The Violent Anti Trump "Protesters" Are Terrorists At Best...Hate Criminals In The Least

What is the definition of "Terrorism"?

Defined from the FBI's own website. LINK TO FBI

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

I have bolded the relevant laws. The laws apply both Internationally and Domestically.

Many of these protesters, if not most, are causing harm to civilians or INTIMIDATING them, attacking police officers, attacking police animals such as horses, blocking traffic, vandalizing, and damaging property, not limited to starting fires, and threatening harm

A video of a FEW of the relevant acts...



Eggs don't end up at "protests" out of the blue. These attacks are premeditated....to

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

And such events are done while many of the offenders are waving a foreign flag, and telling their victims that this nation will be replaced by "Mexico"

If you have family members, friends, acquaintances...that condone this or promote this, they promote Terror, as this is a way to intimidate for political beliefs and to 'sway' or coerce citizens.

In the least these are 'Hate Crimes". And they are not being charged as such. Obama 'condemns' them, along with Hillary. But these people deserve FEDERAL charges and FEDERAL punishment.

There is a proper response to Terror. Lawfully and Physically. If we allow this to continue, we have ALL lost, no matter what Party or side you belong to. It's unacceptable. Whether you are the most Right leaning or Left leaning person, this cannot stand.


That's all

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Yet no one trying to stop them from hurting Trump supporters. That is because by design they want to intimidate Trump followers but what they are really doing is forcing the4m to vote in mass for him.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No, theyre not "terrorists".

The "t" word is thrown around way too much.

Pretty sure Reid referred to the Bundy's as "terrorists".

The ones who committed acts of violence are criminals presumably guilty of assault and or battery.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No, theyre not "terrorists".

The "t" word is thrown around way too much.

Pretty sure Reid referred to the Bundy's as "terrorists".

The ones who committed acts of violence are criminals presumably guilty of assault and or battery.

According to the FBI, you're in error.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

There have been no kidnappings or assassinations during any of the protests so these set of laws does not apply. No terroist cells have been involved in any of the incidents.

originally posted by: Tindalos2013
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

There have been no kidnappings or assassinations during any of the protests so these set of laws does not apply. No terroist cells have been involved in any of the incidents.

I mistakenly highlighted the kidnapped clause. I fixed it. The remaining part is the relevant clause.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No, theyre not "terrorists".

The "t" word is thrown around way too much.

The ones who committed acts of violence are criminals presumably guilty of assault and or battery.

I agree.

These violent protestors' actions are disgusting but when our very government has a history of disappearing people, indefinitely detaining people, "enhancedly interrogating" people" all deemed to be terrorists and under the guise of fighting terrorism, we must tread lightly.

IMO we should not throw this term around lightly at any of our fellow humans, countrymen or not. Reid calling people at the Bundy standoff "domestic terrorists" is another example of this where the label is unwarranted and can carry with it massive consequences.

While yes, many things may fall under the technical definition of terrorism as defined by our LE and "National Security" Agencies, we must be careful who we label ad such while the label carries with it the weight it does, lest we be deemed terrorists for being dissenting voices against the government (as groups like the SPLC promote and would gladly have it).

I get peoples' frustration with these criminals, I really do. I just worry aboutique any of us branding any of the rest of us terrorists, despite what some agencies may reccomend.

Just my two cents, I believe OP and most of us are probably in general agreement about the nature of the actions of the violent protestors.

a reply to: atomish


Then like my title says...in the LEAST they should be charged as hate crimes.

As they are attacking a CLASS of people for their beliefs, their legal and rightful affiliations, premeditated.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Also predominantly a race of people. At the heart of all of this is anti-white sentiment.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: atomish


Then like my title says...in the LEAST they should be charged as hate crimes.

As they are attacking a CLASS of people for their beliefs, their legal and rightful affiliations, premeditated.

Yes, while I have my own issues with the idea of "hate crimes" in general (seems redundant, usually), this could probably be argued.

I am certainly seeing a pretty obvious element of premeditation in a lot of these videos. As you pointed out, eggs are an obvious giveaway of at least SOME level of it.

While I have issue with the idea of "hate crimes", I am not well versed in them in terms of what qualifies and what the charges therein entail so I can't really comment too much but I will definitely read up some and contribute to that side of the discussion if I am able.

This behavior is disgusting!

I know many people who are fed up with being told they can't hang the American flag off their house, while their neighbors who run drugs, collect welfare-or get ssi disability for some made up drug induced anxiety disorder, drive brand new cars, bully everyone in their neighborhoods.

Weren't even born in this country, and drive around with their countries flags in their cars.

Did I mention the majority that I have run into don't work.

American people are sick of it!

For the low/life's that are doing this:


Thank you for showing how much this country needs Donald Trump!

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Also predominantly a race of people. At the heart of all of this is anti-white sentiment.

Can't really prove that if it were so, plus I disagree. Most of the victims have been White, but the aim seems to intimidate/coerce/attacks Trump supporters. That part is provable, and should be enough for legal consideration.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I wouldn't go as far as calling them terrorists, they are just a bunch of brainwashed liberals who are controlled by society and cannot think outside of group, which is what makes them hate Donald Trump and his supporters.

They are not used to having someone who speaks his mind without any hesitation and is unapologetic.

a reply to: KTemplar

I'm not sure Trump is the answer anymore. I am removing myself from touting him or supporting him in general. I do know however that Hillary and Bernie will bring MORE of this.

But I agree with the rest of your statement.

Hate crimes, are you kidding me? Trump supporters are not a protected class.

Trump has said things like "I wish it were the old days (about people just with signs, yelling) where you could just punch them in the head."

He is the only candidate that has incited violence, had protesters removed from forums with violence. He is the element that has incited violence.
he says hateful,racist and bigoted things. Then people wonder why protesters get out of hand.

Inciting violence is a crime as much as being violent.

They definitely commited crimes when they attacked people, but hardly terrorist. And the hate crime would be hard to prove but I guess you might be able. It is really sad how much violence we have Sen in this race.

Exactly.........if you don't like a candidate then vote for someone else, that's how we do it. Except most of the "violent rioters" cant vote because they aren't citizens. Only 3rd world basic mentality throws eggs at people, oh and there is always that really fat white girl that screams the loudest and having a melt down.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
They definitely commited crimes when they attacked people, but hardly terrorist. And the hate crime would be hard to prove but I guess you might be able. It is really sad how much violence we have Sen in this race.

According to FBI, the "hardly" part tends to disagree with their guidelines.

originally posted by: MEDIKATED
Exactly.........if you don't like a candidate then vote for someone else, that's how we do it. Except most of the "violent rioters" cant vote because they aren't citizens. Only 3rd world basic mentality throws eggs at people, oh and there is always that really fat white girl that screams the loudest and having a melt down.

How do you know the protesters are not citizens. Prove it.

a reply to: reldra

Meh even it he did incite it, the protesters were the ones that carried it out. I really hate seeing it, doesn't do much but get moderate people to see it and push them away.