Politically Motivated Violence Thread PART 2

[Leadeye]

So, during the troubles, if a bomb was exploded in Ulster or Belfast did you say to yourself 'I don't have enough information to attribute blame for this incident, I must await further evidence'?

Back in the day that was easy, IRA= SEMTEX, Orangemen= PE2.

 

[OakRiver]

So, during the troubles, if a bomb was exploded in Ulster or Belfast did you say to yourself 'I don't have enough information to attribute blame for this incident, I must await further evidence'?

During the Troubles, if a bomb went off, there were usually a significant number of supporting facts or other context clues that would assist in working out who blew something up. A big one was location, as there were very distinct, religiously segregated areas. Another was the target. The IRA targeted security forces and state infrastructure, Loyalists did not. There were also warnings given by the groups, called into news stations, giving code words that were unique to each group.

Here we have a guy with no prior history of violence or extremist behavior shooting at a retail store.

Because of those substantial differences the two sets of circumstances are in no way analogous.

 

[BugI02]

During the Troubles, if a bomb went off, there were usually a significant number of supporting facts or other context clues that would assist in working out who blew something up. A big one was location, as there were very distinct, religiously segregated areas. Another was the target. The IRA targeted security forces and state infrastructure, Loyalists did not. There were also warnings given by the groups, called into news stations, giving code words that were unique to each group.

Here we have a guy with no prior history of violence or extremist behavior shooting at a retail store.

Because of those substantial differences the two sets of circumstances are in no way analogous.

"It's not a lie if you believe it"

 

[OakRiver]

But I did read what you said. I just read it again. It seemed to me that the following quote reveals your reasoning for the pushback towards those who rebutted your initial complaint. You thought the article had rushed to judgement. Other people thought it was reasonable. And about the article, other than the title being a bit click-baity, the main point of the article, was not that it WAS THE motive, but a suggestion that all the racist rhetoric from BLM all summer might just point at a motive. And that's a fair point.

Act said he didn't want to be judged, so he's not gonna judge. Fair enough. We all understand that concept. But I don't a reason why the following sermonette on othering/judging applies to this conversation.



I don't see this as applicable. I dunno. Maybe you were just saying it. Because no one is othering or justifying any cruelty. No one is judging an entire group by the worst of their behaviors. No one is judging anyone else by the actions of this individual. That whole line seems out of place in this discussion. So it just comes off as preachy. Maybe I came off harshly, but I'm just saying, hold the **** on. No one here or even in that article needed this preached at them so why is that something that needed said?

And it's not morally wrong to wonder, absent of a motive, given the information we have, to talk about possible motives, especially the one that might be inconventient to BLM--the organization--after spreading their racist nonsense. It's not wrong to speculate even that that could even be a leading motive. As I said, if I'm a betting man, my money is on that one. But of course, later discovered facts could make some other bet the winner. And that's fine too. It seemed that you were wagging a finger at INGO when people agreed with the article. No fingers needed wagged.

No fingers were being wagged. You took a general statement, directed at absolutely no one in particular, on this forum or anywhere else, about the dangers of othering and took offense at it where none was intended nor implied.

You came to your own conclusion based on a speculative article. That is your right and prerogative. There was absolutely no judgement on your opinion. I came to a separate conclusion, where I said I would like more information. There was never any judgement that one conclusion was better than another.

Where the issue arises is that you then tried to find some hidden meaning in a general statement, that line that you feel is out of place. That was a direct reply to another community member about a separate point. It was not directed at you, Cameramonkey, or DoggyDaddy.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

 

[BugI02]

Again, I think it's fair to await further evidence for a definitive motive. But it's certainly fair to strongly suspect it.

Exactly. I'm not saying this guy should be sentenced without a trial, I'm saying that based on the preponderance of information available at this time, IMO the mofo was going hunting for some white people. It could certainly turn out later that he only planned a robbery but I will not alter my opinion unless and until further information indicates I should

My heart is not bleeding and neither is it on my sleeve

 

[OakRiver]

So, one must suppose that in December of 2019, when David Anderson and Francine Graham drove to the only jewish deli in their neighborhood and immediately attacked it and its patrons with long guns, that no motive for the attack can be determined because both perps were killed. Despite the fact that they were linked to the Black Israelites, since we lack testimony or hard evidence, the motive must be forever indeterminate? Sigh

So, we have a few differences here. The first one being that these people were linked to a community that has an acrimonious relationship with the Jewish community. The Bass Pro shooting does not indicate that the shooter had any such grudge against the retailer or their patrons. Second, these individuals sought out, in your own words "the only Jewish deli in their neighborhood". Bass Pro is a very different type of retail establishment, that is not identified with a specific race or religion.

So, in the totality of the circumstances it is possible to make a reasonable inference based on the deli shooting based on the information available. As the Bass Pro shooting lacks much context any inferences as to motive are largely speculative.

 

[OakRiver]

"It's not a lie if you believe it"

Not even close: 0/10

 

[jamil]

No fingers were being wagged. You took a general statement, directed at absolutely no one in particular, on this forum or anywhere else, about the dangers of othering and took offense at it where none was intended nor implied.

You came to your own conclusion based on a speculative article. That is your right and prerogative. There was absolutely no judgement on your opinion. I came to a separate conclusion, where I said I would like more information. There was never any judgement that one conclusion was better than another.

Where the issue arises is that you then tried to find some hidden meaning in a general statement, that line that you feel is out of place. That was a direct reply to another community member about a separate point. It was not directed at you, Cameramonkey, or DoggyDaddy.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Alright. I can accept that. I'm sorry for the confusion as well.

 

[OakRiver]

Alright. I can accept that. I'm sorry for the confusion as well.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Late to the party. To clarify Oak, sorry, I wasnt directing that "only whites can be racist" at you. Thats becoming a general thought in the mainstream. They point all kinds of fingers at us for hating them for their skin color and point out how racist we are for it, yet when they hate us for no other reason than OUR skin color, liberals (and the black community leaders as well)try to say its not the same and their hatred based solely on skin color isnt racist; they just dont like us.

 

[OakRiver]

Late to the party. To clarify Oak, sorry, I wasnt directing that "only whites can be racist" at you. Thats becoming a general thought in the mainstream. They point all kinds of fingers at us for hating them for their skin color and point out how racist we are for it, yet when they hate us for no other reason than OUR skin color, liberals (and the black community leaders as well)try to say its not the same and their hatred based solely on skin color isnt racist; they just dont like us.

No worries

I think we set a new INGO record for disagreements getting resolved, amicably, and without anyone becoming a shooter

 

[jamil]

I just needed a snickers. I'm good now.

 

[KLB]

No worries

I think we set a new INGO record for disagreements getting resolved, amicably, and without anyone becoming a shooter

BBBBOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[churchmouse]

No worries

I think we set a new INGO record for disagreements getting resolved, amicably, and without anyone becoming a shooter

 

[Cameramonkey]

I think y'all are just skeered of the nerf bats.

 

[Tombs]

 

[OakRiver]

I just needed a snickers. I'm good now.

[video=youtube;3UO2A2p-19A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO2A2p-19A[/video]

 

[jamil]

"Additionally, we have overwhelmingly intelligence..."

WTF? Did Trump write that himself?

Seriously though, this isn't anything new, other than confirmation that Feds kinda were getting a clue as late as July.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

"Additionally, we have overwhelmingly intelligence..."

WTF? Did Trump write that himself?

Seriously though, this isn't anything new, other than confirmation that Feds kinda were getting a clue as late as July.

It's a mark-up draft as evidenced by all of the, ummm, mark-ups.

Wonder what the final release looked like.

Key is that the feds have viewed it as "organized" for quite sometime. There was a discussion a few weeks back about police doing RS questioning of the Riot Kitchen filling up gas cans outside Kenosha while it burned.

Arson is a RICO predicate... travelling interstate to commit a predicate (arson) ticks another RICO box as a repeated SOP pattern of predicate acts. One of the gas station stories mentioned feds involved. This is a RICO investigation of antifa and has been for at least several months.

Good!

ETA: the violence to further an ideology may additionally kick terrorist organization legal definitions. Even better!

 

[jamil]

Barr tells feds to charge rioters with sedition.
https://reason.com/2020/09/16/attorney-general-bill-barr-encourages-federal-prosecutors-to-charge-violent-protesters-with-sedition/

For the instigators, this is appropriate. But man, the left media headlines. “Barr orders feds to charge racial justice protestors with treason”

Um, what?