And you will find people will give you so many excuses why it doesn't qualify as terrorism.
How to recognize a far- leftie
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
tell Sammy that you could apply that silly assed logic to any public figure including any number of Hollywood stars , sports figures , mayors , governors, premiers, buffoon Prime ministers, senators or disgraced liberal members of parliament.
Each of which will tell you they should be role model but have responsibilities which supper cede role model criteria
Each of which should also act with the highest level of ethics for numerous other reasons than role model, but do not always do so.
learning people in general as well as public figures are failable is a harsh reality of growing up
do I think Trump is a positive role model in any way?
I have been very clear that I find Trumps personality to be abrasive
he is a narcists, and he can be nasty, mean-spirited and vindictive
role model for children ?
politics is a nasty game, not a game for children
Joe Biden & his family are corrupt , Joe also had some pretty nasty racial slurs caught on tape years ago
Kamela Harris is a blithering fool who can not communicate to save her life
Justin Trudeau is exceptionally stupid, a narcists, corrupt as hell, is insincere, blackface. misogynistic and lies to the public out of habit
AOC has to be one of the dumbest people alive and needs an ideology to think
Gerrald Butts is a slithery snake in the grass, nasty and will destroy peoples lives and not give it a second thought
Mark Carney misrepresents himself and has a globalist agenda , which supersedes Canadas interest
Pierre P is blunt and publicly humiliates fools , not exactly a positive life lesson for children
Doug Ford might appear be the most down to earth of the lot, but also has character flaws i am sure you can provide
Olivia chow would steal you last dollar while telling you its for the common good.
perhaps the question for you who is your ideal political role model ?
likely the best route is to tell a developing child is politics is really complicated and most politicians generally want to do their best for the public but are not always able to do so and sadly they make mistakes sometimes.
Last edited:
Please feel free to so a "both sides" analysis of Che Guevara Mr.-My-Opinion-is-Most-Holy-and-Absolute-because-I'm-lazy-and-lack-critical-thinking-skills.
Please feel free to so a "both sides" analysis of Hamas & Hezbollah Mr.-My-Opinion-is-Most-Holy-and-Absolute-because-I'm-lazy-and-lack-critical-thinking-skills
Please feel free to so a "both sides" analysis of The French Resistance during WWII Mr.-My-Opinion-is-Most-Holy-and-Absolute-because-I'm-lazy-and-lack-critical-thinking-skills
This was 2 seconds. I mean, if I actually cared and took 5 minutes, there is a plethora of morally complex causes and people where your black & white point of view may have trouble.
This Relativism of Moral & Ethical arguments is high school stuff. Why are you wasting your time with this argument or is this a new thought to you?
Let us not muddy the waters about my initial comment and the topic on hand.
There is nothing morally complex, or anything morally justifiable about right wing extremism in the west, except that it is morally unjustifiable.
Ya, just crazy how all the evil people are on one side of the political spectrum while on the other side are all noble, pure and spin rainbows while they kill people.
Your statement naturally infers Left Wing Extremism IS morally justifiable. Deep thinking there...gotta love it. Antifa much?
Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your mental gymnastics doesn't change the fact that the primary source for terrorism in the west is right wing extremism.
Those aren't my conclusions. It comes from American federal law enforcement and intelligence.
They dont deny any left wing terrorism.
They say the primary occurrences and threats are from right wing extremists and that they are just as dangerous as ISIS.
he/she has common sense...can identify male female individuals...
That is a HUGE relief by the people got their homes & business burnt down in days and day of riots that were instigated by Left Wing organizations that could legitimately be called Domestic Terrorism.
"Don't worry about them, the FBI says they're not the problem".
Because you know, the definition of Terrorism is never, ever a political definition right?
Riots are not terrorist attacks.That is a HUGE relief by the people got their homes & business burnt down in days and day of riots that were instigated by Left Wing organizations that could legitimately be called Domestic Terrorism.
"Don't worry about them, the FBI says they're not the problem".
Because you know, the definition of Terrorism is never, ever a political definition right?
And yes there were riots during BLM.
They weren't planned terror attacks like the ones tracked by the FBI and DHS.
How ironic is that post.
Just like when some people are labelled as genocide supporters, apartheid supporters, colonialism supporters because they condemn acts of terrorism against people at a music festival, just as a random example.
Here's a thought for you.
Go through the data. The FBI/DHS are only concerned about attacks when they effect Government (e.g. McVey) or Politicians themselves (Jan 6th).
Joe Schmoe and his private property being destroyed much more frequently and costly isn't a problem. Is it?
It's almost as if you merely completely align with a) who defines it, and b) who decides how important it is.
Cool. Critical thinking. Carry on.
Well so you decided to apply critical thinking and lump all violence into one bucket - terrorism, because it is convenient for you?
The FBI/DHS determine what is terrorism.
Opportunistic vandalism and destruction of property during protests are random acts of violence and do not fall in that category.
Per the FBI:
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Per this definition it is right wing extremism that is most prevalent in the the United States.
I don't know why you have such a hard time just accepting a fact.
Who is a terrorist, actually?
An overly broad application of the "terrorism" label can make it more difficult to understand violent groups, thereby limiting our ability to respond effectively.
www.brookings.edu
Most of the protest leaders have tried to stop looting and other violence, recognizing this is counterproductive as well as wrong. Moreover, Black Lives Matter is an open movement with a host of organizations participating along with self-proclaimed supporters rather than a tight group with a defined membership. Thus, labeling the movement as a whole as violent is false.
But not all violence is terrorism, either. In many instances, even those who do actively promote and use violence don’t merit the label “terrorist.”
That checklist can be pruned down to a single item:
Treats others with compassion and respect...except if someone disagrees with their opinion...then attacks them by any means necessary.
oh, so you are sub dividing evil violent / destructive acts now to keep the loonie left in the + on the messed up uncivilized moron scorecard ?
do you all your spare time pondering justifications for what you know to be wrong ?
Evil and destructive acts are justified if they fall within the leftist woke side of the ideology equation.
you are ridiculousWell so you decided to apply critical thinking and lump all violence into one bucket - terrorism, because it is convenient for you?
The FBI/DHS determine what is terrorism.
Opportunistic vandalism and destruction of property during protests are random acts of violence and do not fall in that category.
Per the FBI:
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Per this definition it is right wing extremism that is most prevalent in the the United States.
I don't know why you have such a hard time just accepting a fact.
When it comes to Black Lives Matter, there’s no credible case for labeling it a terrorist organization. One analysis of the Black Lives Matter protests found that 93 percent were peaceful, and some of the violent incidents at the rallies were simply opportunistic vandalism.Who is a terrorist, actually?
An overly broad application of the "terrorism" label can make it more difficult to understand violent groups, thereby limiting our ability to respond effectively.
Most of the protest leaders have tried to stop looting and other violence, recognizing this is counterproductive as well as wrong. Moreover, Black Lives Matter is an open movement with a host of organizations participating along with self-proclaimed supporters rather than a tight group with a defined membership. Thus, labeling the movement as a whole as violent is false.
But not all violence is terrorism, either. In many instances, even those who do actively promote and use violence don’t merit the label “terrorist.”
did you honestly think law abiding citizens were not terrorized by BLM riots and arson in their communities?
