Should Black Lives Matter be considered a terrorist group?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes. They do.

Then that's terrorism.

Yes, personally i believe the black lives matter IS by definition a terrorist organization.
The FBI definition : "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"
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the government, check.
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the US population to either force them into believing their "cause", check.
So yes, it is a terrorist organization by definition.
Let's look at Europe however, the Black Lives Matter movement removes historical statues to deliver as much destruction as possible to the governments.
In 2016, ISIL destroyed the Minaret of Anah located in Al Anbar Province, which dates back to the Abbasid era. The minaret was only rebuilt in 2013 after the destruction by an unknown perpetrator in 2006. In 2017, ISIL destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.
Does it look similar? Guessed so.

Imagine if Jews in Europe were allowed to remove statues of those who persecuted them.

Isn't it interesting how the woke crowd can only point to invasions and violent revolutions as examples of how their behavior regarding statues is okay?

[Post War America]

Yes. They do.

Then that's terrorism.

*Conveniently ignores the multiple folks stating otherwise*

Yes, personally i believe the black lives matter IS by definition a terrorist organization.
The FBI definition : "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"
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the government, check.
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the US population to either force them into believing their "cause", check.
So yes, it is a terrorist organization by definition.
Let's look at Europe however, the Black Lives Matter movement removes historical statues to deliver as much destruction as possible to the governments.
In 2016, ISIL destroyed the Minaret of Anah located in Al Anbar Province, which dates back to the Abbasid era. The minaret was only rebuilt in 2013 after the destruction by an unknown perpetrator in 2006. In 2017, ISIL destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.
Does it look similar? Guessed so.

Imagine if Jews in Europe were allowed to remove statues of those who persecuted them.

There wasn't a boom in statues of people who persecuted Jews around the times they pushed for civil rights as a deliberate attempt to intimidate them.

[La Xinga]

Then that's terrorism.

Imagine if Jews in Europe were allowed to remove statues of those who persecuted them.

Isn't it interesting how the woke crowd can only point to invasions and violent revolutions as examples of how their behavior regarding statues is okay?

?

Then that's terrorism.

*Conveniently ignores the multiple folks stating otherwise*

Imagine if Jews in Europe were allowed to remove statues of those who persecuted them.

There wasn't a boom in statues of people who persecuted Jews around the times they pushed for civil rights as a deliberate attempt to intimidate them.

1. From his opinion, if they do, then terror, if not, fine.
2. What do you mean by this?

[Andsed]

If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

Yes. They do.

Some radicals do. BLM is a social movement. It does not have a single rhetoric. It is made up of plenty of moderate peaceful protesters as well as more radical ones. Which is why calling it a terrorist organization is dumb(as it is not a singular organized entity) but also has dangerous implications.

[Post War America]

Isn't it interesting how the woke crowd can only point to invasions and violent revolutions as examples of how their behavior regarding statues is okay?

?

*Conveniently ignores the multiple folks stating otherwise*



There wasn't a boom in statues of people who persecuted Jews around the times they pushed for civil rights as a deliberate attempt to intimidate them.

1. From his opinion, if they do, then terror, if not, fine.
2. What do you mean by this?

The Confederate Statues are not in fact strict commemorations of history, nor were the erected shortly after the Civil War. Most were erected in the 1880s-1910s and a smaller boom in the 1950s-1960s first as a reassertion of white supremacy after the conclusion of reconstruction and then as an attempt to intimidate the Civil Rights Movement. They are clearly propaganda and not some historical monument. Their removal is the removal of propaganda, not the destruction of valuable cultural relics.

[Genivaria]

I'd like to briefly mention that the Constitution allows Citizens to violently oppose their government if it refuses to grant them the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that?

I believe that's the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[La Xinga]

?

1. From his opinion, if they do, then terror, if not, fine.
2. What do you mean by this?

The Confederate Statues are not in fact strict commemorations of history, nor were the erected shortly after the Civil War. Most were erected in the 1880s-1910s and a smaller boom in the 1950s-1960s first as a reassertion of white supremacy after the conclusion of reconstruction and then as an attempt to intimidate the Civil Rights Movement. They are clearly propaganda and not some historical monument.

Most.

And if someone wanted to make a statue of a racist, you would say?

[Andsed]

Isn't it interesting how the woke crowd can only point to invasions and violent revolutions as examples of how their behavior regarding statues is okay?

?

*Conveniently ignores the multiple folks stating otherwise*



There wasn't a boom in statues of people who persecuted Jews around the times they pushed for civil rights as a deliberate attempt to intimidate them.

1. From his opinion, if they do, then terror, if not, fine.
2. What do you mean by this?

You cannot assign a single rhetoric to a social movement That is just not how they work. All a movement like BLM is is a just a general idea that people agree on. But aside from that members of movement will differ widely in their belief. Hence why one cannot declare a movement as a terrorist organization. Because that would include all supporters of the movement, the violent and peaceful ones.

[La Xinga]

?

1. From his opinion, if they do, then terror, if not, fine.
2. What do you mean by this?

You cannot assign a single rhetoric to a social movement That is just not how they work. All a movement like BLM is is a just a general idea that people agree on. But aside from that members of movement will differ widely in their belief. Hence why one cannot declare a movement as a terrorist organization. Because that would include all supporters of the movement, the violent and peaceful ones.

Are you answering 1. or 2.?

[Andsed]

You cannot assign a single rhetoric to a social movement That is just not how they work. All a movement like BLM is is a just a general idea that people agree on. But aside from that members of movement will differ widely in their belief. Hence why one cannot declare a movement as a terrorist organization. Because that would include all supporters of the movement, the violent and peaceful ones.

Are you answering 1. or 2.?

1.

[Post War America]

The Confederate Statues are not in fact strict commemorations of history, nor were the erected shortly after the Civil War. Most were erected in the 1880s-1910s and a smaller boom in the 1950s-1960s first as a reassertion of white supremacy after the conclusion of reconstruction and then as an attempt to intimidate the Civil Rights Movement. They are clearly propaganda and not some historical monument.

Most.

And if someone wanted to make a statue of a racist, you would say?

I would seriously question the motives of the person wanting to erect the statue. Especially if they were explicitly erecting one of a prominent racist rather than a flawed person who also happened to achieve an important good.

Commanders of an army that fought for the explicit goal of preserving race-based, chattel slavery are not the latter.

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

Why in the world is this a question. This is a ridiculous debate and thread.

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

There is your answer, satisfied?

[La Xinga]

Are you answering 1. or 2.?

1.

Oh. In that case, I agree.

Most.

And if someone wanted to make a statue of a racist, you would say?

I would seriously question the motives of the person wanting to erect the statue. Especially if they were explicitly erecting one of a prominent racist rather than a flawed person who also happened to achieve an important good.

Commanders of an army that fought for the explicit goal of preserving race-based, chattel slavery are not the latter.

Let's say a statue of Davis.

[Post War America]

I would seriously question the motives of the person wanting to erect the statue. Especially if they were explicitly erecting one of a prominent racist rather than a flawed person who also happened to achieve an important good.

Commanders of an army that fought for the explicit goal of preserving race-based, chattel slavery are not the latter.

Let's say a statue of Davis.

You mean the leader of the nation whose sole existence was the perpetuation of race-based chattel slavery? His statue shouldn't be erected. I fail to see why you'd even suggest that.

[La Xinga]

Let's say a statue of Davis.

You mean the leader of the nation whose sole existence was the perpetuation of race-based chattel slavery? His statue shouldn't be erected. I fail to see why you'd even suggest that.

And kings of Europe who persecuted the Jews all their reign?

[Post War America]

You mean the leader of the nation whose sole existence was the perpetuation of race-based chattel slavery? His statue shouldn't be erected. I fail to see why you'd even suggest that.

And kings of Europe who persecuted the Jews all their reign?

That'd depend on who exactly, and the motives of the erector. Most European Kings after all, included persecution of Jews as a part of a much wider Kingdom. Jeff Davis, per your example presided over a state whose sole objective was the preservation of slavery. That's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

[La Xinga]

And kings of Europe who persecuted the Jews all their reign?

That'd depend on who exactly, and the motives of the erector. Most European Kings after all, included persecution of Jews as a part of a much wider Kingdom. Jeff Davis, per your example presided over a state whose sole objective was the preservation of slavery. That's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

There was more to the confederacy than just slavery, just saying.

And what about a statue of Robert E. Lee, for his military strategies during the civil war?

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes. They do.

Some radicals do. BLM is a social movement. It does not have a single rhetoric. It is made up of plenty of moderate peaceful protesters as well as more radical ones. Which is why calling it a terrorist organization is dumb(as it is not a singular organized entity) but also has dangerous implications.

I'm sorry, but just because you don't have a leader doesn't make you not an organization. When you have entire groups of people marching down the street saying they want dead cops and to fry the pigs like bacon.... well.

when you make your movement vague and hard to define? Well, people are going to include the radicals with you. You have to have a clearly defined 'group' if you want security.

[Post War America]

That'd depend on who exactly, and the motives of the erector. Most European Kings after all, included persecution of Jews as a part of a much wider Kingdom. Jeff Davis, per your example presided over a state whose sole objective was the preservation of slavery. That's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

There was more to the confederacy than just slavery, just saying.

And what about a statue of Robert E. Lee, for his military strategies during the civil war?

There really wasn't. Maybe if the Confederate States survived the civil war they might have done something else, but the entire point of secession was because the Southern States were worried that they weren't spreading slavery enough to preserve the institution's dominance in congress, and the entire existence of the CSA revolved around prosecution of that violent, failed attempt to secede (funny that people are okay with violence if its being done by White Slavers, but some random looting by PoC folks gets labelled terrorism). As for Lee, I'm not shedding any tears if his statues go down. Even back in the 'good old days' Arlington was specifically erected as a giant Fuck you to him.

Hell, even if you did care about the man's opinion's Lee himself didn't want statues erected in his honor so ya'll are dishonoring that request.

[Post War America]

Some radicals do. BLM is a social movement. It does not have a single rhetoric. It is made up of plenty of moderate peaceful protesters as well as more radical ones. Which is why calling it a terrorist organization is dumb(as it is not a singular organized entity) but also has dangerous implications.

I'm sorry, but just because you don't have a leader doesn't make you not an organization. When you have entire groups of people marching down the street saying they want dead cops and to fry the pigs like bacon.... well.

when you make your movement vague and hard to define? Well, people are going to include the radicals with you. You have to have a clearly defined 'group' if you want security.

TIL dramatic rhetoric is terrorism.

[La Xinga]

There was more to the confederacy than just slavery, just saying.

And what about a statue of Robert E. Lee, for his military strategies during the civil war?

There really wasn't. Maybe if the Confederate States survived the civil war they might have done something else, but the entire point of secession was because the Southern States were worried that they weren't spreading slavery enough to preserve the institution's dominance in congress, and the entire existence of the CSA revolved around prosecution of that violent, failed attempt to secede (funny that people are okay with violence if its being done by White Slavers, but some random looting by PoC folks gets labelled terrorism). As for Lee, I'm not shedding any tears if his statues go down. Even back in the 'good old days' Arlington was specifically erected as a giant Fuck you to him.

Hell, even if you did care about the man's opinion's Lee himself didn't want statues erected in his honor so ya'll are dishonoring that request.

Lincoln made the civil war about slavery in 1863. It was originally about state rights, at least that's what I see.

[Post War America]

There really wasn't. Maybe if the Confederate States survived the civil war they might have done something else, but the entire point of secession was because the Southern States were worried that they weren't spreading slavery enough to preserve the institution's dominance in congress, and the entire existence of the CSA revolved around prosecution of that violent, failed attempt to secede (funny that people are okay with violence if its being done by White Slavers, but some random looting by PoC folks gets labelled terrorism). As for Lee, I'm not shedding any tears if his statues go down. Even back in the 'good old days' Arlington was specifically erected as a giant Fuck you to him.

Hell, even if you did care about the man's opinion's Lee himself didn't want statues erected in his honor so ya'll are dishonoring that request.

Lincoln made the civil war about slavery in 1863. It was originally about state rights, at least that's what I see.

The Union didn't care about slavery until 1863. The Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery. The Confederate Constitution, and several State Secession declarations make that clear. Furthermore the CS constitution explicitly forbade the creation or establishment of Free States if that wasn't clear enough.

[La Xinga]

Lincoln made the civil war about slavery in 1863. It was originally about state rights, at least that's what I see.

The Union didn't care about slavery until 1863. The Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery. The Confederate Constitution, and several State Secession declarations make that clear. Furthermore the CS constitution explicitly forbade the creation or establishment of Free States if that wasn't clear enough.

That's the constitution, not the secession notes.

[Andsed]

Some radicals do. BLM is a social movement. It does not have a single rhetoric. It is made up of plenty of moderate peaceful protesters as well as more radical ones. Which is why calling it a terrorist organization is dumb(as it is not a singular organized entity) but also has dangerous implications.

I'm sorry, but just because you don't have a leader doesn't make you not an organization. When you have entire groups of people marching down the street saying they want dead cops and to fry the pigs like bacon.... well.

when you make your movement vague and hard to define? Well, people are going to include the radicals with you. You have to have a clearly defined 'group' if you want security.

Not how social movements work. Crimes there need to be addressed on a case by case basis, not declaring it as a whole to be terrorism, because that includes peaceful protesters.

[Grenartia]

Definitely be considered a terrorist group.
Peaceful protest is one thing, but wanton destruction quite another.

Peaceful protest was tried, and it was either ignored, or considered not respectful enough. Some engaging in said peaceful protest were labeled as traitors for "not supporting the troops". More active peaceful protests were also tried, and met with police violence. Eventually it becomes evident that more confrontational methods are required.

Also, if we're considering some smashed windows and beaten folks the makings of a terrorist organization, I'm pretty sure a health percentage of the population of men ages 18-40 would probably be terrorists.

Its also worth noting how often the riots were started by cops or neonazi agitators.