Should Black Lives Matter be considered a terrorist group?

[Liriena]

No. It's not a group and it's not "terrorist". Conservatives really ought to let go of their obsession with criminalizing any dissent that's even slightly inconvenient for them.

[Grenartia]

No. [/thread

[Rojava Free State]

I love how black lives matter is a terror group cause a couple idiots burned some buildings, but all these police departmemts with a history of violence aren't terrorists and are "really good guys" according to trump.

LaQuan McDonald being shot in the back over 10 times sounds more terrorist-like than someone breaking a window. Let's be real.

[Post War America]

No. It's not a group and it's not "terrorist". Conservatives really ought to let go of their obsession with criminalizing any dissent that's even slightly inconvenient for them.

But if they don't criminalize dissent, how else will they imprison and disenfranchise their opposition?

[Estanglia]

Yes, There Movement Has Caused Unnecessary Deaths.

If "unnecessary deaths" was the standard for being terrorists, practically every criminal who committed murder (or whose actions led to an unnecessary death), alongside a significant amount of movements (plus arguably the police and a lot of governments) would all be terrorists.

Yeah, no. Let's not water down "terrorist" to basically mean "murderer".

[Rojava Free State]

Yes, There Movement Has Caused Unnecessary Deaths.

If "unnecessary deaths" was the standard for being terrorists, practically every criminal who committed murder (or whose actions led to an unnecessary death), alongside a significant amount of movements (plus arguably the police and a lot of governments) would all be terrorists.

Yeah, no. Let's not water down "terrorist" to basically mean "murderer".

There's thousands of terrorists in my town I guess, with all the gang members, drug dealers, arsonists, rapists and whoever else is now a terrorist.

[The Emerald Legion]

Black lives matter has recently in the past few months, mirrored ISIS in certain aspects in that they have torn down statues(ISIS tore down ancient statues in museums and destroyed ancient cities). They're an organisation which has done comparably worse with absolutely annihilating race relations in the United States and in the UK. They're certainly a terror organisation without question, as is antifa, at this point both are one and the same.

So no evidence then?

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

[Vassenor]

So no evidence then?

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

So you agree the police are a terrorist organisation then?

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

So you agree the police are a terrorist organisation then?

Of course not. The police are legally supposed to shoot people.

Terrorists do it illegally.

[Post War America]

So no evidence then?

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

I mean, by that standard, that would make the police a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization.

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

I mean, by that standard, that would make the police a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization.

That's nonsense.

[Picairn]

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

[CITATION NEEDED]. Also, even if they are true, BLM still needs an explosion equivalent to the Oklahoma City bombing to earn the Terrorist designation.

[Post War America]

I mean, by that standard, that would make the police a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization.

That's nonsense.

Is it though, if your basis for calling BLM a terrorist organization is that they kill people, surely the police, which have killed more Americans in the past ten years than ISIS, Al Shabab, and the Taliban combined, ought to be a terrorist organization. And the whole they're not the same organization shtick doesn't work either because BLM and Antifa are highly decentralized confederations of groups too, but somehow they're getting the terrorist lable.

[Rojava Free State]

I mean, by that standard, that would make the police a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization.

That's nonsense.

https://youtu.be/zf5vpzMIgyU
https://youtu.be/8WJIlUrx5a4

Is it though?

I think we could make the case that the LAPD is a terrorist organization, due to their long history of violence. Same for the Chicago PD, St Louis PD, NYPD and Seattle Police.

[The Emerald Legion]

That's nonsense.

Is it though, if your basis for calling BLM a terrorist organization is that they kill people, surely the police, which have killed more Americans in the past ten years than ISIS, Al Shabab, and the Taliban combined, ought to be a terrorist organization. And the whole they're not the same organization shtick doesn't work either because BLM and Antifa are highly decentralized confederations of groups too, but somehow they're getting the terrorist lable.

I mean... Again you're ignoring the fact that the police are supposed to shoot criminals. That's their role in society.

Terrorists aren't supposed to shoot anyone. But they do so anyway.

[Ifreann]

No. It's not a group and it's not "terrorist". Conservatives really ought to let go of their obsession with criminalizing any dissent that's even slightly inconvenient for them.

But if they don't criminalize dissent, how else will they imprison and disenfranchise their opposition?

Asking these kinds of rhetorical questions is terrorism.

[The Emerald Legion]

No. It's not a group and it's not "terrorist". Conservatives really ought to let go of their obsession with criminalizing any dissent that's even slightly inconvenient for them.

But if they don't criminalize dissent, how else will they imprison and disenfranchise their opposition?

You mean like the Democrats do literally all the time with gun control laws that target cool stuff popular with Republicans rather than things that cause real problems? Or how they all too frequently try to criminalize conservatism?

[Estanglia]

Is it though, if your basis for calling BLM a terrorist organization is that they kill people, surely the police, which have killed more Americans in the past ten years than ISIS, Al Shabab, and the Taliban combined, ought to be a terrorist organization. And the whole they're not the same organization shtick doesn't work either because BLM and Antifa are highly decentralized confederations of groups too, but somehow they're getting the terrorist lable.

I mean... Again you're ignoring the fact that the police are supposed to shoot criminals. That's their role in society.

Terrorists aren't supposed to shoot anyone. But they do so anyway.

The police are supposed to shoot a certain type of people, criminals. If the police decide to start shooting innocent people, they're no better than terrorists by this logic, since neither should be shooting innocent people.

Terrorists also do a lot more than just shoot people, otherwise every murderer that shot people is a terrorist and terrorism is just a fancy name for gun-related murder.

[Post War America]

Is it though, if your basis for calling BLM a terrorist organization is that they kill people, surely the police, which have killed more Americans in the past ten years than ISIS, Al Shabab, and the Taliban combined, ought to be a terrorist organization. And the whole they're not the same organization shtick doesn't work either because BLM and Antifa are highly decentralized confederations of groups too, but somehow they're getting the terrorist lable.

I mean... Again you're ignoring the fact that the police are supposed to shoot criminals. That's their role in society.

Terrorists aren't supposed to shoot anyone. But they do so anyway.

And yet they somehow keep killing people without any convictions, or anything beyond vaguely defined "reasonable suspicion" of committing a crime. Shit like that would get a soldier in Iraq time in the brig. Quite frankly though, the real kicker here is the assumption that the police are there to shoot people, rather than you know, taking them in for questioning, pending a trial to determine whether or not they are actually criminals, especially seen as most countries don't seem to have this problem with extensive numbers of extrajudicial executions that the US does, and indeed many don't even arm their beat police.

[Post War America]

But if they don't criminalize dissent, how else will they imprison and disenfranchise their opposition?

You mean like the Democrats do literally all the time with gun control laws that target cool stuff popular with Republicans rather than things that cause real problems? Or how they all too frequently try to criminalize conservatism?

And how many people actually get convicted for violations of gun laws? How many get shot? Are there any that are as vaguely defined as loitering (IE standing around)? Further, how many Blue states, permanently or semi-permanently revoke franchise for convicted felons versus red states?

Mind this assumes that I agree with the Democratic party on firearms policy, or that I agree that felons shouldn't have the right to vote regardless of their crime, which are of course, facts not in evidence.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

By that definition cops are terrorists.

They shot people on there porch, attacked the press for reporting on something that they didn't like lots of evidence on this and federally ordered cops suppressed a protest in the name of the Trump campaign. Again, lots of evidence to back this up.

But would it be silly to call all cops terrorists based on the actions of the few? Yes of course it would be silly. So it would be ridiculous to call BLM a terrorist group over the actions of a few.

And before someone goes "OMG HERP HATES COPS" I don't. Most cops are good people. I have someone on my step moms side who is a cop. I'm just saying that if we are using that definition we might as well be fair and call the cops who did the actions I linked to terrorists too. If you think that's silly, I do too. That's the whole point of this post. It's silly to call BLM a terrorist group for the actions of a few.

If you think both BLM and the cops are both terrorists, I applaud you for your consistency.

I mean, by that standard, that would make the police a State Sponsored Terrorist Organization.

That's nonsense.

See links above plz.

Is it though, if your basis for calling BLM a terrorist organization is that they kill people, surely the police, which have killed more Americans in the past ten years than ISIS, Al Shabab, and the Taliban combined, ought to be a terrorist organization. And the whole they're not the same organization shtick doesn't work either because BLM and Antifa are highly decentralized confederations of groups too, but somehow they're getting the terrorist lable.

I mean... Again you're ignoring the fact that the police are supposed to shoot criminals. That's their role in society.

Terrorists aren't supposed to shoot anyone. But they do so anyway.

So press that cover the protests, people standing on there porch and the protesters at Lafayette square on June 2nd 2020 are now ""criminals""?

If so you have a bad definition of criminals.

[Gormwood]

Just as brilliant as declaring Antifa a terrorist group. Two movements with no central authority figure that can set official positions and thus invite anyone to do stupid shit and declare that it's on the movement's behalf.

[Liriena]

But if they don't criminalize dissent, how else will they imprison and disenfranchise their opposition?

You mean like the Democrats do literally all the time with gun control laws that target cool stuff popular with Republicans rather than things that cause real problems? Or how they all too frequently try to criminalize conservatism?

Lmao reaching really far to make a whataboutism

[The Reformed American Republic]

I mean, apart from all the well documented shootings?

[CITATION NEEDED]. Also, even if they are true, BLM still needs an explosion equivalent to the Oklahoma City bombing to earn the Terrorist designation.

There are terrorist groups that have killed less actually, but still deserve the label. Regardless, at the time of this post, BLM is not one of those groups.

[Picairn]

There are terrorist groups that have killed less actually, but still deserve the label. Regardless, at the time of this post, BLM is not one of those groups.

The labeling must be because of the exceptionally cruel treatment of civilians and prisoners, but BLM hasn't done anything like that.