Answer the question....Are acts of violence justified here?...It's a simple yes or no.
Teslas are Getting Set On Fire Around America
- Thread starter glamphotographer
- Start date
Yes, he is a non elected, non appointed oligarch who is attempting to dismantle the social safety net of the USA, as well as the checks on oligarchs from achieving too much power. He is anti democracy, and is in it to privatize everything with him and a few others in charge.
When people rise up like this it isn't to be terrorists, it's to fight tyranny..
Your turn, we're the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party wrong?
How does one commit an act of violence on an inanimate object?
They keep testing what they can get away with.
Trump's wanted to have protesters shot for a while, from all accounts.
It may well.
But it still doesn't serve people well to link the two, since the point of doing that is to make the boycott and general protests illegal.
If you're in a street fight with a thug, it doesn't serve you well to believe headbutting, eye gouging,
kicking in the balls is dirty fighting while the other guy is ready to slit your throat.
Which we saw coming.
From what I understand, them saying that doesn't really count. Kind of.
There is no federal "domestic terrorism" law.
They can add terrorism counts to other crimes.
It's messy.
This is something that does have to be considered.
Especially if you think the idea is to crack down on the protesters in general, then creating an incident to point to that you then use as a guilt by association is a possibility.
There are no rules.
Being forced to operate within a legal system that is intended to render you impotent serves only one side.
Still not sure how that addresses my point.
Or do you also think that there is no difference between the people who are protesting and boycotting and the people who are committing arson?
If the government won't abide by its own laws why should the people?
That's a comment on whether or not people should be willing to break the law.
Which isn't what I am talking about.
I'm talking about saying the protesters not committing arson and those are is what the government wants in order to charge everyone with terrorism regardless.
They're both necessary.
Look at the origins of the mafia, or mob involvement in labour union activity.
Both necessary evils to fight oppression.
In Sicily, under feudalism, the nobility owned most of the land and enforced the law through their private armies and a court system
operated by the lords. Familial clans who were ruthless and willing to fight back was the only recourse to social, economic, and legal oppression.
In the U.S. in the late 1800's and early 1900's, people were forced to work 6 - 7 days a week, child labour was the normal.
When they tried to organize and fight back, they were met with law enforcement who murdered to quash resistance.
Without muscle to protect you and defend your rights you got nothin. Everything else is window dressing.
But you also know that whether they are committing arson is immaterial to whether they will be charged, as we saw in Columbia.
I'm trying to figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse about my point or not.
So your position is "Trump is right and all the protesters are terrorists"?
Because you are saying that this is one unified group using the violence as a tactic to support the boycott and protests.
Which is why I offered mellowjello that option - to say since the government was going to treat them all that way no matter what, it was irrelevant.
Instead, he seems to be agreeing with the position that they are linked and this is right and good, and Trump's DOJ isn't using it as an excuse, but is actually correct in their assessment of the situation.
But ur posts are infused and imbued and exude classical gibberish like kernel caked brown loaves expunged in le toilet.
