Should Black Lives Matter be considered a terrorist group?

[Post War America]

A quote can be written down, and documents from the time period, if directly copied (or indeed with careful editing that changes the text solely for the purposes of making it more comprehensible for modern audiences), count as primary sources. You should seriously get some to back up your point, and soon.

Editing text makes it primary? If so, primary sources don't seem to be good, fella.

Assuming we ignore that the whole only to make it more readable, and discount anything our than direct copying as a primary source. It's a good thing that 6 of the 7 primary sources I gave you are unedited documents then innit? How many have you shown 0? How many secondary sources still 0? Tertiary? Are you ready to admit you have no sources?

[Post War America]

TIL dramatic rhetoric is terrorism.

... No. TYL calling for the murder of people and then actually going through with it several times is terrorism.

When, when have BLM activists gone through with the murder of cops? Furthermore when have these actions been condoned by the wider movement?

[The Emerald Legion]

... No. TYL calling for the murder of people and then actually going through with it several times is terrorism.

When, when have BLM activists gone through with the murder of cops? Furthermore when have these actions been condoned by the wider movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

Keep in mind even prior to BLM existing, the same manner of grievance politics existed and has been doing the exact same thing for years.

BLM is just the latest flag made by the people who have convinced African Americans that literally everyone in America wants them dead.

[La Xinga]

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

Editing text makes it primary? If so, primary sources don't seem to be good, fella.

Assuming we ignore that the whole only to make it more readable, and discount anything our than direct copying as a primary source. It's a good thing that 6 of the 7 primary sources I gave you are unedited documents then innit? How many have you shown 0? How many secondary sources still 0? Tertiary? Are you ready to admit you have no sources?

1. All of your sources are not proof. They show nothing. The south didn't say, we go away cuz slavery, byyyyyyeeeee. They left due to state rights, of the many was slavery, but not the only one.

2. Hmmm, sources are not time travelers, only as smart as the people who say them. And I only saw 3.

[Gormwood]

When, when have BLM activists gone through with the murder of cops? Furthermore when have these actions been condoned by the wider movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

"Micah X. Johnson was a registered member of Black Lives Matter." Hell of a reach.

[The Emerald Legion]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

"Micah X. Johnson was a registered member of Black Lives Matter." Hell of a reach.

BLM: "We want Dead Cops."

Micah: *Kills a bunch of cops while being part of BLM.*

BLM: *surprised pikachu face.*

[Rost Dreadnorramus]

Just like Antifa, BLM has taken a just cause and used it as an excuse to commit crimes ranging from attacking people to damaging and destroying both public and private property.

The root idea of the movement is in my opinion a just and noble one, however just as with the fight against Fascism it has been corrupted and turned into yet another tool by which the Communists can create division and unrest and further their agenda.

So yes, the organization known as Black Lives Matter is by my own opinion, and according to the definition laid down by the F.B.I. a terrorist organization and ought to be treated as such.

If you want to do good for the Black people of America, follow the example of the Great, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (if ever America needed his words, it is now more them ever).

[Post War America]

When, when have BLM activists gone through with the murder of cops? Furthermore when have these actions been condoned by the wider movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

Per your own source

"Leaders associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, including organizers of the protest rally, condemned the shooting.[163][164]"

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

Assuming we ignore that the whole only to make it more readable, and discount anything our than direct copying as a primary source. It's a good thing that 6 of the 7 primary sources I gave you are unedited documents then innit? How many have you shown 0? How many secondary sources still 0? Tertiary? Are you ready to admit you have no sources?

1. All of your sources are not proof. They show nothing. The south didn't say, we go away cuz slavery, byyyyyyeeeee. They left due to state rights, of the many was slavery, but not the only one.

2. Hmmm, sources are not time travelers, only as smart as the people who say them. And I only saw 3.

There were five documents of secession, the constitution, and a direct quote from the Vice President of the CSA, that's 7. Each of them, and especially the quote by Stephens explicitly mention slavery as a core, if not the sole reason for leaving. Regardless, you are making a claim that you have provided zero evidence, of any kind, to back up. Hell, at this point I'd actually bother reading something straight out of NathanForestDidNothingWrong.com.

[The Emerald Legion]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

Per your own source

"Leaders associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, including organizers of the protest rally, condemned the shooting.[163][164]"

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

1. All of your sources are not proof. They show nothing. The south didn't say, we go away cuz slavery, byyyyyyeeeee. They left due to state rights, of the many was slavery, but not the only one.

2. Hmmm, sources are not time travelers, only as smart as the people who say them. And I only saw 3.

There were five documents of secession, the constitution, and a direct quote from the Vice President of the CSA, that's 7. Each of them, and especially the quote by Stephens explicitly mention slavery as a core, if not the sole reason for leaving. Regardless, you are making a claim that you have provided zero evidence, of any kind, to back up. Hell, at this point I'd actually bother reading something straight out of NathanForestDidNothingWrong.com.

BLM doesn't have leaders, remember? It's a social movement, not an organization. Besides NBC is hardly an unbiased source.

[La Xinga]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shoo ... e_officers

Per your own source

"Leaders associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, including organizers of the protest rally, condemned the shooting.[163][164]"

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

1. All of your sources are not proof. They show nothing. The south didn't say, we go away cuz slavery, byyyyyyeeeee. They left due to state rights, of the many was slavery, but not the only one.

2. Hmmm, sources are not time travelers, only as smart as the people who say them. And I only saw 3.

There were five documents of secession, the constitution, and a direct quote from the Vice President of the CSA, that's 7. Each of them, and especially the quote by Stephens explicitly mention slavery as a core, if not the sole reason for leaving. Regardless, you are making a claim that you have provided zero evidence, of any kind, to back up. Hell, at this point I'd actually bother reading something straight out of NathanForestDidNothingWrong.com.

1. OH, so BLM has leaders, so it is a group!
2. They mentioned state rights as well, especially Georgia.

[Post War America]

Just like Antifa, BLM has taken a just cause and used it as an excuse to commit crimes ranging from attacking people to damaging and destroying both public and private property.

The root idea of the movement is in my opinion a just and noble one, however just as with the fight against Fascism it has been corrupted and turned into yet another tool by which the Communists can create division and unrest and further their agenda.

So yes, the organization known as Black Lives Matter is by my own opinion, and according to the definition laid down by the F.B.I. a terrorist organization and ought to be treated as such.

If you want to do good for the Black people of America, follow the example of the Great, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (if ever America needed his words, it is now more them ever).

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" - Rvd. Martin Luther King Jr.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

A domestic terrorist organization is defined by the FBI as:

"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." -Copied directly from FBI website

Organizations such as the KKK fall into this category but weirdly, the most destructive political movement in the 21st century responsible for billions of dollars worth of property damage, countless attacks on innocent people and police, and violent rhetoric among MANY more horrible things they have done isn't a domestic terrorist organization. WHY?

Personally I do support equality for all races, and the idea that "Black Lives Matter"in the purest form is great, I know that in some areas of society there is few blacks represented, I like the words they officially speak. Their actions are another story though, the politicians are scared to speak badly of them because of the name of the organization.

If I built out an organization named Catz Rule which on the website claimsWe are an organization dedicated to spreading the word on how great cats and kittens are however in our demonstrations we attacked innocent people, burned down businesses, and were responsible for the death of hundreds of cats, we would be known as a terrorist organization. The same should be for BLM, it is a sad truth that they are treated better because they are black, that is horrible, as I said ALL races should be treated equally, they are a hate/domestic terrorist organization and should be seen as such.

Thanks for reading, please continue the thread, tell me if you agree or disagree and why.

The biggest reason for why BLM is not considered a terrorist group is because it is illegal for the US government to do so. Giving the government the power to label domestic groups as terror organizations has vast implications for certain groups that the government may not like (including those that currently control the government ie. Donald Trump). This is why, despite there being so many terrorist/hate groups in the US, not a single one is officially labeled as a terrorist organization. But yet they are still infiltrated by departments like the FBI, which is another reason why BLM is not a terrorist group.

If BLM were to be considered an actually dangerous group, the FBI would very well be involved in infiltrating and dismantling the organization. Just like they did with the Black Panther movement.

Addressing the supposed damages that was cited that BLM has done. So BLM has supposedly caused property damage on the level of that of Hurricane Katrina?

All in all, this OP just sounds like a reactionary hot take, considering the OP is chalking up the fact that BLM is not a terrorist group to being because they are black.

It could just as well be possible that the violence that comes from this group is due to years of continuous protesting with no visible gains ever being gotten because "elected" officials refuse to even listen or communicate with them. This has led to the more radical voices becoming prominent because the only way to make their demands heard is by becoming more radical. And this seems to be working for them. Now, there is reform taking place in some cities with others following many of BLMs demands, from the moderate demands to the radical demands. And while the President attempts to paint himself as a "law and order" official, this will not stop BLM from continuing to do what they're doing now to push more reform through their communities and throughout the rest of the United States.

[Gormwood]

"Micah X. Johnson was a registered member of Black Lives Matter." Hell of a reach.

BLM: "We want Dead Cops."

Micah: *Kills a bunch of cops while being part of BLM.*

BLM: *surprised pikachu face.*

I'm sure you can provide us a source for BLM as a whole calling for the murder of police as opposed to some randos yelling on video about killing them. And you're still implying Johnson was an actual BLM activist which is plain bullshit.

[Post War America]

Per your own source

"Leaders associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, including organizers of the protest rally, condemned the shooting.[163][164]"



There were five documents of secession, the constitution, and a direct quote from the Vice President of the CSA, that's 7. Each of them, and especially the quote by Stephens explicitly mention slavery as a core, if not the sole reason for leaving. Regardless, you are making a claim that you have provided zero evidence, of any kind, to back up. Hell, at this point I'd actually bother reading something straight out of NathanForestDidNothingWrong.com.

1. OH, so BLM has leaders, so it is a group!
2. They mentioned state rights as well, especially Georgia.

1. Leaders associated with, not leaders of, I understand that English may not be your first language, but that's a pretty important distinction.

2. What states rights? What states rights, other than slavery were they trying to protect? Can you see one that isn't tied to slavery? Can you even see one that isn't slavery itself? Or is States rights just an empty buzzword?

[Gormwood]

Just like Antifa, BLM has taken a just cause and used it as an excuse to commit crimes ranging from attacking people to damaging and destroying both public and private property.

The root idea of the movement is in my opinion a just and noble one, however just as with the fight against Fascism it has been corrupted and turned into yet another tool by which the Communists can create division and unrest and further their agenda.

So yes, the organization known as Black Lives Matter is by my own opinion, and according to the definition laid down by the F.B.I. a terrorist organization and ought to be treated as such.

If you want to do good for the Black people of America, follow the example of the Great, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (if ever America needed his words, it is now more them ever).

King was considered a communist agitator and the FBI conducted unauthorized surveillance of him and used information gathered from them to tell him to kill himself or have his secrets exposed.

[Grenartia]

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

If the Civil War was fought for states' rights, then there are only 2 policies that have ever been spoken of in that context. Taxes/tariffs, and slavery. The entire point of the "States' Rights" argument is to deflect from admitting the CW was caused by slavery, therefore, you have to look at the taxes and tariffs. And the primary dispute over them was caused by slavery.

The 2nd (9:01) and 4th (17:15) videos go into better detail about proving that slavery was the reason.

[La Xinga]

1. OH, so BLM has leaders, so it is a group!
2. They mentioned state rights as well, especially Georgia.

1. Leaders associated with, not leaders of, I understand that English may not be your first language, but that's a pretty important distinction.

2. What states rights? What states rights, other than slavery were they trying to protect? Can you see one that isn't tied to slavery? Can you even see one that isn't slavery itself? Or is States rights just an empty buzzword?

1. The difference is?
2. Probably big gov vs small, and less state interference with everything.

[La Xinga]

The video does not refute what I said, about state rights.

If the Civil War was fought for states' rights, then there are only 2 policies that have ever been spoken of in that context. Taxes/tariffs, and slavery. The entire point of the "States' Rights" argument is to deflect from admitting the CW was caused by slavery, therefore, you have to look at the taxes and tariffs. And the primary dispute over them was caused by slavery.

The 2nd (9:01) and 4th (17:15) videos go into better detail about proving that slavery was the reason.

I'm not watching even more now. Since he doesn't address what I'm referring to.

[Grenartia]

If the Civil War was fought for states' rights, then there are only 2 policies that have ever been spoken of in that context. Taxes/tariffs, and slavery. The entire point of the "States' Rights" argument is to deflect from admitting the CW was caused by slavery, therefore, you have to look at the taxes and tariffs. And the primary dispute over them was caused by slavery.

The 2nd (9:01) and 4th (17:15) videos go into better detail about proving that slavery was the reason.

I'm not watching even more now. Since he doesn't address what I'm referring to.

Except, he does. He even sources every claim he makes, using legitimate sources.

[Post War America]

1. Leaders associated with, not leaders of, I understand that English may not be your first language, but that's a pretty important distinction.

2. What states rights? What states rights, other than slavery were they trying to protect? Can you see one that isn't tied to slavery? Can you even see one that isn't slavery itself? Or is States rights just an empty buzzword?

1. The difference is?
2. Probably big gov vs small, and less state interference with everything.

1) Leaders associated with could be anybody important who is associated with the movement. In this case it could very well mean random community leaders that have only minimal ties to the movement. Though that is admittedly unlikely, it is far more believable that leaders associated with means people who are responsible for organization of BLM rallies in the local area, or ideological figureheads that have no real control over local groups past writing generalized manifestos.

2) Care to back that up or are you making suppositions?

[Cyng]

Yes

[Federal Republic Of America And The Cari]

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.

Many within are Marxist loons, but I think "terrorism" requires more than some skirmishes and statue teardowns. I have no love for BLM but terrorism is not a label that is taken lightly.

More evidence we need

[La Xinga]

I'm not watching even more now. Since he doesn't address what I'm referring to.

Except, he does. He even sources every claim he makes, using legitimate sources.

I watched, he didn't mention my claim.

1. The difference is?
2. Probably big gov vs small, and less state interference with everything.

1) Leaders associated with could be anybody important who is associated with the movement. In this case it could very well mean random community leaders that have only minimal ties to the movement. Though that is admittedly unlikely, it is far more believable that leaders associated with means people who are responsible for organization of BLM rallies in the local area, or ideological figureheads that have no real control over local groups past writing generalized manifestos.

2) Care to back that up or are you making suppositions?

1. You don't need to be an official leader to be a leader.
2.

From Mississippi:

Slavery?

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

Besides slavery, not allowing an equal approach:

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

Equality, not slavery:

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

In Texas, Not about work, but about "burning towns now"

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

I do not support slavery or segregation, but I do not believe slavery is the only reason.

[Ostroeuropa]

?

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.

*Coughs in Gamergate*.

[Grenartia]

Except, he does. He even sources every claim he makes, using legitimate sources.

I watched, he didn't mention my claim.

Which claim was that?