Yup. This is For Certain.

[Excited Penguin]

You realize that force doesn't require violence, only the threat of it, right?

I think you need to understand the terms being used here. If I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, that is taking your wallet by force. Simply because I didn't shoot you doesn't mean force wasn't involved.

As for "terrorized", I didn't say anyone was.  What I said was that this is a textbook case of terrorism, which it is.


Yes.  Here's that first paragraph:


That isn't a comparison.  That is pointing out the assumptions most  Americans hold. I've emphasized where that point is made.


You'll need to change your name to Captain Dumbass if that's the takeaway you got from my post.  Really, I had thought you were smarter than this.

Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?

I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.

I think there's simply a misunderstanding of a linguistic nature, here. But you tend to overexagerrate some statements. Like is they were left wings, liberals wouldn't have a problem with them. That's ridiculous, to say the least. First of all, we can't even imagine leftists doing something like this, no matter how regressive they may be. Second of all, if they did, I think it's pretty safe to say everyone would assume they lost their minds.