It seems BLM and Antifa are officially domestic terrorist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation. Being gullible is not a crime.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No you are trying to provide cover for a group that has shown it's true colors.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation.

What law is this?

Weird you are trying to defend a marxist group that literally calls for violence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: shaemac

I'm doing my best to avoid condemning an entire community based on the violence of a few.

Blm is not condemning the violence of its members so they are supporting it by not stopping it. Open your eyes.

a reply to: TzarChasm

And I would argue prejudice has its time and place. You know the group is violent, prejudice has a function in preventing said violence

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, so there are good people on both sides? Seems I've heard that before.

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation.

What law is this?

Weird you are trying to defend a marxist group that literally calls for violence.

I'm not defending Marxism I am interpreting law and civil rights instead of endorsing blanket persecution. There's a baby in that bath water and we should be careful to preserve innocent lives in the attempt to drain the swamp. But that's not a popular approach it seems. I'm not concerned with popularity of ethics, I'm concerned with having a clean conscience after the dust is settled.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

And I would argue prejudice has its time and place. You know the group is violent, prejudice has a function in preventing said violence

I would argue that prejudice is the path to the dark side.

a reply to: shaemac

The ONLY groups committing acts of violence on innocent people are are BLM and antifa.

LOL!!!

a reply to: TzarChasm

Being gullible is not a crime.

I think leading the gullible to commit crimes is a crime.

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: shaemac

The ONLY groups committing acts of violence on innocent people are are BLM and antifa.

LOL!!!

LOL? Please, list the other groups...outside of the government of course. I assume we are talking about activist groups.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Ignorance of the law is not a defence 🤣

originally posted by: TzarChasm

There's a baby in that bath water

No! There's an adult in that bath water. They CHOSE to get in and they can CHOOSE to get out. Your analogy sucks because a baby is placed in the bath water, it has no choice and no way to get itself out.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation.

What law is this?

Weird you are trying to defend a marxist group that literally calls for violence.

I'm not defending Marxism I am interpreting law and civil rights instead of endorsing blanket persecution. There's a baby in that bath water and we should be careful to preserve innocent lives in the attempt to drain the swamp. But that's not a popular approach it seems. I'm not concerned with popularity of ethics, I'm concerned with having a clean conscience after the dust is settled.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

And I would argue prejudice has its time and place. You know the group is violent, prejudice has a function in preventing said violence

I would argue that prejudice is the path to the dark side.

That's a lot of words for not saying much. Speak plainly.....
Which law are you interpreting? Civil rights? Innocent lives? LOL

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: shaemac

I'm doing my best to avoid condemning an entire community based on the violence of a few.

Blm is not condemning the violence of its members so they are supporting it by not stopping it. Open your eyes.

BLM does not condemn because they encourage it.
Tzar is ignorant on the subject or is part of the group....or just being purposely contrary.

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation.

What law is this?

Weird you are trying to defend a marxist group that literally calls for violence.

I'm not defending Marxism I am interpreting law and civil rights instead of endorsing blanket persecution. There's a baby in that bath water and we should be careful to preserve innocent lives in the attempt to drain the swamp. But that's not a popular approach it seems. I'm not concerned with popularity of ethics, I'm concerned with having a clean conscience after the dust is settled.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

And I would argue prejudice has its time and place. You know the group is violent, prejudice has a function in preventing said violence

I would argue that prejudice is the path to the dark side.

That's a lot of words for not saying much. Speak plainly.....
Which law are you interpreting? Civil rights? Innocent lives? LOL

It's clear to me that you aren't reading to understand, but to react. It's in your nature to dig in your heels and lock horns. I don't resent that, it's an admirable quality but I don't deserve your hostility. Read again and see if you can't take time to comprehend my words, which are in fact plain English even if you reject it on principle. I'm not interested in playing bipartisan games.

It's funny how these pleas for "calm, measured" responses are applied "conservatively".

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Running a vehicle into a crowd of people is not a form of protest , That is a form of terrorism .

The Left media have propped these groups up and refused to condemn them and in doing so they have created a monster .

This is a blatant act of terrorism.

Seems that some in the BLM "movement" are taking this as a sign that it is time to begin a "revolution".

Perhaps it is time to remove the veil of virtuosity and unmask themselves as the agent of the Globalist color revolution they are.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a group carries out a series of protests and it almost always leads to violence, you don't just keep arresting the violent ones. You have to look at the group and the ideology itself and see why it keeps happening. It's not prejudice if it's a consistent and expected occurance: That group is upset, better Board the windows.

That's exactly how the law works. You arrest the criminals. Anticipating terrorist conduct from the majority based on the crimes of a few is the beginning of prejudice.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Believe it or not, there are many volunteers and philanthropists in BLM who are much like you just described. But that's not useful to the media so it stays quiet.

Got a list? They have a documented domestic terrorist in their leadership.

I understand that it's something of a trend to vilify an entire community based on their leadership but that's not how I interpret the core values of our nation.

What law is this?

Weird you are trying to defend a marxist group that literally calls for violence.

I'm not defending Marxism I am interpreting law and civil rights instead of endorsing blanket persecution. There's a baby in that bath water and we should be careful to preserve innocent lives in the attempt to drain the swamp. But that's not a popular approach it seems. I'm not concerned with popularity of ethics, I'm concerned with having a clean conscience after the dust is settled.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: TzarChasm

And I would argue prejudice has its time and place. You know the group is violent, prejudice has a function in preventing said violence

I would argue that prejudice is the path to the dark side.

That's a lot of words for not saying much. Speak plainly.....
Which law are you interpreting? Civil rights? Innocent lives? LOL

It's clear to me that you aren't reading to understand, but to react. It's in your nature to dig in your heels and lock horns. I don't resent that, it's an admirable quality but I don't deserve your hostility. Read again and see if you can't take time to comprehend my words, which are in fact plain English even if you reject it on principle. I'm not interested in playing bipartisan games.

Dude. BLM, as an entity is a domestic terrorist organization by the very definition set up by our own government. Set up this way by it's leaders, but its ideology, but it's very design. Your babbling bout this or that is pointless because you clearly do not understand the organization as a WHOLE.

While antifa may not have an overt organized leader and may be overtly (not covertly) a bunch of random misfits like anonymous, BLM is an entirely different entity. It is as organized as ISIS or Al Qaeda.

On a side note, I believe antifa is too....but that is a different topic probably.