#BlackLivesMatter Sets Up "Decoy" Protest in Attempt to Shut Down Airport

a reply to: openminded2011

Excuse me, White power base in America? We have a BLACK president, Black supreme court justices,black attorney general,and a black US ambassador to the United Nations.

They don't run anything. They do what they are told. The power base I refer to is the money one. Banks, corporations, industry, etc. The wealth in this country is white.

For being so scornful of black people we certainly don't mind being governed by them or voting for them.

They are selected, not elected. They reside, preside, announce decisions already made.

Its kind of incongruous when we see such a level of moral outrage over a white cop shooting a black man, but none when black men kill each other by the hundreds every year.

Cops have killed over a thousand this year so far, mostly black. "A" white cop shooting "a" black man, are you for real?

Poor people fill the jails and the morgue, most of them black, too. Way out of proportion to population.

Thanks for the official line, you are either blinded by the media light or a proponent of it. Got all three of those wrong.

Last response

a reply to: intrptr

I suppose they could move to any one of many countries in Africa where the power base in most definitely black and whites are regularly abused. This ought to satisfy their fantasies.

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for the response. Still, you didnt answer my one question.

a reply to: intrptr

Your wrong police have killed more whiptes then blacks. By saying they were mostly black your misleading the facts. What is true is they are higher then there percentage of the population. Though even showing that is difficult tried to look into it and no one keeps track of it. Most has to be assumed by news artucles.

But then I asked myself who comits more homicides and I was surprised that white males rank below black males according to DOJ. So eeven though blacks are a minority they have a higher homicide rate. Then you have to ask why or at least I do. And unfortunately I couldn't find a cause. I suspect it's drug violence such as gangs. But I'm sure if the police our going after murderers more then likely its not going to end well.

I also looked into police forces that have been accused of racism. Chicago los Angeles washington DC and Baltimore and New York. In most of these blacks make up the majority of the police force New York was 46 PERCENT. So if these cities police are racist against blacks that would be extremely hard to explain.

My view is simple police focush on high crime areas. This means inner cities get included. With a larger police presence these people will begin to feel like they are harrassed by police. Its inevitable sinxe they will run across the police far more often then people living in a suburban neighborhood. Now as I thought about it you could argue racism is involved in one reapecbt but again can't find anything to prove it. If police patrol high crime areas can the fact that they choose them increase the number of crimes through arrests. For example in suburbs I'm sure there are just as many drug users. But police are far less likely to catch them they aren't around. So the police can also create high crime areas juat by patroling.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.

So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?

Yes it is the piston tea party however was a strike against the east India trading it was there tea and they considered them a foriegn enemy. It was not domestic terrorism at all. They didn't attack colonials. They needed to garner their support a lesson BLM needs to learn don't piss off the locals.

Regardless, it helps to create some context. If the argument is that all politically motivated property damage is "terrorism", it's good to look at other examples in history for comparison. I'm rather sure that most people read "terrorism" quite differently, so clarity is needed.

For what it's worth, I believe the Black Lives Matter movement needs to moderate their language and approach if they want to be effective. I think that they have a cause worth fighting for, but I don't think chants at marches along the lines of "pigs in a blanket, watch 'em fry" are helpful in any way. I do not agree that they are terrorists advocating for violence, but I have no doubt some people who flock to the rallying cry of BLM are very angry and say some very angry things. They would do well to more effectively distance themselves from those things. But direct action protest (such as that protest for which this thread is titled) which inconveniences people is not terrorism.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.

So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?

Yes it is the piston tea party however was a strike against the east India trading it was there tea and they considered them a foriegn enemy. It was not domestic terrorism at all. They didn't attack colonials. They needed to garner their support a lesson BLM needs to learn don't piss off the locals.

Regardless, it helps to create some context. If the argument is that all politically motivated property damage is "terrorism", it's good to look at other examples in history for comparison. I'm rather sure that most people read "terrorism" quite differently, so clarity is needed.

This is exactly the problem. The actions of an individual can be considered terrorism, while the same identical actions committed by another won't depending on circumstance.

If we are to define something it has to be applied equally despite our personal belief.

Like I said, the founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the Brits, but not in the eyes of Americans.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme

No, Actually all that you seen were reports that 3 masked men fired into a crowd of BLM protesters, which somehow they knew they were white.

You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.

So it sounds more like a false flag event, or maybe one of the BLM protesters was a gang member.

I mean if we are going to just make reckless assumptions with no evidence to back them up. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme

No, Actually all that you seen were reports that 3 masked men fired into a crowd of BLM protesters, which somehow they knew they were white.

You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.

Which is what I mean when I say "I saw how".

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme


You also convenientlyy left out the fact that there were no arrests, no suspects and no proof.

Actually there were arrests, because the racist idiots were dumb enough to make a video of them with their masks while waving their guns around- looking like ISIS terrorists. This video was made on the way to the shootings.


www.youtube.com...

Four Men Held In Connection With Shooting Of Minneapolis Protesters
www.huffingtonpost.com...

- www.huffingtonpost.com...

Man Charged In Shooting Of Black Lives Matter Protesters
- www.huffingtonpost.com...


Prosecutors charge 4 in shooting of Minneapolis protesters
bigstory.ap.org...

But hey, if you want to make things up to justify your points, what ever. There really is a conspiracy against blacks, and the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about while being so emotionally caught up says alot about the current state of society.

[SNIP]

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

What did you say again?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme
I mean if we are going to just make reckless assumptions with no evidence to back them up. ~$heopleNation

Oh.

I'll await your reply, Sheeple...

a reply to: dragonridr

What is true is they are higher then there percentage of the population.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Though even showing that is difficult tried to look into it and no one keeps track of it.

Ask BLM. They know who's getting harassed, arrested and killed by cops.

Then you have to ask why or at least I do. And unfortunately I couldn't find a cause. I suspect it's drug violence such as gangs.

There it is, everyones a suspect… thats the 'whole' problem. Driving while black, walking while black.

For example in suburbs I'm sure there are just as many drug users.

Rich people can afford to have their drugs delivered and do them indoors, poor people buy on the corner and do it in the alley. Thats what they get caught more and why theres more violence when arrests are made.

And why cops patrol more, its more visible.

a reply to: theySeeme

Nice post.

Deafening applause…

their defense is we dinna see it on tv, so it dinna happen.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrptr

I suppose they could move to any one of many countries in Africa where the power base in most definitely black and whites are regularly abused. This ought to satisfy their fantasies.

And the power base in chinese is most definitely chinese, what's your point?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.

So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?

Yes it is the piston tea party however was a strike against the east India trading it was there tea and they considered them a foriegn enemy. It was not domestic terrorism at all. They didn't attack colonials. They needed to garner their support a lesson BLM needs to learn don't piss off the locals.

Regardless, it helps to create some context. If the argument is that all politically motivated property damage is "terrorism", it's good to look at other examples in history for comparison. I'm rather sure that most people read "terrorism" quite differently, so clarity is needed.

This is exactly the problem. The actions of an individual can be considered terrorism, while the same identical actions committed by another won't depending on circumstance.

If we are to define something it has to be applied equally despite our personal belief.

Like I said, the founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the Brits, but not in the eyes of Americans.

So this has sort of come 'round: first, that the definition of terrorism being used here is almost useless (I hope we can all agree that when spray painting a political slogan is called 'terrorism' instead of 'vandalism' because you have damaged property, we've gone way too far). Second: I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate BLM as a movement endorsing property damage. I think to call BLM a terrorist organization even by this rather measly definition, we'd need evidence of them endorsing it. By they, I mean leaders and organizers - not random angry people on Youtube.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Would it be better if I labeled it as "domestic terrorism"?

A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks.

So the Boston Tea Party was most certainly one of the earliest acts of Domestic Terrorism. The Sons of Liberty organized an effort to destroy property to make a political point. Yes? I'm not sure we want every instance of property damage that occurs in a political context to be considered terrorism. Are you?

Yes it is the piston tea party however was a strike against the east India trading it was there tea and they considered them a foriegn enemy. It was not domestic terrorism at all. They didn't attack colonials. They needed to garner their support a lesson BLM needs to learn don't piss off the locals.

Regardless, it helps to create some context. If the argument is that all politically motivated property damage is "terrorism", it's good to look at other examples in history for comparison. I'm rather sure that most people read "terrorism" quite differently, so clarity is needed.

This is exactly the problem. The actions of an individual can be considered terrorism, while the same identical actions committed by another won't depending on circumstance.

If we are to define something it has to be applied equally despite our personal belief.

Like I said, the founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the Brits, but not in the eyes of Americans.

So this has sort of come 'round: first, that the definition of terrorism being used here is almost useless (I hope we can all agree that when spray painting a political slogan is called 'terrorism' instead of 'vandalism' because you have damaged property, we've gone way too far). Second: I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate BLM as a movement endorsing property damage. I think to call BLM a terrorist organization even by this rather measly definition, we'd need evidence of them endorsing it. By they, I mean leaders and organizers - not random angry people on Youtube.

Completely agree. The fact that people exaggerate these ideologies and start believing them is equally as troubling. Since when did exaggerations and sarcasm become factual basis to build a foundation of opinion on top of? Never, yet low and behold - look around..

a reply to: theySeeme

I must have missed their arrest. Well that is good if they are guilty.

As usual though, you don't concern yourself with all the black on black crime, which is the real epidemic effecting black lives, which should matter the most.

Unfortunately endless blabbering here, and irrational behavior from BLM, will not solve any of these problems. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme

I must have missed their arrest. Well that is good if they are guilty.

As usual though, you don't concern yourself with all the black on black crime, which is the real epidemic effecting black lives, which should matter the most.

Unfortunately endless blabbering here, and irrational behavior from BLM, will not solve any of these problems. ~$heopleNation

Not only did you miss their arrests and confessions, you accused me of fabricating the story while you were doing exactly that. Your name is very fitting in this particular circumstance.

Secondly, you say I don't concern myself with all the black on black crime - as if that's what this topic is about. How do you know I don't concern myself with it? Or are you making assumptions and fabricating your post as you go along (again)?

Typical deflective behavior because the truth stings a bit too much.

a reply to: theySeeme

Focus on the topic, not my name. You seem to have trouble comprehending the rules here on ATS. I have noticed its a pattern with you.

And black on black crime has everything to do with this topic, because it's concerning black lives that matter, get it yet? I doubt it. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: theySeeme

Focus on the topic, not my name. You seem to have trouble comprehending the rules here on ATS. I have noticed its a pattern with you.

And black on black crime has everything to do with this topic, because it's concerning black lives that matter, get it yet? I doubt it. ~$heopleNatiom

Could care less about "rules" when you are blatantly trying to spread disinformation, even going as far as to accuse me of fabricating FACTS, while once again that is exactly what you were doing. You should be ashamed.

a reply to: reldra

Did you even read the article? They were blocking the road to the airport and causing delays. Their tweets showed it was intentional. If the Tea Party did that what would happen? Would Nancy Pelosi declare them Brooks Brothers terrorist?

a reply to: theySeeme

Supporting a bunch of irrational lunatics is not very wise. Screaming and yelling in everyones face is not going to get you any sympathy.

Just like attempting mass murder by running over innocent people on the Vegas strip because you had a bad day won't either.

Oh......and you really should care about the rules here. Coming unhinged is no pass for breaking them. Happy Saturday! ~$heopleNation

a reply to: ghostrager

Because only their rights matter! Your rights to travel dont!


aparently.



btw dont they need persmission or a license to hold demonstrations?

originally posted by: everyone
btw dont they need persmission or a license to hold demonstrations?

Typically you do not since the right to freely assemble and protest is guaranteed in the Constitution.