The Right to violence: In response to George Floyd murder

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

The Right to violence: In response to George Floyd murder

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

As expected, the response to the protest has become political. Everyone agrees that the death of George Floyd was 'murder' and nothing less. Now we have protests, both peaceful and violent. There has been some clear differences between how Republicans and Democrats are responding.

Some liberal officials/news media/ and ordinary citizens are claiming that the people are angry and that explains and perhaps even justifies the violence. This goes with their response to go easy on enforcing the law during protest. Police in Santa Monica were seen standing around watching looters break into stores. Police in Minnesota stood around as looters burnt down a police station. This happened all under liberal controlled counties/cities.

Then on the Republican side you have a call for overwhelming security presence to crackdown on violent protests. This shows that Republicans do not see any justification for violent protest.

So the debate question:
1. Is violence ever justified (e.g. as part of protest)??
2. Who gets to decide which crime is allowed? If we allow "looting", then why not rape, murder, arson, etc? Can we trust that those with violence on their minds can make a sensible judgement on this?

koko

Re: The Right to violence: In response to George Floyd murder

Post #41

Post by koko »

Elijah John wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:35 am

Koko, who attacked Michelle Malkin when she attempted to speak at a pro-police rally in Denver?
Also, I see a lot of black faces and shirtless black young men doing the looting, are they white supremacists too?
Is the thug Marquis Love a white supremacist? When he was arrested for taking a running start and delivering a roundhouse kick to the head of an innocent white man, Marquis attempted to justify himself by telling authorities that he was "attacking a racist".
If you think someone is a racist, (or even if they actually are) does that justify attempting to murder them? What gives them the right??
And what if you are wrong about them being a racist?





check these violent white supremacists:

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+s ... e&ie=UTF-8


And remember who burned down the Murrah building.



Also check these - police corruption by planting evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... t+evidence




outstanding book on police corruption which causes so much trouble in society:







You simply must understand that we would not be having the urban violence you keep harping about if there had not been the causes you choose to ignore. Stop the police violence, corruption, planting of evidence, selective enforcement of the law, shootings, kneeing people on the neck, attack after attack, social injustice after social injustice, etc. Once these things are stopped then there will be no rioting and other troubles. All you do is to criticize the consequences, the symptoms of the problems. Now focus on the actual cause. Confronting and solving them is what will stop the problems once and for all.

koko

Re: right wing violence

Post #42

Post by koko »

more right wingers found in violence:

https://patch.com/minnesota/southwestmi ... -what-know


Image




then, there's this:


DHS to label white supremacists as the 'most persistent and lethal threat' to the US: report
Source: The Hill


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is set to label white supremacists as the most serious terror threat facing the United States.

In three draft reports reviewed by Politico, DHS says the threat posed by white supremacists is more significant than the immediate danger from foreign terrorists.

“Foreign terrorist organizations will continue to call for Homeland attacks but probably will remain constrained in their ability to direct such plots over the next year,” all three documents say.


Russia “probably will be the primary covert foreign influence actor and purveyor of disinformation and misinformation in the Homeland,” the documents add.


https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... and-lethal

Post Reply