The Berkeley assailants should be prosecuted for acts of terrorism. Watch

SnowflakeFurnace
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Their actions were designed to intimidate their political opponents and were politically motivated. Astoundingly (well, not really, it was in opposition to Trump and as far as progressives are concerned the end always justifies the means), all of the MSM reported this as a 'protest.'

The FBI's definition of terrorism:

"the unlawful use of force or 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."

Antifa (anti-fascism, a group intimately connected to George Soros), the left-wing group which started the riot, set fire to a generator and threw fireworks at the auditorium which hosted Yiannopoulos. They then smashed windows, and upwards of 150 of them assaulted attendees with pepper spray and burnt objects.

The Police just stood there and did nothing. The riot spread to downtown and still, I expect owed to their political allegiance and Police fear over violating their 'human rights' (the same human rights which give terrorists the right to a family life when faced with deportation), the Police did nothing. Antifa started smashing banks and small businesses and still...the Police did nothing.

This was the precise definition of a terrorist attack; the very notion it was a 'protest' is absolutely absurd. Some may even call it fake news.
2
reply
MildredMalone
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The authorities should have used physical force a lot earlier.
0
reply
SnowflakeFurnace
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by MildredMalone)
The authorities should have used physical force a lot earlier.
Yep. Can you imagine the media reaction if Republican 'protesters', immediately after the election of Barack Obama, interrupted a Democrat activist's event by throwing fireworks, smashing windows and setting private property alight?

It would have been wall-to-wall media coverage for weeks.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by SnowflakeFurnace)
Yep. Can you imagine the media reaction if Republican 'protesters', immediately after the election of Barack Obama, interrupted a Democrat activist's event by throwing fireworks, smashing windows and setting private property alight?

It would have been wall-to-wall media coverage for weeks.
Or even better, can you imagine the media reaction if a Yiannopoulos fan started actually shooting and trying to kill peaceful anti-Yiannopoulos protesters?

Oh, wait, we don't need to, because that happened two weeks ago. The media cared noticeably less than they did about the utter horror of broken Berkeley windows.
0
reply
Google22
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
I agree. What they are 'fighting against', they are doing that themselves.

The sooner these lefties realise they are making a mockery of themselves and stop, the better.
0
reply
StrawbAri
Badges: 17
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by SnowflakeFurnace)
Yep. Can you imagine the media reaction if Republican 'protesters', immediately after the election of Barack Obama, interrupted a Democrat activist's event by throwing fireworks, smashing windows and setting private property alight?

It would have been wall-to-wall media coverage for weeks.
They did actually.

In fact, not too long after he was inaugurated a black church was burned to the ground.
Also Obama supporters were harassed and beaten up.
It's pretty much the same reaction we see now but people have selective memory.

Also it's so so funny this whole 'can you imagine the media reaction if xyz happened' rhetoric. Both sides use it. An SJW will complain 'when a white person commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'. An alt righter will complain 'when a progressive/Islamist commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'
Another thing to add to my list of similarities both sides have.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by StrawbAri)
They did actually.

In fact, not too long after he was inaugurated a black church was burned to the ground.
Also Obama supporters were harassed and beaten up.
It's pretty much the same reaction we see now but people have selective memory.

Also it's so so funny this whole 'can you imagine the media reaction if xyz happened' rhetoric. Both sides use it. An SJW will complain 'when a white person commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'. An alt righter will complain 'when a progressive/Islamist commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'
Another thing to add to my list of similarities both sides have.
You wouldn't happen to be referring to the church burned down by a black member of the congregation who then spray painted "Trump" on the side as a hoax? That would just be arson.

Obama (or do you mean Hilary?) supporters being harassed and beaten up would not be terrorism, either. What violent coercion of the public in pursuit of political goals was going on here? Trump had already won. We can't just go around calling every crime an act of terror when people get rowdy due to an election. The term will start to wear out fast.

Antifa, on the other hand, is an organised group that is intent in some sort of revolution and demonstrably uses violence and intimidation of the public and the authorities in pursuit of its political goals. Sound familiar?
0
reply
StrawbAri
Badges: 17
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Dandaman1)
You wouldn't happen to be referring to the church burned down by a black member of the congregation who then spray painted "Trump" on the side as a hoax? That would just be arson.

Obama (or do you mean Hilary?) supporters being harassed and beaten up would not be terrorism, either. What violent coercion of the public in pursuit of political goals was going on here? Trump had already won. We can't just go around calling every crime an act of terror when people get rowdy due to an election. The term will start to wear out fast.

Antifa, on the other hand, is an organised group that is intent in some sort of revolution and demonstrably uses violence and intimidation of the public and the authorities in pursuit of its political goals. Sound familiar?
I'm speaking of the incidents that took place after Obama was elected president in 2008.
Yes a church was indeed burned down by people disgruntled by a ni**er being elected president.
Also yes Obama supporters at the time were harassed and one beaten up so badly he was hospitalised.
Edit: actually I've checked and quite a few people were beaten up

And no I am not referring to those I mentioned above as acts of terror. I am challenging the OPs 'can you imagine what the media would have done if xyz happened'. xyz did infact happen to nearly the same magnitude that it's happening now and it didn't receive 'wall to wall media coverage' as he implied.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Riot sounds like a better term than terrorism given the lack of any real clear end goals during the "attack".

(Original post by StrawbAri)
Also it's so so funny this whole 'can you imagine the media reaction if xyz happened' rhetoric. Both sides use it. An SJW will complain 'when a white person commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'. An alt righter will complain 'when a progressive/Islamist commits an act of terrorism the media are silent'
Another thing to add to my list of similarities both sides have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

You may or may not find this interesting/relevant.
2
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by StrawbAri)
I'm speaking of the incidents that took place after Obama was elected president in 2008.
Yes a church was indeed burned down by people disgruntled by a ni**er being elected president.
Also yes Obama supporters at the time were harassed and one beaten up so badly he was hospitalised.
Edit: actually I've checked and quite a few people were beaten up

And no I am not referring to those I mentioned above as acts of terror. I am challenging the OPs 'can you imagine what the media would have done if xyz happened'. xyz did infact happen to nearly the same magnitude that it's happening now and it didn't receive 'wall to wall media coverage' as he implied.
Bear in mind this was almost a decade ago during a different social and political climate. If Democrats and black people were being attacked the way Trump supporters are being attacked today, it would be receiving wall-to-wall media coverage. All it takes is an alleged crime from a small handful of Trump supporters before the media start doing their thing. Heaven forbid the victims are ethnic minorities. So could you imagine the media frenzy if thousands of Trump supporters were actually running through the streets burning things and beating people up?
0
reply
StrawbAri
Badges: 17
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Bear in mind this was almost a decade ago during a different social and political climate. If Democrats and black people were being attacked the way Trump supporters are being attacked today, it would be receiving wall-to-wall media coverage. All it takes is an alleged crime from a small handful of Trump supporters before the media start doing their thing. Heaven forbid the victims are ethnic minorities. So could you imagine the media frenzy if thousands of Trump supporters were actually running through the streets burning things and beating people up?
Which brings me on to my next point: why is it that both sides of the divide use this line? 'Imagine if it was a white guy that shot at that nightclub! The media would be silent' or 'imagine if it was a progressive/Islamist that shot in Quebec! The media would be silent'

The whole role reversal and 'imagine if' thing doesn't work anymore because people are biased towards the side they support and will insist that the media is also biased towards the side they don't support and therefore will ignore the fact that the media isn't some monolithic organisation biased towards one side of the political spectrum.
Also the role reversal in this case would imply there is no media frenzy surrounding the Berkeley riots. It depends on what you define as 'frenzy', which media outlets you frequent and where you decide to look for this 'frenzy'. It all goes back to people generalising the media as a monolithic group that has a bias towards the side they don't support.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 2 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (413)
18.6%
The paper was reasonable (1054)
47.46%
Not feeling great about that exam... (493)
22.2%
It was TERRIBLE (261)
11.75%

Watched Threads

View All