Black Panthers were not able to carry out their bombing. . . . .

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Gryphon66

You have been derailing several threads on this site by continuing to ask the same questions that have already been answered several times by different members and by reporting posts with absolutely no ill manners or violations. I'm siding with the members who have called you out. I can't say if you're a liberal, or a libertarian or anything, but I agree with them that you have been causing topics to go off the deep end.

How can we discuss topics on this site when our efforts are demolished immediately?

In my experience at ATS, when the mods remove posts they do so with reason, usually violations of the Terms and Conditions that we all agree to when we start posting here.

If you feel like I'm "derailing" threads, then report me and see if the mods agree with your position.

I am addressing the facts of the discussions I participate in. I am a member of this site, and just like every other member, I have the right to participate productively in threads here.

Just because you don't agree with my questions doesn't mean that I'm "derailing" anything.

Perhaps if you focused a bit more on the topic rather than me you'd make more progress?

The facts here say, quite clearly, that while the two men were members of the Panthers, their actions were not and are not condoned by that group. That's the only real point being made. Nothing regarding racism in general, nor the Tea Party as another member suggested, nor Al Sharpton, etc.

Sorry if you don't like it; why not come back with facts rather than commentary on what I'm doing?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The facts have been posted. You're ignoring everything.

2nd line.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"How does commentary on Mr. Sharpton apply to the topic of discussion here?"

He is another super-devotee to Team Obama's end-game of starting a Race War to allow them to declare Martial Law - and then crown Obama King-for-Life. Like Farrakhan, Sharpton's words and actions have been divisive, promoting friction and violence from the start. And this is not just my lone opinion:

www.thedailysheeple.com...
FERGUSON "PLANNED RESPONSES" FOR 83 CITIES EVEN BEFORE GRAND JURY VERDICT!

fergusonresponse.tumblr.com...
FERGUSON RESPONSE: LIST OF TIMES AND DATES OF PROTESTS ACROSS THE U.S.

www.dropbox.com...
19 PROPOSED "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" FOR FERGUSON PROTESTS

(Seems to be a lot of intense planning to a "spontaneous event" in Ferguson, right? This is obviously just the first salvo in a "planned" Race War meant to go on and on, from one burning city to the next, which Team Obama's been pushing from the start.)

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I wouldn't bother with them it's not worth the aggravation.

A poster above brought up possible links between these two individuals and the Nation of Islam.

Aside from the obvious relationship of adopting Muslim names, did anyone see anything else in the article or the related material that would suggest such a connection?

a reply to: thesaneone

Do I really need to be petty and speak with them? Lol no way. I disagree with someone I discuss with them, I don't report them.

MKMoniker, I believe you're correct. There were plenty of planned events even before the verdict was released. If there weren't any problems planned why did they mobilize the police like that? Not just because of people who suddenly flipped out, but because they knew an orchestrated effort to flip out by many, many people regardless of the verdict was in the works.

This entire situation is a mess.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

How can we discuss topics on this site when our efforts are demolished immediately?

Take this for what it is...

If your efforts were strong enough, it wouldn't have been so easy to demolish.

But hey I am just an innocent bystander in this...as that is just the way I see it.

Now back to the fun.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Innocence is negated by involvement.

Now if you have nothing to offer to this thread but quips allow us to continue to discuss the NBPP and this current incident.

a reply to: MKMoniker

I have no comment about the race-war/martial-law/crowning-Obama-king-rhetoric except to say ... wow, that seems way out there on the fringe.

While I personally am no great fan of Mr. Sharpton, I fail to see your reasoning that his comments alone have created divisiveness. Mr. Farrakhan is the head of a racist organization, not unlike the Black Panthers, as categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The racial divide in this country is and has been obvious. These groups certainly do perpetuate the problems that we have, no doubt. They are certainly not the only ones promoting racial tensions, however.

Can you show where Mr. Sharpton has advocated for violent protests, perhaps related to the Black Panthers or to pipe bomb purchases?

There were quite clear indications that the Grand Jury was not going to prosecute Officer Wilson; it was not a surprise.

How does the Ferguson demonstrations and riots tie to Mr. Sharpton or to these two fellows in the OP?

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Now if you have nothing to offer to this thread but quips allow us to continue to discuss the NBPP and this current incident.

Okay here you want something about the topic at hand...

The headline is a fallacy as it should read two men affiliated with the Black Panthers, and not just Black Panthers as that is referring to the whole Black Panther party which isn't true.

There you go I commented...happy.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Johnny is affiliated with the KKK, he does something. The media reports the KKK did something. Nope, NBPP, not two men affiliated. That's just a cop out on the part of the media.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: FyreByrd

That's a good general question FyreByrd!

Although the details of the two cases are much different of course.

For example, in the one of these two cases, actual government-sponsored jack-booted thugs actually did threaten American citizens in a stunning example of government overreach.

... and then there was that thing at the ranch.

Perhaps a difference in scale (local vs federal) - but 'government-sponsored jack-booted thugs', to use your phase, in both cases.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

"MKMoniker, I believe you're correct. There were plenty of planned events even before the verdict was released. If there weren't any problems planned why did they mobilize the police like that?"

Exactly! Although if you check that list of 83 "targeted" cities to start rioting after the Grand jury verdict, very few had any media-worthy responses. Just a handful of protesters showed up in Miami and Los Angeles, if I remember correctly. And even the expanded law enforcement in Ferguson got on the ball fast, and the rest of last week was much better, with the provocateurs contained and no more burning or looting.

So things really aren't that big of a "mess," we just have to stay vigilant. If the media rushes to hype another "black on white/white on black crime," and out-of-state agitators (including the Al Sharptons) rush there to pontificate and inflame a confusing situation, we'll know more "Race War orders" are coming out of the White House.

I'm not that well-informed on this situation in the USA, so I wondered: what'd these individuals gain for themselves or the black community? I mean, if you kill the prosecutor, they'll get another one and it'd probably create a lot of tension, likely leading to more vitriol and possibly to more anti-black discrimination. The gap and distance between groups would grow even wider and more people'd harbour anti-black sentiments. (even if they wouldn't act upon it or actually discriminate)

So what is in it for them?

Edit: and it's sad that the situation devolved into this where lethal violence apparently becomes an option.

a reply to: Pitou

Do radicals ever think straight? Despite their cunning, their beliefs and thus their actions are clouded by supremist thinking. And this case shows it very much so, they buy using money off of an EBT card, their communications were most likely monitored. And as you said, the results wouldn't have been in their favor. Perhaps they were just desperate to be heard?

a reply to: chuck258

Its probably a good thing, just imagine how much more of the black community they might have burnt down had they succeeded.

Can someone explain to me how this is "Racist liberal hypocrisy"...? At least they didn't go around shooting innocent white teens... But I guess some white people have to badger black people any chance they get.


And stop throwing out "If they were white"..... that is getting old and you sound like idiots

originally posted by: Battleline
a reply to: chuck258

Its probably a good thing, just imagine how much more of the black community they might have burnt down had they succeeded.

I'm gonna look at that comment in a non racist way and agree. The black community in Ferguson do not make the situations any better by looting and rioting. These so called "Panthers" and the pipe bomb situation is more of an act of terrorism. Unless they were to blow up the police officers house, I would be ok with that.

a reply to: 3u40r15m

So them destroying the cop's house is an acceptable form of hatred but doing what they were originally planning isn't? How about they were wrong, the looters were and so were the police tear gassing civilians?