look - we might see that all of this is being orchestrated to achieve a desired result. Milo (oh, forgive me: MILO) is Bannon's pet after all

If there is rioting? What happens then?


edit on 2/2/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: marg6043

Well emotions are high. Riots sometimes happen when emotions are high. That doesn't mean that the protests are being setup with the intention of riots occurring like you slandered with absolutely no evidence.



So I guess bringing baseball bats, flammable liquid and masks to a peaceful protest is standard gear?

Yeah, like RPG's and mortars at the Benghazi protest.

Ok, got it. This crap happens at almost every campus with an invited conservative speaker.

Janet Reno runs Berkley. Nuff said.

Where were the cops?






posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra

Well supposedly in a free society Milo is free to go where ever he pleases.

And the Berkeley's have exactly ZERO rights to shut down his speech.



The university didn't shut down his free speech. It was dangerous for his talk/entertainment show/speech about Daddy trump- whatever it was- to go on. He is a liability to universities.


Why?




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
They knew what would happen so my question is why did they book him if they knew it would end this way?

Just say it, you don't believe in the 1st when it comes to the right.




The uni told the students that they have to pay for security at the last moment.

The cops stood by and did nothing against these agitators and rioters.

See that gal get pepper sprayed being interviewed on camera with the MAGA hat on?

That's the left for ya.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

The true deplorables.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler


If you feel we should allow the free speech of the protesters, should not the free speech of the speaker also be allowed?

Of course it should be allowed. But it wasn't the peaceful protesting that shut the whole thing down - it was the violence and rioting

Update, 8:10 p.m. A group of masked protesters, not affiliated with UC Berkeley, has started to march to Oakland, chanting, “Whose streets?! Our streets!” reports Carlo David for Berkeleyside. The university administration also released a statement strongly condemning the violence, which it said would “now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives.”

Your thread title implies that you think the left is the bigger threat. That might be true - if we're not careful. Inciting to riot is hard to prove, but people are being provoked. It's up to people who want to protest, and who have that right not to allow themselves to be pushed in that direction

For another thread maybe - but I think if we were all being honest, and took a closer look - we might see that all of this is being orchestrated to achieve a desired result. Milo (oh, forgive me: MILO) is Bannon's pet after all

If there is rioting? What happens then?




That's why God made cops.

Where were they?




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Right wing violence could still be in sight of NLBS's third eye we just have to remember that he didn't specify whether it would be western or Asian or European or have I said Asian yet? That's middle east for all you Americans. I'm going to research when a political left orientated government ever committed violations on humanity as a whole in history and get back to you.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
It was way worse than unneeded damage, it was millions of dollars worth, and people were beaten for their political beliefs.
And violence shut down free speech.
Of course protests should have been allowed, but once violence is user it's then a riot.
I'll turn the question to you.
If you feel we should allow the free speech of the protesters, should not the free speech of the speaker also be allowed?

That's not up to me living in La La land to shut anything down in the US. However, I agree violence can shut down free speech, happens all the time, in this case the admin stopped it because of the violence. That does not mean to say all the violence came from one side or the other, though. There were two sides on the street, and there were also blackshirts, aka rent-a-mob that nobody knows about so far, while the admin does say they were from elsewhere.
As for Bannon's man, Milo Yiannopoulos, is there any good reason for a noveau false trendy to be embraced by anyone? most of the church of the formerday punks are either dead or still work for TV as presenters in domestic programmes.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Really? You think this is some kind of conspiracy between Bannon and Milo. Well we are on ATS so I am all for a good conspiracy theory, but sadly we have been seeing the left shut down conservative speakers on campus well before Bannon was in his position.

But there is a little truth in what you say. Milo has told the left exactly how to deal with him. He has said time and time again all they need to do is study the issues and debate him on the merits of what he says. But he also says he knows they are incapable of that, and will instead try to silence him, like they do many conservative speakers.

And again and again he is proven right.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Your op seems to be confused because protesting is not the same as terrorism. Even if some protestors destroy property or in the rare case where a protestor gets violent and punches someone it still isn't terrorism. Environmentalists bombing a building is terrorism. So are far right groups that bomb abortion clinics and far right people who go on shooting sprees.

Even pepper spray is not terrorism.
edit on 02pmThu, 02 Feb 2017 19:57:13 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Grambler
It was way worse than unneeded damage, it was millions of dollars worth, and people were beaten for their political beliefs.
And violence shut down free speech.
Of course protests should have been allowed, but once violence is user it's then a riot.
I'll turn the question to you.
If you feel we should allow the free speech of the protesters, should not the free speech of the speaker also be allowed?

That's not up to me living in La La land to shut anything down in the US. However, I agree violence can shut down free speech, happens all the time, in this case the admin stopped it because of the violence. That does not mean to say all the violence came from one side or the other, though. There were two sides on the street, and there were also blackshirts, aka rent-a-mob that nobody knows about so far, while the admin does say they were from elsewhere.
As for Bannon's man, Milo Yiannopoulos, is there any good reason for a noveau false trendy to be embraced by anyone? most of the church of the formerday punks are either dead or still work for TV as presenters in domestic programmes.



There were not two sides. There were anti Milo people, and the few pro Milo people were beaten and chased away.

Show me one bit of video with pro Milo people here engaging in violence. In fact, you are the only person I have seen claim this.

Using your logic, I could say that in every riot ever, we can't blame a side, because maybe even the side of the victims were doing violence. This is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Your op seems to be confused because protesting is not the same as terrorism. Even if some protestors destroy property or in the rare case where a protestor gets violent and punches someone it still isn't terrorism. Environmentalists bombing a building is terrorism. So are far right groups that bomb abortion clinics and far right people who go on shooting sprees.


I am not trying to be rude, but I have to ask, did you read the OP?

I only ask because you are at least the third person to say this, were the first post in this thread clearly shows that the NLBS thread, were the NLBS, and many ATS members (Including those arguing riots aren'y protest) made the claim the right wing had more terrorists based on a study that used things like right wing riots and hate crimes as examples of right wing terror.

Or to put it clearly again, for like the fourth time in this thread, people on the left on ATS said right wing hate crimes and riots were terrorism. I merely pointed out if that is the case, given recent events, do these people still think the right wing is worse.

I hope that clears it up.

And I would argue that using violence or fear of it to silence political opponents is terrorism. But even if its not, its clear that silencing political opponents through violence is horrible no matter what you want to call it, and it happens almost exclusively on the left (in the US at least).



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join