SinAdjetivos @ SinAdjetivos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

68

Joined

3 mo. ago

Don't know, but it's very easily done via LRAD. which the LAPD is known to have a "unknown quantity" of.

Note it's secondary usage as a "sonic weapon". [Self defense tips] (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqIvak-4Ek)

Finding a could other examples doesn't make me wrong.

You're right, you are the one making bold claims and so the burden of proof is on you. You got any?

Agitators by definition are conspiritors, by definition making it a conspiracy. Try reading the actual words I wrote, I never said conspiracy theory which i understand has the connotation of false/crazy/unsubstantiated belief and I think you're confusing that with what was actually said.

People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you're replying to

Yes, but I don't understand what you're trying to communicate. What is your point?

And was expanded to include literal children during the Iraq war.

Iraq/Afghanistan? Russia is following in the steps of the US here.

I said I didn't think that, and it's obviously possible and now you're upset that I used the word "possible"

Not upset, and I do think I misread your list of reasons for why someone would be a 'violent protester' as an exhaustive list when you did not mean it as such. My point about priors still stands but you are correct that it is mostly directed at badbytes. What were you trying to communicate with your first comment if not re-enforcing badbytes message?

in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean "undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it's own sake"

I appreciate this, however this definition runs opposite to your usage above about how police/accelerationists "came to the protest to cause trouble". Your usage there was to communicate "directed violence perpetrated for political sake".

The word "violence" is a bit murky here and I'm not sure I agree on it's inclusion in the definition of "trouble" however with how obstruction and vandalism are considered "violent" by police I stand by the statement that:

The point of a protest is to cause "directed violence perpetrated for political sake".

The point of a protest is to cause trouble anything else is a parade.

It's obviously possible for someone aligned with the peaceful protestors to decide to throw rocks at cops

The thing we are arguing about isn't "possibility" it's "probability". To be fair, you have not directly stated you beliefs but the parent comment had stated their priors and they are completely divorced from reality.

It's a reference to Rachel Corrie and the countless others that are frequently murdered via bulldozer in Palestine.

You can't just cherry pick random data points and use those to assert broad claims. How about these guys. Was the Minneapolis precinct burning the action of proud boys?

If anything a majority were the most average of average. If you're gonna keep pushing this narrative at least make sure you get your paycheck from the DHS.

Yes, and if you read further into the actions/tactics of those various departments/agencies you'll discover that propogating the myth of the "outside agitator" is a core part of those tactics.

It's not a reasonable guess, it's propogating propoganda based on half truths.

My dude, they were arresting random people and charging everyone with assault, obstruction, etc. Of the over 14000 people arrested at the end of June 2020 you really believe the majority were right wing accelerationists?

Jacob Fagundo, Timothy O'Donnell, James Massey and Lamar Taylor were all right wing accelerationists?

Yes, ops and peace police exist. Why does that mean that it's impossible for an individual to "do violence for a principled reason"? Is Luigi also an op?

Literal conspiracy seems more likely to you than someone responding to violence with violence?

The drug use is likely more of a symptom than a cause.

So does detainment. The fact that they are not following the procedures and requirements makes it an unlawful arrest or, as you correctly pointed out, kidnapping.

"killed by Israeli fire" is quite the choice of phrase.

The time period they are referencing (old history at this point...) the Ottoman empire was in control of the area and it operated as something of an apartheid state. Pogroms, persecution and oppression absolutely happened. However it was mostly a new import from western Europe. Jewish citizens were second class but they were still "people of the book" and fared much better for most of the empire's history.

However, understanding a bit more history there is a direct through line from those historical wrongs and the modern Palestinian genocide. It is just a continuation of the Spanish, Portuguese and British (amongst others) campaign against ethnicly semetic peoples that the Jewish people also historically fell victim to.

I will note the slew of pogroms in the middle east and ask you read about why the Bar Giora was formed.

I understand that you are trying to draw a direct line from the modern IDF to a historic Jewish Resistance Movement. However, I would argue that it was coopted by foreign powers and abandoned it's goal of an independent jewish state after it's transformation into the Haganah and transitioned from a defensive force (largely support) to a colonizing force (don't support).

I do not support the Ottoman empire in its persecution of religious minorities. However, I do not see how your logic and worldview wouldn't support the Ottomans in persecuting the Jewish people at the time due to their militant tactics. What perspective am I missing?

Tell me what your point is or drop it.

The point is controlled opposition, perverse incentives, and the power/danger of "sell outs".