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.

 

BLM and Antifa members who riot are terrorists!

page: 1
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+40 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Yep! You heard me. Can you you change my mind?

U.S law defines terrorism as follows:

“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R.

Riot is legaly defined as follows:

A concerted action: (1) made in furtherance of an express common purpose; (2) through the use or threat of violence, disorder, or terror to the public; and (3) resulting in a disturbance of the peace. Under common law, the crime of riot requires the assemblage of three or more actors.

Violent non state actor:
In international relations, violent non-state actors (VNSA), also known as non-state armed actors or non-state armed groups (NSAGs), are individuals and groups that are wholly or partly independent of state governments and which threaten or use violence to achieve their goals.

Now that we have defined our terms I'll lay out my evidence.

www.theguardian.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

abcnews.go.com...

So my argument should be clear.

Do Antifa and BLM rioters use force or violence unlawfully against people or property? Yes

Are they using said force or violence to coerce the citizens or government? Yep.

Are they using said violence in furtherance of their social or political objectives? Uh huh.

So by the very definition of the law BLM and Antifa members who riot are terrorists.

By the same terms that makes BLM and Antifa (NSAGs).

The patriot act combined with the fact that we are still at war with "terrorism" at home and around the world means the government has broad and sweeping authority to fight these (vnsa) and (NSAGs) anywhere they find them.

We are talking about the tracking of terrorist's finances, command and control networks and operatives. That means military tribunals with possible death sentances for treason, or just go the enemy combatant route for Indefinate detention without any rights. The list goes on and on.

The United States' military has allready received congressional approval for "this" war, and Obama has allready provided the presidents for killing american civilians as (vnsa).

The fact is no president needs to wait for governors to call out the national guard in order to put down these terrorists. That is why we have the DOJ, FBI, and DHS combined with military and civilian intelligence agencies most have never even heard of.

They could be tracking all the blm/antifa networks and rat lines as I type this.

I sure would hate to have been found to have given aid or comfort to the enemy when the enemy is any violent non state adversary on the globe.

Last but not least I want to be chrystal clear when I say that:

Any person or group supporting and/or financing BLM and/or Antifa is in fact supporting and/or financing terrorism.
edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: Grammar

edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: Grammar

edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well. When the “War on Terror” has been a hard sell like all the others for the last decade or two, it’s time for some reflection, no?

Or rather, it seems if we can’t defeat it abroad, let’s try closer to homes IE “if you can’t beat the m, join em”

Apparently the US’s meddling in other countries isn’t good enough. Bring in the big guns (Soros et al) and see how we fare in the US when we are all the enemy based on red hats, votes etc etc:

I still contend my favorite thing about this country is to tell it to Fu*k Off when we ain’t got our collective heads right.

Now is that time. United We Stand. Divided We fall..
edit on 7-9-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)
I hereby Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, by Truth, Justice, and Liberty for ALL
edit on 7-9-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)
One of my first jobs as a lifeguard in my teens on an AFB was to take the oath. Cute now I think about it in my red shorts, having never served, that I still take this chit seriously.

Happy holiday weekend all. Be safe, take care, stay sane
edit on 7-9-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2020 by slatesteam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Know your enemy!




posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I must say its refreshing to see a member actually use a proper definition rather than running to a dictionary.

I would make a few points, not so much because I disagree, I do think that under most definitions of terrorism that riots could be argued to be terrorism but I also think it's a little more complicated than that.

The first point I would make would be that while its absolutely fine to look at that definition and say that rioters meet it that ultimately it's up to the courts and the state to really determine who is and is not a terrorist. Really what you are saying is that in your opinion they are terrorists because under the Code of Federal law they meet that definition (Personally I would use the definition under the Patriot Act). So that's the first point, its very much the state and not the individual who decide who is and is not a legally and factually a terrorist. You can disagree with that system but it remains true. For example say your neighbour gets pissed off over the new school curriculum that's going to include a whole load of stuff on how two man have sex and he has religious objections to it so after a disagreement with the school leaders her burns down the school. That could be terrorism, it could be a hate crime, or it could be just plane or arson and its probably going to be ruled the later.

You also have the issue of ANTIFA not really being a single group but rather a political movement, so how do you brand a movement as opposed to a group as a terrorirst organisation. That is to say how do you brand an entity as a terrorist organisation when that entity is not a organisation or collective but rather several autonomous groups that belong to a single movement. It would be akin to trying to brand the Civil Right's movement a terrorist organisation or the Gay Rights movement or any other such movements as terrorist organisations, it doesn't really work. Now sure you could take specific groups within that movement and brand them as terrorist organisations but that leads me onto my next point.

So my next point would be this, do you really want to live in a country where all rioters are branded as terrorists because that sets an extremely dangerous prescient. Sure right now you might oppose ANTIFA rioters and thats up to you, am not going to say its right or wrong but what about when people riot because the local school knowingly employed a pedophile or lets say the people of Flint County riot to change their local government because their water is dangerous or any other number of reasons that individuals might riot. If you start calling all groups who riot because they disagree with government then you create a very dangerous precedent where by any future government can brand as terrorists if it is convent for them. To use an example lets say a future government tries to abolish the second amendment so people take the the streets to riot against that act, do they then not also become terrorists?

Or how about this, if you want to call all members of Antifa and BLM terrorists why then does that not extend to all members of Unite the Right? Its not just BLM and Antifa rioting there is violence on all sides so why single out only one side of the riot why are you not calling both sides, left and right, terrorists.

So I think when you think on this a little deeper than simply saying they match this definition so the are terrorists that the folly of such simplistic logic is exposed.

Interesting thread though dude.




edit on 7-9-2020 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: slatesteam

The war on terror wasn't a hard sell? It got overwhelming bipartisan congressional support. As did the patriot act. Both continue to be the law of the land.

If people want to make a political or social change in America as citizens they have many peacefull means at their disposal.

Once you start using violence as a means to coerce my nation you better be prepared for the consequences.

I'm not willing to throw the rules of our constitutional republic away because it helps me accomplish some political or social objective.

Violent use brings violent ends, and the duly elected government has a monopoly on lawful use of forceful coercion within its constitutional authority.

Private citizens and groups do not get to decide "who" needs to be punched in the face or what structures need to be burned and or looted.

How long do people expect U.S patriots to sit back while our cities remain under seige by nightly terrorist attacks?

Those making excuses for these terrorists while parroting their demands and glorifying the violence as good social unrest in politics and in the media will all have to face a cold hard reality when it comes to law and order in this constitutional republic.

The United States does not give in to terrorists. If you don't like our government that is your right, and there are many peacefull legal ways to effect the changes you want to see in this great nation on the local, state and national level.

Anyone can start small think local and end up having a huge national impact. Many have done it and many continue to do so every day. It does a great disservice to our society when individuals or groups try to gain an unfair advantage through violence while the rest of us follow the rules.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 05:10 AM
link   
A terrorist is anyone trying to make political changes through violence. So yes. They are terrorists.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Do "all" riots seek to coerce governments or citizens for political or social objectives?

I dont think so most riots are pent up rage boiling over. Take the rodney king riots for example what political or social demands were they making?

None. It was simply people unhappy with a judicial outcome making their unhappiness felt through violence.

With Antifa and BLM we have two groups loosely structured sure, so was isis, but all around a set of political and social objectives laid out in their literature and parroted by their supporters.

Did isis have regional leaders with different ideals on how to get things done? Sure just like antifa and BLM. Did isis have supporters who were only slightly affiliated with isis via their voicing support for isis before or durring a terrorist attack have those attacks attributed to isis? Yes.

See where I'm going here?

Now to your do you want to live in a country where ..... argument. I reccomend you read up on the whiskey rebelion.

Former us troops wanted the money they felt they were owed, and were willing to take up arms in a political movement to get it. How did that go for them?

As for the civil rights movement those who remained peacefull in their political demonstrations were left to persue their cause. Those groups like the black Panthers and several loosely affiliated off shoots that got violent in their methods were met with violence. With the national gaurd even having a shoot out killing several members in a violent stand off.

That is without getting into all the weather underground bombings and zebra killings and this was all before the war on terrorism or the patriot act.

The fact is any attempt to use unlawful violence to coerce the government or your fellow citizen or any portion thereof has always been against our founding principals of individual sovereignty and self determination and has been met by lawfull force.

You aluded to prosecutorial discretion when applying the law, and cautioned me using the example of the 2nd ammendment being revoked, but these are apples and oranges.

The 2nd ammendment limits the government from alianating me from my god given right to defend my life and liberty.

The government would need 2/3rds of Congress to amend the constitution, and then 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify it. If that happens it is the law of the land and I must respect that or leave.

So in your example being unclear on the nature of the changes leaves too much room for me to error in any decision without more information. However in none of the scenarios can I imagine prosecutorial discretion coming into play regarding a constitutional issue.

Now, prosecutorial discretion definitely comes into play with terrorism charges for sure, but as long as you are not violent or supporting, advocating for or financing unlawful violence to coerce the government or your fellow citizens for a political or social cause, then you will never have to worry about it.

That is my point here.

Antifa and BLM rioters definitely fit the guidelines to be charged as terrorists and at the very least these organizations and their affiliates should be and likely are being investigated.

Do you think you can say I support isis and not be called a terrorist?

Well then why do people feel so secure in their support for terrosists of the BLM or Antifa variety to the point of corporations, politicians, and media pundits parroting their demands, while funding them and even bailing their violent rioters out of jail?

Why does New York think it is ok to put BLM on their side walks? Why not have the city of new york write isis or al Qaeda on the city side walk and see what happens?

The fact is that if this were conservatives using these same tactics and levels of violence durring say Obama's first term, do you have any doubt that the media would have called it terrorism?

The crucial difference isn't in the political idiology or social objectives. It is about the methods used to accomplish them.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
A terrorist is anyone trying to make political changes through violence. So yes. They are terrorists.


That is my contention as well Doctor. Seems pretty clear to me, but what do I know? Seems there are many what ifs, buts, and what aboutisms yet to be discussed, though I'm sure it is just a matter of time.

Just to preemptively slide this in there. I actually voted for Obama for both of his terms, but I somehow ended up a deplorable according to hillary. So I voted Trump and will do so again come November 3rd.

Go figure!

I'm as independent middle ground as they come, but I'm sure to be called a rascist trump tard for voicing what I feel is a common sense point of view here.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Its fine If you want to disagree I am just highlighting that its only your opinion that they are terrorists and not a fact.

I think though comparing BLM and Antifa (and unite the right and other such groups for that matter) to actual terrorist organisations like ISIS or Al-Qa'ida is absurd.

Now I am not saying you are wrong to say that the individual rioters could be called terrorists am just trying to say that its not as simple as saying they meet the definition and therefore must be terrorists. It requires a bit of deeper critical thinking beyond that.

Also if you are going to brand Antifa and BLM as "terrorists" then you have to acknowledge and brand the other side with the same label, so if Antifa and BLM are "terrorists" for rioting then you have to then apply that same logic and accept that by your own way of thinking that the groups on the other side like "Unite the Right", "AR2", "Patriot Prayer" and so on are also then "terrorists".

You are also saying that any time any one riots over a political point they are also terrorists.

Thats quite a jump.

Just call them what they are, scum bag rioters.

Calling them terrorists just opens up too many problems.
edit on 7-9-2020 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




if Antifa and BLM are "terrorists" for rioting then you have to then apply that same logic and accept that by your own way of thinking that the groups on the other side like "Unite the Right", "AR2", "Patriot Prayer" and so on are also then "terrorists".


Except that those "right wing" groups don't riot. I've yet to see Patriot Prayer or any of those groups burn buildings, smash storefronts, loot, or throw molotov cocktails.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




if Antifa and BLM are "terrorists" for rioting then you have to then apply that same logic and accept that by your own way of thinking that the groups on the other side like "Unite the Right", "AR2", "Patriot Prayer" and so on are also then "terrorists".


Except that those "right wing" groups don't riot. I've yet to see Patriot Prayer or any of those groups burn buildings, smash storefronts, loot, or throw molotov cocktails.



ohhh yeah its only the dirty leftists....no way that the right are also doing a spot of rioting.

Get your head of the sand, both groups are just as bad as each other and need to get a grip, it's pathetic.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I totally agree about them being or acting like terrorists but I have a question based on just my observations.

I know A LOT of right-wing/conservative/Repub folks who, for the most part, are very outspoken about the other side.
They LOVE their guns (and trucks, and tattoos, and thick women, and #ty beer) but they're all complaining about how SCARCE ammo is, and even guns. Sales/demand is through the roof!
I've also noticed, based on what the folks I just described post on social media that the NRA has been pretty much silent about these riots and protests and destruction.

Does anyone think there's a correlation? I would expect an org like the NRA to be all over this mess but I'm simply not seeing it.
edit on 7-9-2020 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




if Antifa and BLM are "terrorists" for rioting then you have to then apply that same logic and accept that by your own way of thinking that the groups on the other side like "Unite the Right", "AR2", "Patriot Prayer" and so on are also then "terrorists".


Except that those "right wing" groups don't riot. I've yet to see Patriot Prayer or any of those groups burn buildings, smash storefronts, loot, or throw molotov cocktails.



ohhh yeah its only the dirty leftists....no way that the right are also doing a spot of rioting.

Get your head of the sand, both groups are just as bad as each other and need to get a grip, it's pathetic.


Can you provide evidence of right-wing looters?

TYVM



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I just want to be sure I'm clear.... So, BLM and Antifa members who riot are terrorists. But the Proud Boys and all the other white supremacist groups who riot are not? And Trump supporters who drive into protesters and spray bear repellent and fire paint balls at them are not? Just checking.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




if Antifa and BLM are "terrorists" for rioting then you have to then apply that same logic and accept that by your own way of thinking that the groups on the other side like "Unite the Right", "AR2", "Patriot Prayer" and so on are also then "terrorists".


Except that those "right wing" groups don't riot. I've yet to see Patriot Prayer or any of those groups burn buildings, smash storefronts, loot, or throw molotov cocktails.



ohhh yeah its only the dirty leftists....no way that the right are also doing a spot of rioting.

Get your head of the sand, both groups are just as bad as each other and need to get a grip, it's pathetic.


So you have evidence of these "right wing" groups rioting then?



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
I just want to be sure I'm clear.... So, BLM and Antifa members who riot are terrorists. But the Proud Boys and all the other white supremacist groups who riot are not? And Trump supporters who drive into protesters and spray bear repellent and fire paint balls at them are not? Just checking.


Thats exactly my point.

Notice the partisanship, "Blue team is being bad....Red Team good...becasue Red Team is my team"

Both sides need to get their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that both sides are rioting scum.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Barely into the first page and your response is overwhelmingly positive.

We all can admit that protesting is OKAY.

HOWEVER...

When destruction, rioting, looting began, it is no longer a “Protest”, it is a riot. When the killing began, it becomes terrorism.

We already learned these things, painfully of course during OF1 and OF2 when the conventional approach shifted to an Asymmetrical Warfare setting, so veterans out there on the streets all too recognize what they see.

Such a radicalization of our youth.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

When you can provide links to documents or statements published by patriot prayer or other conservative groups or their founders that advocate the initiation of violence against persons or property to coerce the government or citizens to acquiesce to their political or social reforms let me know and I will call them terrosists too.

Until then here are my links for BLM and antifa:

en.m.wikipedia.org...:_The_Anti-Fascist_Handbook

www.google.com...


So we have a handbook for "militant" socialist revolution, and then we have the cofounder of blm with ties to the weather underground saying they are all trained marxists. chairman Mao would be so proud.

What part of militant revolution sounds peaceful to you?

All of BLM is basically an offshoot of one of the most violent marxists groups durring the civil rights movement I have allready mentioned in my prior comments.

So yes blm and antifa are organizations that aspouse the use of violence to coerce the government and citizens into social and political reform.

Just like Al Qaeda and isis BLM and Antifa members may be loosely connected with only a smattering of heirarchy depending on the region, but they use social media and peer to peer apps to coordinate their violence with their political and social demands.

Just like isis and al qaeda both BLM and antifa recieve funding and support in order to continue their violent agenda.

These are facts I'm just trying to figure out your point that this is all my opinion.

The what aboutism is a false argument as it sits, but anyone who can look at the facts and deny that BLM and antifa are terrorists and terrorist supporters is being an intellectual fraud at best.


edit on 7-9-2020 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

I agree, so tell me this. How could we better define terrorism to clearly include violent riots supporting a common political or social group extorting the government or citizens.

What part of:

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R.

Do we need to change?

Where does it say all of the above is canceled out if the citizens or government defend their property or persons from said violent means of extortion?

Where does it say except if you call the government or citizens rascist before. durring or after extorting them by violence?

Where does it say it is not terrorism if it is a riot otherwise all rioters are terrorists.

Usually these exceptions would be listed but I'm not seeing them in the very clear wording in (18 C.F.R

So until somone can show me something other than what if, or what about xyz...I dont see myself changing my mind on this.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Dude its not whataboutism its a fair point.

If you want to use your own logic (even with the flaws I have highlighted) to call ANTIFA and BLM "terrorists" then you need to also accept that others who riot ie, The Proud Boys or Unite the Right then you need to also brand them as terrorists.

When you fail to acknowledge this then you are essentially admitting that this is nothing more than partisan BS.

And no am not going to waist my afternoon linking you to instances of violent acts by individual who belong to far right groups, it happens, we all know it happens, all I am saying to you is simply that when you deny this goes both ways its just partisan BS.

Also looking at your links, you do realise being a marxist does not make one a terrorist.



edit on 7-9-2020 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join