RE: #OccupyICE
July 3, 2018 at 2:59 pm
(This post was last modified: July 3, 2018 at 3:00 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(July 3, 2018 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(July 3, 2018 at 2:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: 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.
I am frightened by a world where that's a good reason to go in and kill protestors.
BTW, how many of the Portland protestors need to be armed for it to become an armed protest? Say there were a hundred people there and 10 had legal concealed hand guns. Is that a good reason for the government to forcibly remove them and call them terrorists?
I'm just curious to figure out the rationale if it's not strictly a political one (of course it is, but you don't want to say it)
Personally I'm in favor of almost any demostration, most protests and many riots. I like the chaos. The US needs less law and order, not more.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)