Biden AG Pick: Antifa Attacks On Federal Courthouses Not Domestic Terrorism Because They Happened At Night

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And don't forget the statement: Merrick Garland: Attacking a government building during the day is terrorism. Attacking the same building at night is just a crime.

He was talking about an mob, not a bomb.

You're either too stupid or just dishonest to bother with

Look what the OP now says,

Biden AG Pick: Antifa Attacks On Federal Courthouses Not Domestic Terrorism Because They Happened At Night

Antifa is a mob.

Now say you're sorry.

I'm sorry that you're so stupid.

Happy?

 

[FA_Q2]

They have a plausible defense that their actions were a redress of grievances.

No, they do not.

Burning down a building is not a redress of grievances. Violence is not a lawful reaction.

Potato potata

Holy shit, it not potato potata. It is the very definition of the words.

This is what you resort to when you have no argument.

 

[TNHarley]

Especially does not mean exclusively.


FAIL

I would say that 99% of federal buildings, with the exception of police, fire, military and FAA, are empty at night.

Where nearly 100% of federal buildings are occupied during the daytime.

Terrorism isn't doing damage to empty buildings, it's doing harm or potential harm to people.

Dude, they tried to burn down the building and lock the workers inside. Fucking DERP

 

[postman]

Care to try that one again? Terrorism is not intent to intimidate. It is intimidating with the intent to effect political change.

Voting is with intent to effect political change.

While you don't need to prove trying to harm innocent people in order to produce such change is terrorism. You do need to prove it by proving the intent involved in damaging a building.

You need specific intent to differentiate vandalism from terrorism.

 

[FA_Q2]

Care to try that one again? Terrorism is not intent to intimidate. It is intimidating with the intent to effect political change.

Voting is with intent to effect political change.

While you don't need to prove trying to harm innocent people in order to produce such change is terrorism. You do need to prove it by proving the intent involved in damaging a building.

You need specific intent to differentiate vandalism from terrorism.

....

Voting is not violent or unlawful. It is not intimidating or threatening.

At this point, you have to be a troll. You cant throw out that many flailed analogies and ignore the hard definition right in front of you without doing so intentionally.

 

[marvin martian]

Is there still time for a woman from his past to come forward and accuse him of rape?

Or a man.

 

[FA_Q2]

And don't forget the statement: Merrick Garland: Attacking a government building during the day is terrorism. Attacking the same building at night is just a crime.

He was talking about an mob, not a bomb.

You're either too stupid or just dishonest to bother with

Look what the OP now says,

Biden AG Pick: Antifa Attacks On Federal Courthouses Not Domestic Terrorism Because They Happened At Night

Antifa is a mob.

Now say you're sorry.

I'm sorry that you're so stupid.

Happy?

Took me longer to get there....

 

[Papageorgio]

Your opinion of what defines terrorism isn't germaine to how the law defines terrorism.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

So, no one in the building, like building maintenance, security personnel, was intimidated by them trying to set fires to a building? I know that in Portland Federal Agents were called in to protect the building and the people in the building and while they were in the building, plywood was torn off the windows, fires were set devices were planted, yet this was not a terrorist attack? By the definition you gave it sounds like terrorism to me. Any insights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Show the quote. You can do that, can't you?

Watch the video, you drooling Nazi retard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. So the people inside the building at night, there was no terror? Did the maintenance staff inside the building tell you it was all okay and they didn't feel threatened?

BUT those are little people. They aren't important the way our GLORIOUS RULERS are.

 

[Papageorgio]

1. So the people inside the building at night, there was no terror? Did the maintenance staff inside the building tell you it was all okay and they didn't feel threatened?

BUT those are little people. They aren't important the way our GLORIOUS RULERS are.

View attachment 460739

That is my thought, it isn't a big gain for the Democrats, politics wise either. It is all about revenge and what is best for the party, not the country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That doesn't change that most federal buildings are empty at night. And even those occupied have maybe 1-2 people in them at night, while in the daytime there would be hundreds of people in them.

Just look at the Nashville bombing

FBI source: Christmas Day bombing not domestic terrorism

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.

www.wsmv.com

An FBI source close to the Christmas day bombing investigation tells News4 Investigates that evidence indicates it was not an act of domestic terrorism.
The FBI has a series of conditions it has to meet to declare a bombing domestic terrorism, including intimidating civilians and affecting the conduct of a government.

They are not empty. That you view the people there useless and expendable as doesn't change anything.

Look, you're just a demagogue hyping up the Reichstag Fire so that you can attack enemies of the party.

The problem is, so is Merrick Garland, which makes him unfit to be AG.

Nazi to English dictionary:

Insurrection:

Peaceful Protest

 

[The Breeze]

Jesus Christ, the world laughs.

 

[postman]

Attacking people shows intent to force political change?

Care to try that one again? Terrorism is not intent to intimidate. It is intimidating with the intent to effect political change.

Intent matters. If your intent on brandishing that weapon was to rob the till or make someone do something then it is not a terrorist act. If it was to institute a policy (don't seat Biden, defund the police, control freedom of speech etc) then it falls under terrorism. Attacking a group of people, any group, does not infer POLITICAL intent.

Intent is an inference that can be drawn by the action. Attacking an occupied building means you are attacking the people inside that building, and an attack on people is interpreted by what is done.
If you robbed them (asked for their valuables) then there is no intent to terrorize. If you pestered them by asking for money (panhandled) then there was no intent to terrorize. But attacking people with no other obvious motives makes it defacto terrorism.

Think of it like from the movie Clue.
Wadsworth: Sorry, didn't mean to frighten you.
Mr. Green: You're a bit late for that!

 

[postman]

Dude, they tried to burn down the building and lock the workers inside. Fucking DERP

Citation required.

 

[postman]

Voting is not violent or unlawful. It is not intimidating or threatening.

It is in republican eyes. That's why they keep passing laws to make it difficult or illegal.

 

[TNHarley]

Dude, they tried to burn down the building and lock the workers inside. Fucking DERP

Citation required.

Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside (nypost.com)

 

[postman]

I know that in Portland Federal Agents were called in to protect the building and the people in the building and while they were in the building, plywood was torn off the windows, fires were set devices were planted, yet this was not a terrorist attack? By the definition you gave it sounds like terrorism to me. Any insights?

Citation required.

 

[Papageorgio]

Care to try that one again? Terrorism is not intent to intimidate. It is intimidating with the intent to effect political change.

Voting is with intent to effect political change.

While you don't need to prove trying to harm innocent people in order to produce such change is terrorism. You do need to prove it by proving the intent involved in damaging a building.

You need specific intent to differentiate vandalism from terrorism.

In Portland they were trying to burn it down with the federal officers there. They were trying to gain entrance, it was politically motivated, otherwise no need to attack a federal courthouse.

 

[Papageorgio]

I know that in Portland Federal Agents were called in to protect the building and the people in the building and while they were in the building, plywood was torn off the windows, fires were set devices were planted, yet this was not a terrorist attack? By the definition you gave it sounds like terrorism to me. Any insights?

Citation required.

Portland protesters barricade courthouse with federal officers inside, then try to set it on fire

Portland protesters barricaded federal officers inside a courthouse — and tried to set the building on fire — as the two groups clashed again Tuesday night into Wednesday. As hundreds c…

nypost.com

Care to address the issue?