Yeah because pro Trump groups definitely weren’t talking about it online for months. 
Seriously, I want whatever you guys are having, sounds potent.
What people don’t realize is that you have a lot of moral nihilist bad actors on the world stage. Not all moral nihilists are bad actors. The moral nihilist bad actor club is a real thing… they want absolute control and use power, secrecy and false flags to get the job done. Trump is one of those people BTW.
It’s ridiculous that people think the narrative of trump vs. swamp is a real thing …
It’s fucking show folks.
I even know psychologically why people do this…
They want order to the chaos, chaos is scary. It even scares me. I just have a different approach to it rather than creating propaganda to make a robot human species.
Is it fair to say that BLM and Antifa
are terrorist organizations
that conspire to destroy public and private property
and kill cops?
i wouldn’t think so
i think they are a movement
speaking for what they believe
speaking their truth to power
as is their right to do
in a free fucking society
when a protest gets out of hand
and shit gets broken and people hurt
there has to be accountability for that
even more so
if it becomes proven
that people among them conspired ahead of time
by talking about committing those actions
by preparing explosive and inflammatory materials
and bringing them along to the protests
those people are subject to the law
but the group MUST NOT BE SILENCED
also appalled at vonrivers
for taking the defense side
of this kind of precedent
a federal decision
on what subjects get to be spoken about
Let’s delve deeper into this:
So that CIA (by the way, I think there are much more secret cabals than the CIA pulling these strings, but let’s just assume it’s the CIA for arguments sake)
Anyways… the CIA created 3 movements (the swamp) to cast doubt on trump deniers and effectively divided the country with these false flag movements to make trump look like a victim (trump is a psychopath by the way - that’s how a psychopath works - and by the way, almost every human on earth is a psychopath)
So here’s little ol’ trump being the aggressor posing as the victim.
But here’s the deal…
Is the CIA making it look like trump is the hero or the villain ?
Is storming the capital because of trump or just to make trump look bad?
Nobody knows.
And that’s the beauty of this operation: to confuse and divide.
You know… they say that conspiracy theories are formed by the mind to make people feel comfort that it’s not all just chaos. That’s fine, and also very true. BUT ! People actually do conspire, for the same reason people have conspiracy theories… they’re both terrified of chaos.
You’re a troll.
You “hope” the US designates MILLIONS of Americans as possible TERRORISTS… The hypocrisy and moral grandstanding is nauseating… Imagine trying to claim the moral high ground and be a voice of “reason” while you cheer on the predatory targeting of Americans by corrupt, agenda-driven federal agencies. Talk about a sheep in wolf’s clothing (not that Peter K is a wolf)… Peter K is just another example of a liberal who cloaks his true desire for blood in the white-laced language of pseudo innocence. Of course, I’m sure he is aware of what he is doing… thus my designation of him as a troll.
To be clear, NO ONE can wage a war without being complicit WITH terror (i.e. you can’t wage a war ON terror without being complicit with it yourself… I’m sure the actual phrasing of “the war on terror” is just meant to further confuse and create even more chaos, adding only a further psychological element of terror to the already terrible nature of war). However, since war IS becoming more psychological in nature, I suppose it makes sense that the “war on terror” would finally turn inwards towards the home itself.
Still bait. 
in this thread
grown ass people
in a free country
acting like civil disobedience just got invented
The issue is that people like Peter K want all “civil disobedience” which does not agree with their political views to be designated as “terrorism.” Being designated a terrorist means all your Constitutionally protected rights gets instantly stripped away. Nothing then stands between you and the crushing power of the state. What’s most cringe worthy is how people like Peter K collectively give themselves a pat on the back ( as if they were standing up to the bad guys! ) as they virtue-signal for the consolidation of governmental powers (which will just as likely be used against them). It’s like watching a demented parade of imbeciles honking their horns for peace, love and unity as they march towards totalitarianism… And they find all this “fabulous!” (exclaimed with a gay lisp)
Apparently not if you’re you.
But if an organization is cop-killing, plotting violence and harm to people… then fuck yes that is terrorism.
You don’t have a right to plot murder or harm to people in a free society.
At least not in Canada.
…But you can start the Proud Boys, as a Canadian did. Until you get violent.
Weird… you think it is OK to silence (i.e., jail) the people after their crime, but not silence them while they are planning it? …Isn’t it a crime to plan violence/terror…?
“appalled”, why?
Feel free to respond then:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2801833
Justify your moral outrage.
this is what it comes down to
the utter hypocrisy of the people
who have been all about defending the oppressed
the minorities
people who they feel don’t have a voice
gloating as they witness sections of society being silenced
because they’re on the other side now
which goes to show
that they don’t have any fucking principles at all
no real values to stand behind
all they are
is a mouthpiece for one party or another
just a brainless barely functional mass to maneuver as the party sees fit
yes, it is
i believe i made that very clear
that people caught planning violence should be dealt with
with all rigor of the law
where does that make it ok
to declare an entire organization of people to be terrorists?
apparently there have been 2 individuals charged with conspiracy so far
you’re defending outlawing an organization due to there being 2 alleged criminals in it
by that logic, the entire federal government ought to be outlawed
Canola is a globalist/CCP regime. What do you expect them to do?
All patriots of all nations will soon be declared “terrorists” and their Ministries of Truth will not allow contradiction.
…if the organization is actually terrorist.
I.e., if they plot destruction or advocate mass casualties to achieve their goals.
That was the point of my Walmart analogy… It is not the cashiers offering low prices, it is Walmart.
A ‘terrorist’ designation is not a federal decision on the content of their ideas, only the means of them.
E.g., Hezbollah is not a terrorist org because of its political goals; it’s because they blow themselves up in public.
I suppose the Canadians saw this mob dressed in combat gear storming the capital wearing the same T-shirt logos and said, “fuck those well-prepared and similarly dressed idiots look like beginner terrorists”. Factually you can argue, “noooo, nooooooh, just two of them”. But its not my issue because I’m not debating about a particular group—-only the philosophical issue of free-speech boundaries.
Factually, I think that’s wrong, but it doesn’t matter. If 2 people in a group did terrorism stuff, then I’d consider the whole group terrorists if (1) they were the leadership, or (2) acting on the leadership directive or organizational philosophy. Secondly, the percentage of a membership that actually blows themselves up changes the threat-level of the group, but not the fact that they’re terrorists.
Silencing a group is different than preventing the non-violent expression of an idea.
you know i’ve seen a lot of these violence videos
and what i saw was a protest
marching and waving flags and whatnot
standing across some counter-protest people
and then they go at it
mostly bare knucked dudes
fending off other dudes in black hoodies and batons
so these other dudes
with the batons
are they terrorists too?
cuz it doesn’t look like these proud boys are just going out on their own
and setting cars on fire
and looting stores
(well, safe for the capitol thing of course)
it looks like there are people there to antagonize them
and about your argument
that their organization
they are terrorists
is that so?
because as far as I know there are still investigations ongoing
about the capitol incident
so the courts haven’t even pronounced themselves about those individuals
let alone the organization itself
it is besides the point that they are extremist
that, they are
and repugnant
but as the supreme court of the US has it
even repugnant speech is protected speech
so gawd blesh the USA for that
i’ll remember that next time i think it sucks
at least it’s not canada
so is this organization
in their statute and manifest and whatnot
like al-qaeda and the likes
actual terrorist organizations?
have they officially gone on video to say
they want to kill as many americans as possible like al-qaeda?
have gone on video and beheaded hostages
for lack of that evidence
who gets to make that call?
cuz if this was really about violence
canada should have said something about antifa by now
no?
not that I want them to
i don’t care for governments to be consistently awful
i’d rather they be consistently good
and respect the fundamental right of individuals
to be as repulsive in their speech as they would like to
and the correct response is not to silence them
it is to go to them and tell them that they are repulsive
using your own right to do so in turn
something something hypocrisy
something something antifa
it actually sounds exactly like you are debating a particular group
on the merits of a few individuals
i mean
unless you can produce these walmart memos you speak about
as to me
free speech boundaries is exactly what i am debating
that there shouldn’t be any
ok then dude
glad that you made that clear
i will resoundingly disagree with you on this matter
hope that you never get elected for public office
and leave it at that
right
and how does declaring a group to be terrorist do
in the way of preventing violence?
not a rhetorical question
slapping a hollywood villain label
on a section of the population
who are clearly already pretty pissed off
and feeling disenfranchised
i’m sure that will calm them right down
no way that will further polarize people
right on, canada.
read Bradenburg v. Ohio
What is your point? They should not be antagonized at a protest.
What argument?
Repugnant speech is allowed in Canada. Legally, we are stricter about hate speech that incites violence. But it’s not a legal point, so that’s irrelevant along with any court cases.
Read that sentence again. And btw, I haven’t taken a position on either group. But read that sentence again before you go on about free speech and ideas being crushed by governments, and how Canada sucks.
Well then I’ll look in that other tread and that video, at some point.
I suppose law enforcement would say it’s easier for them to do their job. Less red tape, easier to warrant for infringing legal rights like privacy or trespassing or confiscating property, listening in on surveillance, or things like that. Is it even a designation made by politicans, or by homeland security recommendation?
hold people accountable for what they do
Double
Phoneutria’s thought process is as disjointed as his sentence structure, good luck chasing down that rabbit hole!
and you are nothing but a disingenuous troll
you got an argument to make, you go on and make it
otherwise fuck off