#OccupyICE

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[brewer]

I always protest while wielding a banana.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

[A Theist]

Min made a thread about this, praising the protestors. Now I like most protests, but it just started reminds me how hypocritical people are when it comes to politics.

When those little hillbillies in Oregon occupied a federal building in the middle of nowhere they were terrorists and these guys do it in the middle of a large metropolitan city and they are hero's. No moral consistency from the atheist forums ideologes, as usual.

Yeah....they were armed terrorists not unarmed protesters. I guess you have trouble seeing the difference?

Until those so-called "unarmed protesters", (terrorists), start breaking out the clubs, and begin throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, and destroy public and private property.

[Amarok]

One group was a heavily armed group that seized Federal land under a bullshit pretense the other was not .

Once again Cap draws false equivalencies

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah....they were armed terrorists not unarmed protesters.  I guess you have trouble seeing the difference?

Until those so-called "unarmed protesters", (terrorists),  start breaking out the clubs, and begin throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, and destroy public and private property.

Hmm the difference is guns. If they had a pipe bomb or something of that magnitude then it would be more serious but clubs and throwing rocks is just Friday night down town. 


But they aren't breaking out the clubs and Molotov cocktails are they. So you are just typing things for apparently no reason.

[Amarok]

Until those so-called "unarmed protesters", (terrorists),  start breaking out the clubs, and begin throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, and destroy public and private property.

Yeah to counter right wing fanatics wielding concealed weapons like they did at Berkeley in defense of  of an evil motherfucker like Milo

[Minimalist]

Yeah....they were armed terrorists not unarmed protesters.  I guess you have trouble seeing the difference?

Until those so-called "unarmed protesters", (terrorists),  start breaking out the clubs, and begin throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, and destroy public and private property.

Not everyone is a nazi pig like you, Adolf.

[Amarok]

Milo singing his heart out to a bunch of Neo Nazi thugs . But Antifa uses weapons on proud boys (the ones who invented Milo to Berkeley)

 
These fuckers

[A Theist]

Until those so-called "unarmed protesters", (terrorists),  start breaking out the clubs, and begin throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, and destroy public and private property.

Not everyone is a nazi pig like you, Adolf.

I was never part of the Nazis. However, not everyone is a Stalinist pig like you, Josef.