(February 6, 2021 at 12:27 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(February 5, 2021 at 10:15 pm)WinterHold Wrote: Every action has a reaction; Bin Laden was a reaction to the American war against Afghanistan, BLM are a reaction to the racist white supremacist hold on American politics during the era of Trump.

So many despise racism and double standards because they lead to this exact consequence: the rise of extremist movements as a reaction to the unjust actions.

But sometimes the extremist movements rise in response to a righteous move such as winning over racism.

The shooter in NZ commit his slaughter for the same reason, he believed in this extremist terrorist theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement


Proud Boys are a white-nationalist movement, so I expect them to believe in this doctrine even if they didn't admit it.

So you will call the Proud Boys all terrorists because they might have an ideology that you disagree with, but you won't call BLM and Antifa members/ supporters terrorists when they almost burn down apartment buildings full of people? I would certainly call those people trying to burn down apartment buildings full of people for their political cause terrorists. Isn't that textbook terrorism by definition? It shouldn't matter that they say they're against racism or whatever, if they are doing something that might end up killing a bunch of people.

Calling rioters "terrorists" is pretty misleading and wrong.
BLM are rioters; Proud Boys are terrorists.

Quote:So you will call the Proud Boys all terrorists because they might have an ideology that you disagree with, but you won't call BLM and Antifa members/ supporters terrorists when they almost burn down apartment buildings full of people .I would certainly call those people trying to burn down apartment buildings full of people for their political cause terrorists. Isn't that textbook terrorism by definition? It shouldn't matter that they say they're against racism or whatever, if they are doing something that might end up killing a bunch of people.

The proud boys by the very nature of their organization and its goals are terrorists.BLM and Antifa have a minority of rioters in an overall peaceful movement.

The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Hmm.. so trying to burn down buildings full of people in the pursuit of political aims. Sounds like textbook terrorism to me. Is the Oxford dictionary wrong on this one? Why doesn't the US consider the Proud Boys to be a terrorist group if it's so beyond obvious? Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists? Iran considers atheists to be terrorists, but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter what political aims you have behind a terrorist action. As long as they are political aims. If an animal rights activist who thinks they're trying to improve the world for the better commits an act of violence in the pursuit of political aims, that's terrorism.

I don't think BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, atheists, or animal rights activists should all be smeared as terrorists. If certain members of those groups happen to commit acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims, then it's fair game to call those specific people that.

(February 6, 2021 at 12:13 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists?

Don't worry, because in most other countries "Proud Boys" are already illegal. If they held rallies like that and dressed like that, they would be arrested because in most Western countries hate speech is not allowed, as well as doing “crimes against humanity”.

You see back in the day, the military tribunal at Nuremberg defined them as:

Quote:crimes against humanity: namely murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in the execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

So as you see their merchandise would not be allowed for sale. Or go and try to wear nazi symbols in France and see how long you will enjoy your freedom.

Or back when the racist marches roiled in Charlottesville, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed horror and gave a public outcry for the those people to be arrested.

(February 6, 2021 at 12:13 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Which is exactly what the proud boys do, and what makes them different from blm and antifa.  Yes.  

Quote:Hmm.. so trying to burn down buildings full of people in the pursuit of political aims. Sounds like textbook terrorism to me. Is the Oxford dictionary wrong on this one? Why doesn't the US consider the Proud Boys to be a terrorist group if it's so beyond obvious? Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists? Iran considers atheists to be terrorists, but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter what political aims you have behind a terrorist action. As long as they are political aims. If an animal rights activist who thinks they're trying to improve the world for the better commits an act of violence in the pursuit of political aims, that's terrorism.

I don't think BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, atheists, or animal rights activists should all be smeared as terrorists. If certain members of those groups happen to commit acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims, then it's fair game to call those specific people that.

Correct, there are many ways that a building might end up getting burnt, not all of them are terrorist ways™, therefore it makes little sense to classify any organization or person involved in a building catching fire or being set on fire as a terrorist.  Every arsonist is not a terrorist, even though many terrorists are arsonists, simply put. The proud boys fit the categorization neatly, while the others do not.  Our boy Henry, for example, decided to set fire to a churches blm banner in the pursuit of a white ethnostate. The frustrated residents of wherever setting fire to their local target is a poor comparison.

Our attempts to defend and apologize for and excuse domestic terrorists are part of our problem with the rise of right wing terror in this country, and, ofc, our friends in the middle east should be very familiar with having made the same mistakes, themselves. As a point of fact, the fbi doesn;t designate anything as a domestic terror group, we only issue reports on terror threats. Guess who;s all over those reports? As a point of anecdotal data, the US of today reminds me very much of some of the countries I was a peacekeeper in two decades ago. There's no good case for an american present or future in which these sorts of similarities can be entertained. Since we've been talking about expected reactions in thread, the expected outcome of our country or our populace buying into right wing extremism to an even greater extent than we already have is manifestly apparent in the failed states and state sponsors of terror we so recently sought to assist.

There will be and can be no negotiation with terrorists over their designation as terrorist organizations. They aren't holding any blm or antifa or animal rights chips to play, such that they can dictate to us through whatever helpful mouthpiece they find...that we can't have those things, unless we let them do what they want as well. That's not how any of that works. OFC, being the supposed master race and all...I guess we can fight it out, see how Yall Qaeda fares against the brutal anti-terrorist machine of western states?

My understanding is that it’s virtually impossible for the US to label any domestic group as a terrorist organization (groups can be classed as a ‘terrorist threat’, which is not the same thing).

The reason is that freedom of assembly makes it unlawful to legislate that belonging to a particular group - in and of itself - is a crime.

Boru

One of many reasons. That's why I find it difficult to take white supremacists complaints seriously. This is a great country to be a member of a terrorist organization, so long as you're white and from here.

That said, we get squirrelly about it as soon as some building comes down, and sometimes "just belonging" to a group ends up looking like providing material aid to a prosecutor. As western chauvinists, they should realize that even our terror laws benefit them, and shut their mouths about the glaring holes we may one day find reason to plug after their endless concern trolling arguments. Hate speech is a-okay in the us, for example, but how many more tiki torch rallies will it take before we reconsider that old chestnut, for better and for worse?

(February 6, 2021 at 1:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 6, 2021 at 12:13 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Which is exactly what the proud boys do, and what makes them different from blm and antifa.  Yes.  

Quote:Hmm.. so trying to burn down buildings full of people in the pursuit of political aims. Sounds like textbook terrorism to me. Is the Oxford dictionary wrong on this one? Why doesn't the US consider the Proud Boys to be a terrorist group if it's so beyond obvious? Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists? Iran considers atheists to be terrorists, but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter what political aims you have behind a terrorist action. As long as they are political aims. If an animal rights activist who thinks they're trying to improve the world for the better commits an act of violence in the pursuit of political aims, that's terrorism.

I don't think BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, atheists, or animal rights activists should all be smeared as terrorists. If certain members of those groups happen to commit acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims, then it's fair game to call those specific people that.

Correct, there are many ways that a building might end up getting burnt, not all of them are terrorist ways™, therefore it makes little sense to classify any organization or person involved in a building catching fire or being set on fire as a terrorist.  Every arsonist is not a terrorist, even though many terrorists are arsonists, simply put.  The proud boys fit the categorization neatly, while the others do not.  Our boy Henry, for example, decided to set fire to a churches blm banner in the pursuit of a white ethnostate.  The frustrated residents of wherever setting fire to their local target is a poor comparison.

Our attempts to defend and apologize for and excuse domestic terrorists are part of our problem with the rise of right wing terror in this country, and, ofc, our friends in the middle east should be very familiar with having made the same mistakes, themselves.  As a point of fact, the fbi doesn;t designate anything as a domestic terror group, we only issue reports on terror threats.  Guess who;s all over those reports?  As a point of anecdotal data, the US of today reminds me very much of some of the countries I was a peacekeeper in two decades ago.   There's no good case for an american present or future in which these sorts of similarities can be entertained.  Since we've been talking about expected reactions in thread, the expected outcome of our country or our populace buying into right wing extremism to an even greater extent than we already have is manifestly apparent in the failed states and state sponsors of terror we so recently sought to assist.

There will be and can be no negotiation with terrorists over their designation as terrorist organizations.  They aren't holding any blm or antifa or animal rights chips to play, such that they can dictate to us through whatever helpful mouthpiece they find...that we can't have those things, unless we let them do what they want as well.  That's not how any of that works.  OFC, being the supposed master race and all...I guess we can fight it out, see how Yall Qaeda fares against the brutal anti-terrorist machine of western states?

This ^^^

---

Quote:The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

By default, the proud boys are by the nature of their white nationalist/white supremacist idealogy all the above. BLM is not nor is Antifa even if a few morons have committed arson as shown above .

(February 6, 2021 at 1:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: My understanding is that it’s virtually impossible for the US to label any domestic group as a terrorist organization (groups can be classed as a ‘terrorist threat’, which is not the same thing).

The reason is that freedom of assembly makes it unlawful to legislate that belonging to a particular group - in and of itself - is a crime.

Boru

Bummer. Letting people freely assemble is really terrible. Next we need to designate any Christian who is against abortion as a terrorist. They deserve it. If they had a magic wand, women would lose all of their rights. Probably even the right to vote or even leave the kitchen. Sounds a lot worse than even racism to me. Better yet, we better designate all Christians as terrorists because some of them have bombed abortion clinics. Guilt by association. A Christian is a Christian, right? No need to differentiate between the violent ones and the lawful ones.

Quote:By default, the proud boys are by the nature of their white nationalist/white supremacist idealogy all the above. BLM is not nor is Antifa even if a few morons have committed arson as shown above .

Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something. They have no demands. They have no political goals. It's a coincidence that the mayor lives in the building. They certainly have no political aims and are just setting fires to try to kill a bunch of people because that's what gets their rocks off.

(February 6, 2021 at 10:13 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something.

It was done by the white supremacists who went to the protests to make damage.