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.

 

Alert! Antifa unleashes secret weapon on feds

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


These protesting 'mom's' were peaceful and as near as I can tell, had nothing to do with Antifa except for some idiot's vlog accusation and the responses of all those who cannot apply rational skepticism to what they see.

Peaceful, yes. Legal, no. They were protecting criminals from the police. We call that "Obstruction of Justice" here in reality-land.

TheRedneck

Mayor Durkan Leads Mayors Across the Country to Call on Trump Administration to Halt Plans and Immediately Withdraw Federal Forces from Major American Cities.

Are you so sure that the presence of those Federal 'police' was legal?

Are you so sure that the police were specifically targetting criminals, rather than peaceful protesters?

How could the police present there, know who were the criminals among crowds of protesters, especially if there was no rioting or vandalism going on at the time and therefore no way to identify such culprits?

edit on 28/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
Do those people in the streets even know what they are protesting about anymore ?
If not, this could go on forever.


Its disguised as protesting.......dont be fooled



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

First off, Jenny Durkin is a blithering idiot. Let's get that out of the way right now. She has already ceded part of her town to rioters, who proceeded to barricade themselves in while they defaced public property, extorted local businesses and citizens, and killed people. She only took her town back after she was faced with a decision to either do so or watch Federal law enforcement do it for her.


Are you so sure that the presence of those Federal 'police' was legal?

Yes. These are Federal buildings on Federal property.


Are you so sure that the police were specifically targetting criminals, rather than peaceful protesters?

Yes. Peaceful protestors do not loot, smash windows, torch cars and buildings, nor attack people.


How could the police present there, know who were the criminals among crowds of protesters, especially if there was no rioting or vandalism going on at the time and therefore no way to identify such culprits?

People here (including law enforcement) come equipped with things called "eyes." Completion of a violent act does not expunge said violent act. An arsonist is still an arsonist after the fire burns out.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: chr0naut




I have seen video after video of 'the authorities' beating the $#!t out of passively protesting citizens.

In what country ?


America.

It was the 'authorities' use of excessive force, causing death, that sparked this year's round of rioting (in America).


And the officers associated with that particular case are incarcerated, and facing charges.

What does destroying property, and injuring others, who were not involved, a thousand miles away, have to do with that?

There is a clear difference between a peaceful protest, and violent anarchism.


And these 'mums' are protesting violently?

You see, the only link to Antifa that I could see in this bit of propaganda, seems to be entirely made up in the mind of the sycophant presenting the video.
Probably about as much as Code Pink.
edit on 29-7-2020 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


These protesting 'mom's' were peaceful and as near as I can tell, had nothing to do with Antifa except for some idiot's vlog accusation and the responses of all those who cannot apply rational skepticism to what they see.

Peaceful, yes. Legal, no. They were protecting criminals from the police. We call that "Obstruction of Justice" here in reality-land.

TheRedneck


Protecting? So your admitting armed federal officers don't have the abilities to get past mom's. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

First off, Jenny Durkin is a blithering idiot. Let's get that out of the way right now. She has already ceded part of her town to rioters, who proceeded to barricade themselves in while they defaced public property, extorted local businesses and citizens, and killed people. She only took her town back after she was faced with a decision to either do so or watch Federal law enforcement do it for her.


Are you so sure that the presence of those Federal 'police' was legal?

Yes. These are Federal buildings on Federal property.


Are you so sure that the police were specifically targetting criminals, rather than peaceful protesters?

Yes. Peaceful protestors do not loot, smash windows, torch cars and buildings, nor attack people.


How could the police present there, know who were the criminals among crowds of protesters, especially if there was no rioting or vandalism going on at the time and therefore no way to identify such culprits?

People here (including law enforcement) come equipped with things called "eyes." Completion of a violent act does not expunge said violent act. An arsonist is still an arsonist after the fire burns out.

TheRedneck


Eyes, like all the years of cops that say they saw a gun before they shot an unarmed person. So either they have bad vision and their eyes can't be trusted or they are liars. You pick, neither is good.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait


Protecting? So your admitting armed federal officers don't have the abilities to get past mom's.

So you're admitting the police should have just mowed them down in the streets.

So much for tolerance.


Eyes, like all the years of cops that say they saw a gun before they shot an unarmed person. So either they have bad vision and their eyes can't be trusted or they are liars. You pick, neither is good.

Context, my uninformed friend, context. I was replying to a question of how the police knew these rioters were rioting.

Besides, what happened to just mowing down people first and asking questions later? I thought that was what you wanted.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

First off, Jenny Durkin is a blithering idiot. Let's get that out of the way right now. She has already ceded part of her town to rioters, who proceeded to barricade themselves in while they defaced public property, extorted local businesses and citizens, and killed people. She only took her town back after she was faced with a decision to either do so or watch Federal law enforcement do it for her.


I could argue, equally, that Trump is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Doesn't mean that he does not have a legitimate civil power and authority.



Are you so sure that the presence of those Federal 'police' was legal?

Yes. These are Federal buildings on Federal property.


Are these troops only in, and on, Federal property, or are they out there in the middle of the streets in shield lines?



Are you so sure that the police were specifically targeting criminals, rather than peaceful protesters?

Yes. Peaceful protesters do not loot, smash windows, torch cars and buildings, nor attack people.


Looters and vandals don't do so in the close proximity to, and under the direct watch of, massed police. They do so when they think no-one is likely to immediately arrest them for it.

Protesters, on the other hand, stand in the close presence of those shield lines, chanting and shouting their protest. These are the ones that the police are brutalizing in most cases. They can't be looting and burning at the same time they are staring down the police in the middle of a public thoroughfare.

So are the police actually dealing with the looters and arsonists, or do their tactics only work primarily against protesters?



How could the police present there, know who were the criminals among crowds of protesters, especially if there was no rioting or vandalism going on at the time and therefore no way to identify such culprits?

People here (including law enforcement) come equipped with things called "eyes." Completion of a violent act does not expunge said violent act. An arsonist is still an arsonist after the fire burns out.

TheRedneck


So, these police are selectively accosting only those who have broken the law, not old people, the press, those filming them, and protesters not involved in any crime but who just happen to be closer at hand and unable to get away from advancing lines of officers, often in the middle of public streets and away from private or Federal property?

edit on 29/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FishBait


Protecting? So your admitting armed federal officers don't have the abilities to get past mom's.

So you're admitting the police should have just mowed them down in the streets.

So much for tolerance.


Eyes, like all the years of cops that say they saw a gun before they shot an unarmed person. So either they have bad vision and their eyes can't be trusted or they are liars. You pick, neither is good.

Context, my uninformed friend, context. I was replying to a question of how the police knew these rioters were rioting.

Besides, what happened to just mowing down people first and asking questions later? I thought that was what you wanted.

TheRedneck


Ummmm yea I said people should be mowed down. What are you even talking about? The insane assumptions to fit narratives on ATS is amazing. I don't even agree with your assertion the mom's were protecting them. They all still got gassed. Cops don't give a crap about anybody.

And context? Yea, the context is the cops have been known liars for decades so what they say is rioting often isn't. Doesn't mean there aren't rioters, just that we can't trust the cops judgement. You were peacefully protesting at 6:59 but now it's 7:01 and we've declared you a riot. Yea, right. What changed? They said they wanted you to stop at 7 because the cops will decide when you protest.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I wonder if the moms still suckle their kids who live in their basements.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I wonder if the moms still suckle their kids who live in their basements.


Good one Bevis.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Peaceful protesters?... At least 3 police officers are blind from your "peaceful protesters" shining lasers directly into police officers' eyes... Your "peaceful protesters' are throwing water bottles with hardened cement inside. They have been throwing bricks and high core fireworks/explosives at police officers.... Your "peaceful protesters" have been looting businesses and beating their owners. They have been setting buildings, barriers, and vehicles on fire, and have violently attacked police officers...

If you want those "peaceful protesters" you can have them...



edit on 29-7-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: chr0naut

Peaceful protesters?... At least 3 police officers are blind from your "peaceful protesters" shining lasers directly into police officers' eyes... Your "peaceful protesters' are throwing water bottles with hardened cement inside. They have been throwing bricks and high core fireworks/explosives at police officers.... Your "peaceful protesters" have been looting businesses and beating their owners. They have been setting buildings, barriers, and vehicles on fire, and have violently attacked police officers...

If you want those "peaceful protesters" you can have them...


I didn't mention the words "peaceful protesters" in the post you quoted.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
I thought I smelled more lies.


Peaceful protesters aren't rioters and there are many peaceful protesters.


Just stop with the lies.
It is as disgusting as the zew zealanders convicted of slavery recently.



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
I thought I smelled more lies.


Peaceful protesters aren't rioters and there are many peaceful protesters.


Just stop with the lies.
It is as disgusting as the zew zealanders convicted of slavery recently.


You are quoting a different post and I specifically mentioned the post in question, in my previous reply to ElectricUniverse. It was the first post of mine in this thread and did not include the text that ElectricUniverse was railing about (and that he showed in quotes four times, and once unquoted).

When someone conflates different things, from different sources, and at different times, from different contexts, and then accuses others of "lying" about things that they have not actually and specifically said, that is being untruthful, and the accuser is the one lying.

edit on 30/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


I could argue, equally, that Trump is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Doesn't mean that he does not have a legitimate civil power and authority.

Of course she does, within legal limits... just as Trump has legitimate authority within certain limits. Her authority does not include refusing to provide police protection to citizens because she agrees politically with those accosting them.

I'm bookmarking this post for the next time you claim Trump has no legitimate authority... just so you know.


Are these troops only in, and on, Federal property, or are they out there in the middle of the streets in shield lines?

As law enforcement officers of a legitimate branch of government, they are allowed to use public property in legitimate defense of their charge.


Looters and vandals don't do so in the close proximity to, and under the direct watch of, massed police. They do so when they think no-one is likely to immediately arrest them for it.

I suggest you inform the rioters of this; someone must have missed the memo.


Protesters, on the other hand, stand in the close presence of those shield lines, chanting and shouting their protest. These are the ones that the police are brutalizing in most cases. They can't be looting and burning at the same time they are staring down the police in the middle of a public thoroughfare.

Oh, I get it now... you are claiming that the police cannot interfere with the people they see, but must concentrate on people they do not see, whom they cannot interfere with because they didn't see them.

Convenient... ridiculous, but convenient.

Just because one is protesting at a certain moment in time does not mean they were not rioting a few seconds earlier.


So, these police are selectively accosting only those who have broken the law, not old people, the press, those filming them, and protesters not involved in any crime but who just happen to be closer at hand and unable to get away from advancing lines of officers, often in the middle of public streets and away from private or Federal property?

Are you claiming that old people cannot break the law? Are you claiming that the police have been brutalizing the press? Are you claiming that the act of filming the police precludes the possibility that one can break the law? Are you disputing that law enforcement does not have the right to effect arrest and/or defend themselves on public property?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FishBait


Yea, the context is the cops have been known liars for decades so what they say is rioting often isn't.

We have it on film in most cases.

Your bias is clear at least. You hate cops because they're cops. Let me know how that works out for you later in life.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


When someone conflates different things, from different sources, and at different times, from different contexts, and then accuses others of "lying" about things that they have not actually and specifically said, that is being untruthful, and the accuser is the one lying.

I don't believe it! Did you just admit to lying all these years?

'Bout time...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


I could argue, equally, that Trump is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Doesn't mean that he does not have a legitimate civil power and authority.

Of course she does, within legal limits... just as Trump has legitimate authority within certain limits. Her authority does not include refusing to provide police protection to citizens because she agrees politically with those accosting them.

I'm bookmarking this post for the next time you claim Trump has no legitimate authority... just so you know.


Good. I am never likely to suggest such BS. Trump was elected, the same as a whole stack of bullying political overlord thugs. But he's your own American National tyrant (wave the flag, beat down the protesters, "lock them up" for 'whatever'gate, the virus will "just go away", scowl and point for the cameras, golf, golf, golf, Tweet, Tweet).



Are these troops only in, and on, Federal property, or are they out there in the middle of the streets in shield lines?

As law enforcement officers of a legitimate branch of government, they are allowed to use public property in legitimate defense of their charge.


Wouldn't it be far better to defend their charge in closer proximity to it, rather than down the street? Wouldn't it be better to stop the looters from looting at night time, when a lot of that happens, instead of charging daytime crowds?



Looters and vandals don't do so in the close proximity to, and under the direct watch of, massed police. They do so when they think no-one is likely to immediately arrest them for it.

I suggest you inform the rioters of this; someone must have missed the memo.


Protesters, on the other hand, stand in the close presence of those shield lines, chanting and shouting their protest. These are the ones that the police are brutalizing in most cases. They can't be looting and burning at the same time they are staring down the police in the middle of a public thoroughfare.
Oh, I get it now... you are claiming that the police cannot interfere with the people they see, but must concentrate on people they do not see, whom they cannot interfere with because they didn't see them.


No, the police don't get paid from public coffers to bully people like some sort of gang of thugs. There is a significant history of US police using inappropriate force, and even murdering innocent victims. That is inexcusable.


Convenient... ridiculous, but convenient.

Just because one is protesting at a certain moment in time does not mean they were not rioting a few seconds earlier.


Or, maybe those protesters were possibly thinking of rioting? The best offense is to hit them before they even think of hitting you, eh. Get 'em before it becomes a problem. I mean, they aren't wearing a police uniform! You aren't allowed to beat people up unless you have a magic badge/uniform that makes public violence 'all right'.





So, these police are selectively accosting only those who have broken the law, not old people, the press, those filming them, and protesters not involved in any crime but who just happen to be closer at hand and unable to get away from advancing lines of officers, often in the middle of public streets and away from private or Federal property?

Are you claiming that old people cannot break the law?


No, i wasn't saying that. Why would you even try and debate this using such a silly argument?

I was saying that the US police have, time and time again, been caught on video brutally mistreating innocent members of the public. And, following such footage becoming public, the police involved have almost always been prosecuted. Many of them have even been jailed, that's how you know the police really did something truly and inexcusably wrong and we aren't just making it all up.


Are you claiming that the police have been brutalizing the press? Are you claiming that the act of filming the police precludes the possibility that one can break the law? Are you disputing that law enforcement does not have the right to effect arrest and/or defend themselves on public property?

TheRedneck

Yes, the police have been filmed brutalizing the press and others who film them. Press encumbered with cameras, tripods and sound equipment, and not really correctly provisioned for all that rioting stuff.

Did you know it is against the law and the Constitution for the police to say "turn that camera off". They even wear body cams, and police have been fired for simply switching their own body cams off. 'Specially when the courts demand the footage.

The police are doing the wrong thing too often - hence the public outcry. It is that simple.

Of course, so have some criminals, but that in no way excuses the police, just as it doesn't excuse the criminals. Two 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'. Your parents probably said that to you at some stage - mine said to me often enough.

edit on 30/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
I thought I smelled more lies.


Peaceful protesters aren't rioters and there are many peaceful protesters.


Just stop with the lies.
It is as disgusting as the zew zealanders convicted of slavery recently.





So there are zero peacefully protestors? Every single one of them has thrown something at a cop or started a fire? Link please?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join