(July 3, 2018 at 2:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(July 3, 2018 at 2:12 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: One was a hostile armed takeover. An act or open aggression, terrorism if you will, which should have been crushed by the armed services.
The other is an unarmed demonstration.
People were involved, people with issues.
But its like saying the american civil war was exactly the same as ghandi starving himself for independence.
Dude, they needed to evacuate people surrounded by police holding riot shields while getting stuff thrown at them. Refused to let people leave, how do you think they enforced that threat? With the specture of violence. Not to mention I was there physically to check it out. There was an antifa presence, which is not usual at all in Portland protests. That's a group that is neither unarmed or peaceful.
Seeing things live and then having atheists forum people lecture you about it is pretty funny actually. It just shows the Rose colored glasses that politics makes. Or the reverse, calling political groups you don't like terrorists and using hyped up language like "a take over a federal facility" even though it was winter and nobody was even there to take it over.
Any objective viewership of the two events would say this is more of a take over of a federal facility. If you (frighteningly) believe use of lethal force is justified in one, someone will use that exact same logic for the other. Including the stupid 'terrorist' label. Which should at a minimum require a death from terrorism.
The non presence of guns is the difference.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
