Porteroso said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Wangchung said:
Sam Lowry said:
contrario said:
Porteroso said:
Hopefully they are all arrested. Generally the police try for de-escalation in these cases, and try to nab them later.
But labeling Americans as terrorists is not likely, to answer your question. They're just organized hoodlums.
There has never been an issue with (rightfully) calling right wing extremists, domestic terrorists. I'm not sure why anyone would try to downplay this as just "hoodlums".
No issue? Around here you can't even call them insurrectionists, much less domestic terrorists.
They have to actually be those things is the only point of contention your labels have run up against.
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological goals, primarily to instill fear and influence policy makers."
Pretty good dictionary definition...all it needs is a picture of J6.
Who were the non-combatants? I say that as the cops there were ultra-violent, even killing people
The cops were quite restrained, but never mind that. Congress, i.e. the policy makers, were non-combatants.
How many of the policymakers saw action? Meanwhile the cops were mowing down an unarmed Ashli Babbitt
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence."
An unarmed women crawling through a window and they shot her. You cannot justify that with words Sam
Kyle Rittenhouse, George Zimmerman, and Darren Wilson all shot unarmed assailants, and all were likely justified in doing so. You understand this as well as I do.
What do they have to do with a conversation about an unarmed woman being butchered by the police on Jan 6th? The Capital Police had no justification
Being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean you're not a threat.
But it does mean that you don't have a weapon and Ashli Babbitt was not threatening anyone. Again, not a hill to die on
It was obviously justified. Consider HB's scenario above. Any woman with a backpack and a hijab would have been shot in that situation, even without a mob behind her, and no one here would question it for a minute.
Not true whatsoever. Look at these mobs on college campus, the rioting and destruction going on. Black Lives Matter murder, and mayhem. They get off with barely a slap on the wrist strictly because its a left wing thing. The only people who get murdered are the conservatives like Ashli Babbitt.
Sam, you are saying it's okay to have an open season on Conservatives. Boo!!
Are you comparing campus cops dealing with unruly college kids doing their first big protest to J6? Why are your comparisons just ludicrous?
Like a lot of your posts, your response was extremely illustrative in ways you will never realize.
Notice you were not focused on the action but the actors. This is a big disconnect between regressives and normies when it comes to these issues. For regressives, how we evaulate an action depends on who was doing the action - how many intersectional qualities did they have versus the other party. For normies, it was the action itself. In the January 6 case, we all know that if it has been trans BIPOC regressives "attacking" the Capitol in the exact same fashion, they would have been "fighting for democracy."
Like all of these issues, it was the regressives that defined the rules: a cop killing an "unarmed" person was cause for burning, looting, and murdering. Those that defend Ashli Babbit simply are appying the same standards created by the radical left in the cases of Michael Brown, Breona Taylor, Jacob Blake, etc.
As I stated previously, you will read no defense of Babbitt from me because I am consistent; however, I find the usual double standards of regressives annoying and divisive.
