All kicking off in America

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by clf

Do you remember the protesters blowing up the Grand Hotel in Brighton?

Genuine protesting involves no damage to property, nor mental or physical injury.

If you instill fear for personal safety then you are terrorising that person.

If you were present, would you imagine yourself to be fearful of the events occurring around you or not? I know I would!

Are you saying that if members of the PIRA stormed Downing Street or The House of Commons, gaining entry, disrupted the installation of a new Prime Minister, all whilst destroying documents, and other property, you would call them protesters or terrorists?

No offence meant, you have picked a subject I would like to stay out of, sorry.

macafee2

[clf]

Originally Posted by macafee2

No offence meant, you have picked a subject I would like to stay out of, sorry.

macafee2

you cannot avoid it, it is not about the group, but about the actions of those groups (I added one for balance whilst you posted your reply. You are demanding responses, and shying away, yet the parallels are valid.

Terrorism is terrorism, the acts carried out are irrelevant.

You claim you will recall these protesters at Capitol Hill in possibly a different light as you do now. I cannot see into the future, and doubt we will come back to this in 10, 15 or 36 years to find out. So a good case in point would be Brighton 1984.

I should have said, dont worry about offending me, dont take this the wrong way, but you (and not many are) are not important enough to be able to offend me lol.

[clf]

The actions behind their principles are what makes them a terrorist. Masquerading as freedom fighters etc is an attempt at justifying their methods, and can only really be considered after the fact, against the background and actions of the controlling powers - eg French Resistance or even Britain in Ireland from 1880s to 1920! (incidentally, I have no feeling United Ireland or British control beyond how it would affect me financially!)

Consider of Ian Paisley in the 60 and 70's with the UPA (and the subsequent vigilante and terror groups he fronted). Or Gerry Adams and more relevant Martin Maguinness in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Both ultimately came to power in some form, via violence, and both sides considered terrorists and protesters at the same time (but both used terror tactics to achieve a goal).

But my comparisons of NI troubles were not to debate these, but to show the potential hypocrisy of term terrorist or protester. What difference between those storming Capitol Hill, to Michael Stone storming Stormont Castle (as a protest via performance art, with a couple of handguns and a demand to access the Sinn Fein leadership lol)

Just because a leader calls/suggests for it does not legitimise or excuse it. Those that partake have free will (certainly in the US) and could simply have marched with peaceful results. To suggest otherwise would suggest the Pan-Am bombing over Lockerbie was a protest rather than an act of terrorism on the behest of Ghadaffi.

I totally agree with you that it does come down to interpretation, but back to the US, for a country of the free, and proud of their so called free democracy, it is hypocritical to show displeasure at and then to try to overturn a validated election, by violent means and claim it to be a protest.

[clf]

Technically the same could be said of the followers of Ian Paisley when he supported various, let's call them 'action groups' for now lol. Although whilst he was an elected official (I think an MEP at the time), he wasnt a leader of a country at the time, but they did act against their own country (and even 'invaded' another with arms lol).

Again technically the same could be argued for some of the PIRA as citizens of the GB (whether they agreed or not) following various elected but abstaining MPs.

But again it boils down to semantics and ultimately the old adage, history is written by the victor. Most of what I say regarding NI comparison is largely tongue in cheek, merely to demonstrate a point that would perhaps be more familiar to us in the UK.

I still hold the parallels as valid when referring to the US situation as terrorism. How would it be described if a group of Islamic fundamentalists did the same, or even a group of Native Americans? Surely it is our perception that defines the enormity of it?

[planenut]

..............8...............7..........

[Lancpudn]

One chap went ready to take hostages armed with some of those zip tie handcuffs the police use

[clf]

We perceived the various Arab uprisings, and in fact most of the modern populous uprisings as legitimate, because those govts were perceived by us as oppressive (and some of those uprisings were encouraged and financed by us or or allies). Go back a little further (pre media, of almost any type), was the Gunpowder Plot a populous uprising or a terrorist attack? Or perhaps Cromwell? (is Trump a modern day Cromwell ? )

In 'our' view, a democratic society is the best, and anything other is or must be suppressed. Those govts tread fine lines on a world scale if they do not toe the line as long as they allow access to resources or do not show a potential for growth of a threatening ideology - previously communism (60s Cuba, 80s Afghanistan?) more recently (and perhaps ignorantly) Islam, particularly due to Sharia, again Afghanistan and parts of Syria). To 'us' overthrowing these govts by its people is ok, as 'they' stand against our principles and it remains ok as long as they become allies to 'us' (which is driven by the media). It goes the 'other way' too, Iran (70s) but then that is how Saddam Hussein became a convenient ally (!!).

I am trying to avoid diverging to foreign countries or administrations, but I use them purely to question the perception side of the argument.

I think in a democratic society, to try to overthrow or intimidate, by force those in elected power by the populous, can only be described, because of the principles behind it, as an act of terrorism.

Overthrowing a totalitarian govt. (or any form of non democratic govt.) by its people is an uprising, as it does not go against the principles of democracy - but this too is a fine line and I feel it could become hypocritical, but to satisfy argument, with the intention of installing a democratic process.

Overthrowing a govt. (elected or otherwise) by another power, is an act of war.

[clf]

this made me chuckle this morning

[andymc]

I saw a claim yesterday that this particular girl probably wasn't quite so visibly upset as she let on. It was pointed out that in the towel she was holding to wipe her eyes, she was holding half an onion, which she was purportedly using to create a false impression of having been maced. On second viewing, there certainly does appear to be a white, circular, onion-sized object held in the towel, but I can't make out for definite what it is.

I suppose it's plausible - there's clear video evidence showing police officers actually helping the crowds enter the building, as opposed to holding them back, and multiple claims of known police officers out of uniform actually being part of the mob. So rather than a display of naiveté, the claim of having been maced could be a cynical lie intended to convey the impression that they were resisted, as opposed to aided and abetted.

In other news, some of the other thugs in the mob were wearing t-shirts with the slogan "6MWE", which stands for "6 Million Wasn't Enough". This is a reference to the Holocaust. Patriots and very fine people, indeed.

[Lancpudn]

Well, well, well. If it isn’t the consequences of my actions.!!! The Trump supporters that broke into the Capitol who have been identified are now finding out they're on the 'No fly list' at airports & labelled as domestic terrorist as they try to get back home.
One hilarious scene at one airport as this thug is screaming they're destroying my life & labelling me a terrorist as he's refused entry. NSFW on TikTok & Twitter.