Rightwingers really need to stop comparing the summer riots to the Jan 6th insurrection and here is why

[Rigby5]

The DOJ is forming a Domestic Terrorist Unit. We will have a government not unlike the Chinese version when completed. They do not put up with the shit in the hood.

Domestic terrorism laws are inherently contradictory because the whole point of the criminal justice system IS terrorism.
You reduce crime by threatening punishment in revenge.
Criminals can never be terrorists because they are not murdering innocent people in order to extort others to comply with illegal demands.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Rightwingers really need to stop comparing the summer riots to the Jan 6th insurrection and here is why​

Yes....absolutely nothing to see here...

 

[Rigby5]

Are you denying that it happened? Really?

I bet you wish to ignore the fact that convicted felon and multi-billionaire George Soros is responsible for providing millions of dollars with the purpose of electing far-left Liberal District Attorneys in far-left cities. Sadly, it is working too.

Government has always been a much larger threat than any criminal activity.
All the wars the US has engaged in were illegal and killed millions of innocents, like 3 million innocent Vietnamese murdered.
Prohibition was totally illegal.
The War on Drugs is illegal.
Asset forfeiture is illegal.
Mandated sentences are illegal,
The illegal extortion of federal income tax going 65% to the military is criminal also.

 

[Rigby5]

Those who riot and loot are criminals. - Throw the book at them and lock them up.

Those who conspire to instigate political violence at or near a peaceful protest by either side should be treated as domestic terrorists - including Individuals within Boogaloo Bois, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters who do it

That being said - The summer of Chauvin riots was about a police murder

Jan6 was about an imaginary stolen election

So when you ask yourself what sparked both riots - they both were sparked by white men in positions of authority / Donald Trump and Derek Chauvin

According to those standards, we should still be a British colony.
Clearly riots are necessary, like the Boston Tea Party, because government is always fairly corrupt and evil.
The closest to domestic terrorists are the police, because they are the only ones doing violence for money instead of political beliefs.
Being wrong about the elections does not condemn the Jan 6 rioters.
Being wrong does not show criminal intent and is easily prevented from future repetition by better information.

 

[Rigby5]

Sanya Mansour, 93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds
View attachment 586907


Was this one of the peaceful ones?

Burning down a building is peaceful unless the building is occupied and the occupants not allowed to evacuate.
The only way any protest is ever even noticed is if it costs something in damages.
Again, refer to the Boston Tea Party.
Government corruption is about profits, and the only way to reduce it is to cost them something.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government has always been a much larger threat than any criminal activity.
All the wars the US has engaged in were illegal and killed millions of innocents, like 3 million innocent Vietnamese murdered.
Prohibition was totally illegal.
The War on Drugs is illegal.
Asset forfeiture is illegal.
Mandated sentences are illegal,
The illegal extortion of federal income tax going 65% to the military is criminal also.

I only disagree on Prohibition. It was very stupid and created the violent mobsters who terrorized America (see also the actually illegal war on drugs), it was not technically illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Did the jury say that because it was the right decision...or did they say that because they were afraid of the riots that would have happened if they didn't? That verdict was predetermined by a main stream media that made a piece of shit drug addict into a martyr. George Floyd died because he ingested a lethal amount of drugs. If he hadn't he'd be alive today.

Wrong according to the coroner.
Drugs would have taken over another hour to kill, and any drug death could easily have been prevented at any hospital.
Floyd died right on the spot, and entirely from asphyxiation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Burning down a building is peaceful

Property destruction is never peaceful.

The only way any protest is ever even noticed is if it costs something in damages.

Maybe so, but you can't call it peaceful. It is an act of war.

Again, refer to the Boston Tea Party.

an act of war

Government corruption is about profits, and the only way to reduce it is to cost them something.

Or throw the bums out for good.

Or, rebel and start a civil war.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes....absolutely nothing to see here...

View attachment 587000

While I support all political protests, even when mistaken, there is the fact the Jan 6 riot likely was mistaken about the election veracity.
While there is no doubt at all the police usually are fascists, brutal, racist, and corrupt.
For example, if the police were not illegally corrupt, there would be no War on Drugs, mandated sentence, asset forfeiture, stop and frisk, no-knock-warrants, etc.
There is no question the BLM riots were more than warranted.

 

[Rigby5]

I only disagree on Prohibition. It was very stupid and created the violent mobsters who terrorized America (see also the actually illegal war on drugs), it was not technically illegal.

Yes, Prohibition and the War on Drugs are totally and completely illegal.
The only source of any legal authority in a democratic republic comes from the defense of individual inherent rights.
Things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs are not defending the inherent rights of anyone.
Instead they are one group illegally imposing their subjective opinions about personal behavior, onto others, by force.
That is totally and obviously illegal in a democratic republic.
Anyone involved is a criminal.
The fact they can point to legislators as the source of the crimes they are committing, does not at all make them less complicit in the crimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Burning down a building is peaceful unless the building is occupied and the occupants not allowed to evacuate.
The only way any protest is ever even noticed is if it costs something in damages.
Again, refer to the Boston Tea Party.
Government corruption is about profits, and the only way to reduce it is to cost them something.

Are you ever going to post your proof that economic sanctions are war crimes?

 

[Rigby5]

Property destruction is never peaceful.

Maybe so, but you can't call it peaceful. It is an act of war.

an act of war

Or throw the bums out for good.

Or, rebel and start a civil war.

Acts of violence, including wars, can be peaceful, because they can be with a defensive intent.
For example, if there is an aggressive enemy force attempting to invade, and you kill them with defensive weapons in order to stop the invasion, then the destruction of the enemy invasion force is with nonviolent intent.
The intent is to preserve the peace.
That is peaceful.

There are lots of factors, such as if there are alternatives, who is at fault, intent, etc.
If you see someone about to stab another to death and you have to shoot them to prevent a murder, that could be peaceful.
That is why western sheriffs were sometimes called PeaceOfficers, and some revolvers called PeaceMakers.

If peace required total nonviolence, we would all be Quakers, and likely have died out long ago.

The only confusing problem is when the violence is wrong and won't lead to peace, like Jan 6?
I still give them a pass myself, since I think their actions were limited to gaining publicity.
I do not think any criminal prosecution is necessary.
In fact, I would encourage MORE such public participation, even if wrong sometimes.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you ever going to post your proof that economic sanctions are war crimes?

I already did many times.
The intent of the 1906 Hague Conventions that turned into the Geneva Conventions, was motivated by trying to stop the old Medieval practice of starving cities out into surrendering.
But I have posted many summaries stating clearly that economic warfare is totally illegal.
And you can also see that in the US constitution.
If someone is making a living doing business with a foreign entity, then with imposed economic sanctions, the US government is illegally taking from them without compensation.
That is clearly criminal.
The government then is illegally forcing those business people to enact the desired political policies the government wants.
And there is no legal basis for that.
Government has no authority to even begin to decide or impose any political policies.
The only exception would be if war were actually declared, because then and only then could it become illegal to give aid and comfort to the actual physically defined enemy, not just based on some arbitrary political policy desires.

For example, the economic sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine.
The case Russia has against the Ukraine has already been settled in court many times.
It is the Ukraine who is guilty of stealing billions worth of oil and gas from Russia.
So the US economic sanctions against Russia are doubly criminal.
They are a basic violation of economic freedoms, but also are specifically enabling and supporting outright theft.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did many times.
The intent of the 1906 Hague Conventions that turned into the Geneva Conventions, was motivated by trying to stop the old Medieval practice of starving cities out into surrendering.
But I have posted many summaries stating clearly that economic warfare is totally illegal.
And you can also see that in the US constitution.
If someone is making a living doing business with a foreign entity, then with imposed economic sanctions, the US government is illegally taking from them without compensation.
That is clearly criminal.
The government then is illegally forcing those business people to enact the desired political policies the government wants.
And there is no legal basis for that.
Government has no authority to even begin to decide or impose any political policies.
The only exception would be if war were actually declared, because then and only then could it become illegal to give aid and comfort to the actual physically defined enemy, not just based on some arbitrary political policy desires.

For example, the economic sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine.
The case Russia has against the Ukraine has already been settled in court many times.
It is the Ukraine who is guilty of stealing billions worth of oil and gas from Russia.
So the US economic sanctions against Russia are doubly criminal.
They are a basic violation of economic freedoms, but also are specifically enabling and supporting outright theft.

I already did many times.

You never did, not even once.

The intent of the 1906 Hague Conventions that turned into the Geneva Conventions, was motivated by trying to stop the old Medieval practice of starving cities out into surrendering.

So starving civilians is a war crime, what about economic sanctions?
Post your proof, just once.

If someone is making a living doing business with a foreign entity, then with imposed economic sanctions, the US government is illegally taking from them without compensation.

Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations. Still not a war crime.

 

[armadei]

Sanya Mansour, 93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds, September 5, 2020, 93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, Demonstrations & Political Violence In America: New Data for Summer 2020, Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 - ACLED

Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman, Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds, Harvard Radcliffe Institute, October 20, 2020 Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds | Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University

Ok, let's use your stupid numbers. What happened during the other "7%", retard?

 

[Rigby5]

I already did many times.

You never did, not even once.

The intent of the 1906 Hague Conventions that turned into the Geneva Conventions, was motivated by trying to stop the old Medieval practice of starving cities out into surrendering.

So starving civilians is a war crime, what about economic sanctions?
Post your proof, just once.

If someone is making a living doing business with a foreign entity, then with imposed economic sanctions, the US government is illegally taking from them without compensation.

Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations. Still not a war crime.

While the original Geneva Convention intent may have been to prevent blockading cities in order to starve them out, the wording is simply that it is illegal to interfere in civilian commerce at all.

Congress can "regulate" commerce with foreign nations, the meaning of "regulate" is "to keep functioning in a regular fashion".
That is the opposite of to end by imposing economic sanctions.
Congress has ZERO authority to interfere with international commerce in any way.

I do not want to waste time on this, but here is an abstract reference:
{...
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits at all times, without political scrutiny, the blockade of food, medical supplies, and other essentials during an armed conflict to protect civilians from the effects of military action.
...}

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1569&context=auilr

 

[Stryder50]

Trumpists committed treason against the United States of America. The BLM riots never threatened the Republic; however, any one that commits vandalism, deserves to be incarcerated for their crimes.

"autonomous zone" would imply secession and a separate state, outside of USA and local laws, which is what we saw with CHAZ~CHAOS, etc. Sounds about the same as treason, especially when violence, vandal, arson, assaults, riots, looting, etc. are part of so-called "peaceful protests".

 

[Rigby5]

"autonomous zone" would imply secession and a separate state, outside of USA and local laws, which is what we saw with CHAZ~CHAOS, etc. Sounds about the same as treason, especially when violence, vandal, arson, assaults, riots, looting, etc. are part of so-called "peaceful protests".

Breaking up the US into smaller countries is not at all treason.
The country is supposed to only be here for us, not the other way around.
And the current country is awful.
Too many illegal external wars like Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, and too many draconian internal wars like the War on Drugs, federal gun control, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
The country has become more harmful than useful.

 

[Stryder50]

Breaking up the US into smaller countries is not at all treason.
The country is supposed to only be here for us, not the other way around.
And the current country is awful.
Too many illegal external wars like Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, and too many draconian internal wars like the War on Drugs, federal gun control, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
The country has become more harmful than useful.

1860 and event known as War Between the States part of your extensive history knowledge and insights?
Meanwhile we can expect you to relocate to which better country ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While the original Geneva Convention intent may have been to prevent blockading cities in order to starve them out, the wording is simply that it is illegal to interfere in civilian commerce at all.

Congress can "regulate" commerce with foreign nations, the meaning of "regulate" is "to keep functioning in a regular fashion".
That is the opposite of to end by imposing economic sanctions.
Congress has ZERO authority to interfere with international commerce in any way.

I do not want to waste time on this, but here is an abstract reference:
{...
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits at all times, without political scrutiny, the blockade of food, medical supplies, and other essentials during an armed conflict to protect civilians from the effects of military action.
...}

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1569&context=auilr

While the original Geneva Convention intent may have been to prevent blockading cities in order to starve them out, the wording is simply that it is illegal to interfere in civilian commerce at all.

Show me where that's in the original Geneva Convention.

Congress can "regulate" commerce with foreign nations, the meaning of "regulate" is "to keep functioning in a regular fashion".

And, in some cases, stop almost all functioning.

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits at all times, without political scrutiny, the blockade of food, medical supplies, and other essentials during an armed conflict to protect civilians from the effects of military action.

When was the last time the US imposed economic sanctions that did any of that?