Are we headed for a major internal US conflict?

a reply to: Grambler

Again, I can't express how much I disagree with these rioters. Everything they are doing is wrong and illegal.

But I won't hop on board with a military trained for war, not domestic policing, is used under the banner of terrorism at home.

All of the people destroying property deserve the full extent of the law used against them. But as I said, we know that line will be blurred once we allow it.

After the patriot act and military being used at home for terrorism.... What will we have left protecting us? Who's to say someone doesn't come into power that convinces people of a "threat" and offers them salvation?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I think if we use the term terrorism for property damage and or injuries, it makes it too easy to define many protests as terrorism.

We have existing laws to deal with property damage, assault, and rioting. Lets use them, and the legal system to deal with all of this.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what I think. I know I'll be part of the minority that thinks far left and far right groups should have the same rights that we all enjoy. If they break the law, they are dealt with the same way anyone else is. I would go one step further and say that ANTIFA and neo nazis are important to test our moral fortitude of how important we think rights are for everyone, no matter how toxic or extreme they are.

What happens when the rioters are protesting a Trump election loss? Are those rioters going to be elevated by right wingers as patriots, just watering the tree?

The so called right usually does not riot during the week because they have jobs.. So that would only leave the weekends for a protest.. Seems to me all the recent "right "protest have been peaceful maybe because many are armed ?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So in the mocking bird media, we don't hear about anything that they don't want to let out, the more this is pushed in the news the more violence and the desire for revenge , which means more civil trouble. They want this to cause as much harm as possible , if the troops go in and the crowds don't disperse more shooting escalation. This sort of action by the police should lead to a total sacking of the police force and one installed along racially balanced lines with equal female participation.

Rodney King incident
See also: Rodney King
On the evening of March 3, 1991, Rodney King and two passengers were driving west on the Foothill Freeway (I-210) through the Sunland-Tujunga neighborhood of the San Fernando Valley. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) attempted to initiate a traffic stop and a high-speed pursuit ensued with speeds estimated at up to 115 mph (185 km/h), along the 210 freeway before King eventually exited the freeway at Foothill Boulevard. The pursuit continued through residential neighborhoods of Lake View Terrace in San Fernando Valley before King stopped in front the Hanson Dam recreation center. When King finally stopped, LAPD and CHP officers surrounded King's vehicle and CHP officer Timothy Singer and CHP officer Melanie Singer (Timothy Singer's wife), arrested him and two other occupants of the car.[12]

After the two passengers were placed in the patrol car, five white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers – Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, and Rolando Solano – surrounded King, who came out of the car last. They tasered him, struck him dozens of times with side-handled batons, kick stomped him in his back and tackled him to the ground before handcuffing him and hogtying his legs. Sergeant Koon later testified at trial that King resisted arrest and that he believed King was under the influence of PCP at the time of the arrest, which caused him to be very aggressive and violent toward the officers.[13] Video footage of the arrest showed that King attempted to get up each time he was struck and that the police made no attempt to cuff him until he lay still.[14] A subsequent test of King for the presence of PCP in his body at the time of the arrest was negative.[15]

Unbeknownst to the police and King, the incident was captured on a camcorder by local civilian George Holliday from his nearby apartment across from Hansen Dam. The tape was roughly 12 minutes long. While the tape was presented during the trial, some clips of the incident were not released to the public.[16] In a later interview, King, who was on parole for a robbery conviction and had past convictions for assault, battery and robbery,[17][18] said that he had not surrendered earlier because he was driving while intoxicated under the influence of alcohol, which he knew violated the terms of his parole.

I wonder what would've happened if they "accidently" killed him.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Sorry you are wrong. Lines are already blurred, we already call many right wing groups domestic terrorism.

SO if China sent a bunch of people in a burned down minneapolis in the exact same way, and chased the police away, would you want the Guard or military involved?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I think if we use the term terrorism for property damage and or injuries, it makes it too easy to define many protests as terrorism.

We have existing laws to deal with property damage, assault, and rioting. Lets use them, and the legal system to deal with all of this.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what I think. I know I'll be part of the minority that thinks far left and far right groups should have the same rights that we all enjoy. If they break the law, they are dealt with the same way anyone else is. I would go one step further and say that ANTIFA and neo nazis are important to test our moral fortitude of how important we think rights are for everyone, no matter how toxic or extreme they are.

What happens when the rioters are protesting a Trump election loss? Are those rioters going to be elevated by right wingers as patriots, just watering the tree?

If Trump loses, I doubt there would be riots.... But if there were, I'm sure there would be some who defended it. We've seen people on both sides defend their flavor of extremism while wanting different rules for those that appear to be on the other side of the spectrum.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: CriticalStinker
So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Sorry you are wrong. Lines are already blurred, we already call many right wing groups domestic terrorism.

SO if China sent a bunch of people in a burned down minneapolis in the exact same way, and chased the police away, would you want the Guard or military involved?

You used to be way less hyperbolic.....

Not saying you are wrong in any way though.....just a personal observation and in no way with negative intent.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Are these Active Denial Systems currently rolling in to Minneapolis with the National Guard....DAMN!

I've read the things on top the vehicles is where a gun would be mounted but in the pics it's empty.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I think if we use the term terrorism for property damage and or injuries, it makes it too easy to define many protests as terrorism.

We have existing laws to deal with property damage, assault, and rioting. Lets use them, and the legal system to deal with all of this.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what I think. I know I'll be part of the minority that thinks far left and far right groups should have the same rights that we all enjoy. If they break the law, they are dealt with the same way anyone else is. I would go one step further and say that ANTIFA and neo nazis are important to test our moral fortitude of how important we think rights are for everyone, no matter how toxic or extreme they are.

What happens when the rioters are protesting a Trump election loss? Are those rioters going to be elevated by right wingers as patriots, just watering the tree?

If Trump loses, I doubt there would be riots.... But if there were, I'm sure there would be some who defended it. We've seen people on both sides defend their flavor of extremism while wanting different rules for those that appear to be on the other side of the spectrum.

This is again where we will disagree.

I have been right there with you calkling out trump and his supporters over the lockdown.

Bith this mealy "both sides do it" stuff with riots is garbage.

They dont.

Its the left. They love it, and they get away with it, and the more we have to pretend thats not the case, the more it will persist.

a reply to: Grambler

So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Why can't they just get the state police and ask for other police from surrounding areas to come in?

I don't see any benefit of using the military.

originally posted by: ZapBrannigan3030

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: CriticalStinker
So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Sorry you are wrong. Lines are already blurred, we already call many right wing groups domestic terrorism.

SO if China sent a bunch of people in a burned down minneapolis in the exact same way, and chased the police away, would you want the Guard or military involved?

You used to be way less hyperbolic.....

Not saying you are wrong in any way though.....just a personal observation and in no way with negative intent.

Maybe, but maybe ive woken up.

It would have seemed hyperbolic 4 months ago to say that the government, even trump and the republicans, would trash the bill of rights and lock ius down.

We now have left wingers likening these riots or terrorists to the founding fathers.

I am vehemently against political violenec, and that will never change.

But i find the suggestion the national guard or militrary should not be allowed to stop terrorits burning down cities, but only if they are actual americans burning down cities, to be absurd.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Why can't they just get the state police and ask for other police from surrounding areas to come in?

I don't see any benefit of using the military.

How long should they wait? What if the problem gets too big for them?

Wont this encourage police to become more militarized?

Should my hometown also get militarized equippment on the chance left wing terrorists will try to burn our town down and the national guard isnt allowed to help?

What if a governor oreders their police to stand down? Does that mean a US citizen is allowed to be stripped of their personal property and rights and the federal government may not intervene in any way?

a reply to: Grambler

There have been people who have committed horrific acts in the name of ideology they self identify with. If we were splitting hairs we could say some lean left and some lean right. Maybe the left has more instances of this right now, and I'd agree with that... But to act as if there have never been people who have committed crimes in the name of the right is silly.

I'm not saying the left or the right has to own these assclowns, because lets be honest, a lot of these people just want to riot. Some people just want to commit heinous acts.

My point was that even if someone is on one extreme or the other, they still have the same rights as you and I to things like due process and not having the military used against them.

Are we sure they wouldn't just start droning people eventually without a trial? I'm sure as hell not.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

So the terrorists that took over minneapolis, they start murdering people, raping people, you still think the guard shouldnt be called in?

Why can't they just get the state police and ask for other police from surrounding areas to come in?

I don't see any benefit of using the military.

How long should they wait? What if the problem gets too big for them?

Wont this encourage police to become more militarized?

Should my hometown also get militarized equippment on the chance left wing terrorists will try to burn our town down and the national guard isnt allowed to help?

What if a governor oreders their police to stand down? Does that mean a US citizen is allowed to be stripped of their personal property and rights and the federal government may not intervene in any way?

I think you need to dial that fear back a bit and realize the stark(very distant difference) between rural and urban.

Much like the coof, what happens in dense urban cities is NOT in any way relatable to rural areas. No matter how hard they try to conflate it.

You, like I, should be able to understand that watching a dense urban area local to me(us), like the TC, has little to no effect on me(us, if you are rural).

Sure, there are principals at play, but in the end, it's "time and distance", for the bulk of the US it won't effect us, or our adherence to civil liberties. I agree though it should require some outcry, but I just know I won't have to hang my hat on what the megacities do when they chose to burn, covid or otherwise.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You keep speaking in hypothetical.

Are we sure domestic terrorists wont kill you and your family?

Tell em what the percentage increase is of the US droning people without a trail if the national; guard quells this terrorism, vs the status quo. I would contend it is statsically zero; if the government is going to continue to be abused in authoratarian ways, it will anyways.

Meanwhile what is the point of the national guard if not this very situation? We are seeing riots in multiple cities now.

Whats the precedent we are setting: if you can chase your cities police out, you win, the federal government is not allowed to intervene. Im sure thatll stop the violence!

And yes, there are right wing terrorists, i call them out as well.

The problem is not that all sides have bad actors, its that ONE side celebrates and condones those bad actors, and thats the left. Show me a republican or right wing media person praising right wingers burning down a city (heck show me right wingers burning down a city)

Now turn on msnbc or cnn tonight and hear about thes peaceful protestors.

thats the problem.

a reply to: ZapBrannigan3030

Or perhaps it is just time that they do burn.

I'm a big fan of social Darwinism.



And ETA... having just watched the Mayor's response to what is happening, I would sip some wine and giggle a little bit if I watched some live footage of them just nuking Minneapolis from space.

Just to be sure.

a reply to: ZapBrannigan3030

I agree except there are great americans that live in those cities who didnt ask for this. As an american, particularly as someone who wants to represent america in politics, I can not ignore this attack on them.

And in rural pa, I see how left wing tyrants (heck even some right wing ones) have crippled my rural community and destoyed our rights in just these past few months.

Is it really so unthinkable that they would condone allowing noble tea party like patriots to come burn out us evil racist. They may not make the order, but ive no doubt some democratic leaders would not mind the suffering of rural and middle america at all.

Hyperbolic, yes, and perhaps I should avoid that.

But we are talking about people likening domestic terrorists to heros or freedom fighters, even on this thread.

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel

Rodney King incident
See also: Rodney King
On the evening of March 3, 1991, Rodney King and two passengers were driving west on the Foothill Freeway (I-210) through the Sunland-Tujunga neighborhood of the San Fernando Valley. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) attempted to initiate a traffic stop and a high-speed pursuit ensued with speeds estimated at up to 115 mph (185 km/h), along the 210 freeway before King eventually exited the freeway at Foothill Boulevard. The pursuit continued through residential neighborhoods of Lake View Terrace in San Fernando Valley before King stopped in front the Hanson Dam recreation center. When King finally stopped, LAPD and CHP officers surrounded King's vehicle and CHP officer Timothy Singer and CHP officer Melanie Singer (Timothy Singer's wife), arrested him and two other occupants of the car.[12]

After the two passengers were placed in the patrol car, five white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers – Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, and Rolando Solano – surrounded King, who came out of the car last. They tasered him, struck him dozens of times with side-handled batons, kick stomped him in his back and tackled him to the ground before handcuffing him and hogtying his legs. Sergeant Koon later testified at trial that King resisted arrest and that he believed King was under the influence of PCP at the time of the arrest, which caused him to be very aggressive and violent toward the officers.[13] Video footage of the arrest showed that King attempted to get up each time he was struck and that the police made no attempt to cuff him until he lay still.[14] A subsequent test of King for the presence of PCP in his body at the time of the arrest was negative.[15]

Unbeknownst to the police and King, the incident was captured on a camcorder by local civilian George Holliday from his nearby apartment across from Hansen Dam. The tape was roughly 12 minutes long. While the tape was presented during the trial, some clips of the incident were not released to the public.[16] In a later interview, King, who was on parole for a robbery conviction and had past convictions for assault, battery and robbery,[17][18] said that he had not surrendered earlier because he was driving while intoxicated under the influence of alcohol, which he knew violated the terms of his parole.

I wonder what would've happened if they "accidently" killed him.

How about, if it wasn't caught on camera?

As for the OP, not sure it's a good idea to let that genie out of the bottle. How about instead..they charge the cop.

a reply to: Grambler

Are we sure domestic terrorists wont kill you and your family?

Nope.

But I'd rather keep all my rights and live with risk than depend on the federal government to keep me safe.