Bernie Sanders supporter fires on congressional members at GOP baseball practice

[Varius]

The general position that Hands is taking on the use of violence isn't necessarily a bad one. It's definitely conditional on how you view the current state of the American government (or any government that you want to look at). Because Americans are generally down with the idea that a bad government can or should be taken down by force if it's necessary. I'm not normally an advocate for violence, but I also think that, if it is in fact necessary, that violence could be beneficial. Key word is "necessary." I don't know that I'd say it's at that point yet.

All forms of political violence are an affront to democracy. Those who want to indulge in political violence are a threat to society and the civilians and there is no justification in the slaughter of any people within our society. Violence only has an end-goal of destruction and invites everyone to contend within the attacks. People cannot be myopic in regards to this kind of violence, as violent direct action will almost always succeed in the one using the most immoral tactics winning (killing all civilians within the opposing side, the use chemical weapons, etc).

When the left starts having ARMED public demonstrations marching down the street in platoons just like the Italian Blackshirts, what is to stop and actual Fascist group from doing the same and actually applying force?

And no, Americans are generally down with the idea of taking down a government if it is tyrannical, not because it is "bad" (as you can have a bad government that isn't tyrannical; see the Articles of Confederation or just about any fledgling democracy in Europe that got toppled by a Fascist. All of them were bad governments for being weak).

I think that's difference among most people, how bad they think the government is. Because the amount of violence that is warranted is conditional on the amount of harm that it stops, but it is also conditional on the amount of harm done through the use of violence. The damage that a government is doing has got to outweigh the damage that you do by using violence. If someone turns to violence because their taxes go up 0.5% that's a disproportional response and it just makes that person and people like them seem crazy and violent. If someone turns to violence because the government arrested members of their family without good cause and tortured them I would be much more sympathetic personally, but I would still worry about how they use violence and who or what they target with it.

The only justification for violence against the state is if the state is becoming despotic. Our state has not become tyrannical as of yet. If the state starts doing what you have described in italics, then yeah, I could see people rioting because that is breaking the social contract. However, if it isn't in a regular basis for citizens (as this could just be that whole Military Tribunal bullshit Bush implemented for terrorists outside the US), then complete violence against the state is not needed when you can protest against the state and elect people who would stop it.

Example time: In the 60s and 70s there was a group called the Weathermen (later Weather Underground) who used bombings of government buildings as protests (mostly toward elements of the Vietnam war). An important thing they did was to warn people ahead of time that they were going to bomb a particular building. Because of that the only people who were harmed by their actions were some of their own members who died in an accident. That example might still seem extreme, but given that over a million died because of that war, which also saw many war crimes and other atrocities, it might not seem as extreme.

The Weather Underground are a terrorist group and a threat to society. Just because we had a war in which war crimes and atrocities happened (often not by the direct commands of a military officer) does not justify going around and bombing a bunch of government buildings. Nor does warning civilians ahead of time about your bombings exempt you from the acts of terrorism you are committing. Again, political violence is an affront to democracy. People who defend political violence of their side or divulge in violence for their political gain are inherently undemocratic.

The only thing that someone committing terrorism deserves is a one-way ticket straight to an electric chair if they are properly convicted of terrorism. An extremist will rarely become a rational person after radicalization, and if they wage this war of political violence, they must suffer the consequences of attacking the civilians.

 

[twocows]

They fought, and were willing to kill if necessary, for a better tomorrow for the people, not for themselves.

That's a very nice way to say that you support murdering people in cold blood over political differences. So let me ask you: do you also think it would be acceptable for people who worried that President Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton were going to disarm them and take their guns to resort to armed violence against random Democratic congresspeople? See, here's the thing: when you try to legitimize behavior that deprives people of their basic human rights, that behavior will inevitably be used by people you don't like against people you do like. This applies to legitimizing censorship and it certainly applies to legitimizing violence.

But let's put that aside for now, because there's another issue here. Do you think that, had this person succeeded in his attempt on several dozen GOP congresspeoples' lives, the world would be a better place for it? Because let me tell you what I think would have happened. I think that, had several dozen GOP congresspeople perished in a mass shooting by a Bernie supporter, that:
1. The already-weakened position of the left would have been weakened significantly more
2. The (currently laughable) claim by those on the right that they're being oppressed by radicals on the left would have been legitimized in the minds of many voters
3. The districts of these congresspeople would have elected people with similar (or even more extreme) political leanings in the inevitable emergency elections that followed
4. The country and our politics would trend even more to the right than it currently does
5. You would see a great deal of retaliatory attacks by radicals on the right against innocent people

What you're talking about isn't creating a better world. It's petty revenge and you're dressing it up in nice, flowery language. The only tomorrow you're creating is one filled with people killing each other (and unrelated innocents) over differences in opinion that could otherwise be resolved through discourse.

 

[Nah]

Every time I try to type a post for this I can't seem to find the words to express how I feel exactly. Though I can at least say that it's some sort of mix of the two sides.

But while I'm here:

post

I want to bring this bit up again since I feel like it was forgotten and I just kinda want to hear a response to it for whatever reason:

I'm not disagreeing that he's a gross person, but what do you think his death would accomplish? It's not going to end his racist/prolife/sexist/homophobic rhetoric, there are a ton of guys ready to take his place with the same agenda. He doesn't weild the power of Hitler and before the shooting he wasn't widely known by name.

 

[Hands]

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most people agree that Oswald is a terrorist and an assassin. Now, for Fidel Castro, from what I understand from the time, he was technically the leader of the military as well which technically makes him a military leader, not civilian.

Plus, you know, he sided with the Soviet Union, which we were at conflict with.

So you're saying the President of the USA isn't also Commander-in-chief? The Constitution would disagree.

Are you also saying that murdering a head of state of a country you do not politically agree with is ok and not Terrorism because you disagree with them? I thought you were scolding me for saying it was ok to take up arms (again, it's in your constitution) against an unfit govt? Or is it only terrorism and wrong if it happens to an American?

For the record, I have never, never seen a piece of historical or contemporary writing on Kennedy that refers to Oswald as a terrorist and I've extensively studied both JFK and his assassination.

Ukraine's Civil War was due to Russian separatists and not over social welfare.

I didn't say that the Ukranian Civil War was caused by cuts and attacks on the poor, I used it as an example of the Eastern European countries that apparently have worse welfare systems than Greece but that didn't riot. They didn't riot because they were in a civil war. Although they did riot prior to the civil war which were directly spurred on by Govt corruption, affronts to human rights, lack of investment in public services and mismanagement of public spending. This amounts to a desire for a proper welfare state as opposed to anger at the attack on the welfare state.

Poland has a mass migration originally had a crap economy due to them getting out of a failing economic system. Despite their economically terrible start, Poland is starting to have their population growth rate go back into a positive rate (it's currently at 0%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Poland

I mean you're outright wrong about Poland's welfare state, they have one and it's relatively well backed. It's not as advanced as others and there's not as much of a safety net, hence the mass movement of people into more affluent EU countries with stronger social states.

Of course, all of this is pointless tit for tat. You said cuts in social state do not inspire violence and unrest, I told you they do and used Greece as my main example, Everything beyond that point is irrelevant. All of your tangents have been a result of me saying that Bernie did not inspire this attack and therefore should not be linked to it.

That's a very nice way to say that you support murdering people in cold blood over political differences. So let me ask you: do you also think it would be acceptable for people who worried that President Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton were going to disarm them and take their guns to resort to armed violence against random Democratic congresspeople? See, here's the thing: when you try to legitimize behavior that deprives people of their basic human rights, that behavior will inevitably be used by people you don't like against people you do like. This applies to legitimizing censorship and it certainly applies to legitimizing violence.

But let's put that aside for now, because there's another issue here. Do you think that, had this person succeeded in his attempt on several dozen GOP congresspeoples' lives, the world would be a better place for it? Because let me tell you what I think would have happened. I think that, had several dozen GOP congresspeople perished in a mass shooting by a Bernie supporter, that:
1. The already-weakened position of the left would have been weakened significantly more
2. The (currently laughable) claim by those on the right that they're being oppressed by radicals on the left would have been legitimized in the minds of many voters
3. The districts of these congresspeople would have elected people with similar (or even more extreme) political leanings in the inevitable emergency elections that followed
4. The country and our politics would trend even more to the right than it currently does
5. You would see a great deal of retaliatory attacks by radicals on the right against innocent people

What you're talking about isn't creating a better world. It's petty revenge and you're dressing it up in nice, flowery language. The only tomorrow you're creating is one filled with people killing each other (and unrelated innocents) over differences in opinion that could otherwise be resolved through discourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

Guess what? The right didn't lose support, Brexit didn't lose support, Britain First didn't lose support. A woman who's only crime was campaigning to help displaced people and treat them as people was shot in the head and brutally stabbed and it didn't have even a small effect on British politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gow

Didn't strengthen the influence of the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family

Didn't stop the Bolsheviks or inspire a mass of royalist sympathy.

So whilst I think your scenario is possible, historically speaking, it is unlikely.

You can call it what you want, it's not revenge though. Revenge is personal, this was, in his mind, for the good of everyone, not himself.

Every time I try to type a post for this I can't seem to find the words to express how I feel exactly. Though I can at least say that it's some sort of mix of the two sides.

But while I'm here:

I want to bring this bit up again since I feel like it was forgotten and I just kinda want to hear a response to it for whatever reason:

I think the death of Scalise would have several effects. Firstly, for the first time in decades, the repubs would be forced to take gun crime and mass shootings seriously. God knows they aren't bothered when its schools or cinemas or gay clubs, but if their own died? You better believe they'd act. Secondly, it'd have the same effect that punching Richard Spencer had. The right would become fearful. They'd have to accept the unfortunate truth that the hard left are armed and are willing. The people theyve spent decades abusing are marxed up and not afraid. I mean, I knew who he was and I'm a brit. The third in the chain of succession would be a big thing.

The armed Klansmen who routinely harass peaceful protesters and attempt to intimidate them left the protest in a hurry when these guys rolled up simply for the fact they too were armed. Think how afraid the police were to just outright murder young black men when a constitutionally backed and legally armed Black Panther movement followed them around. The hard right need fear and oppressive authority to operate, like the schoolyard bully they don't know how to deal with people who are willing to fight back.

 

[Moon Entity]

I'd of followed Castro to my death.

I, personally, wouldn't fight for a homophobic dictator who imprisons political prisoners, but each to their own I guess.

 

[Hands]

I, personally, wouldn't fight for a homophobic dictator who imprisons political prisoners, but each to their own I guess.

I'm glad you felt the need to make an alt for that Sword Master. This isn't a thread about Castro or the misinformation you're putting forward. Castro eliminated anit gay laws twenty years before the states did though but don't let fact get in the way of making an alt to make snipey remarks. Refreshing to know you'd of rather backed the slaver homophobic dictator Batista though.

 

[Moon Entity]

I'm glad you felt the need to make an alt for that Sword Master. This isn't a thread about Castro or the misinformation you're putting forward. Castro eliminated anit gay laws twenty years before the states did though but don't let fact get in the way of making an alt to make snipey remarks. Refreshing to know you'd of rather backed the slaver homophobic dictator Batista though.

Actually he's my brother who told me to write about Castro.

 

[Trev]

Punching Richard Spencer didn't make the right fearful at all. Majority of people on the far right jumped to Spencer's defense, saying that the left was oppressing his right to free speech. If anything, all it did was make him look like a victim of violence in the eyes of the people defending him. Don't think the situation helped people on the regular right ease up to the left either.

 

[Varius]

So you're saying the President of the USA isn't also Commander-in-chief? The Constitution would disagree.

Well yeah, he is, but last time I checked, Congress declares war and the most the President can do is direct officers. He's not like Castro who literally led a bunch of revolutionaries to go overthrow a US backed dictatorship.

Are you also saying that murdering a head of state of a country you do not politically agree with is ok and not Terrorism because you disagree with them? I thought you were scolding me for saying it was ok to take up arms (again, it's in your constitution) against an unfit govt? Or is it only terrorism and wrong if it happens to an American?

No, I'm saying he was a military target which makes it not terrorism. A terrorists doesn't go around shooting a bunch of military soldiers when they can just go around shooting civilians. Also, I'm not scolding you over you wanting to take arms against an "unfit government", I'm scolding you for preaching violence and it's not like our constitution says that we are to depose a tyrannical government, not an unfit one. After all, the Articles of Confederation were definitely an unfit government but you didn't see most people trying to take arms against it.

For the record, I have never, never seen a piece of historical or contemporary writing on Kennedy that refers to Oswald as a terrorist and I've extensively studied both JFK and his assassination.

Well, that's probably because most records label it as mostly an assassination anyways. What matters is that he was committing political violence against a non-Military target, so he is a terrorist.

snip (Ukraine)

So Ukraine is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Poland

I mean you're outright wrong about Poland's welfare state, they have one and it's relatively well backed. It's not as advanced as others and there's not as much of a safety net, hence the mass movement of people into more affluent EU countries with stronger social states.

Of course, all of this is pointless tit for tat. You said cuts in social state do not inspire violence and unrest, I told you they do and used Greece as my main example, Everything beyond that point is irrelevant. All of your tangents have been a result of me saying that Bernie did not inspire this attack and therefore should not be linked to it.

No, I said it had a lot less welfare compared to the rest of the states in the EU except for other Eastern European countries, and you even admit that yourself later in that paragraph. Secondly, Greece was already in civil turmoil due to the crappy economy. When you have a crappy economy at the level of Greece right now, it would be no surprise if people start rioting.

Also, you were the one who brought up Greece when I said that there would be no justification for violence if a welfare state is dismantled.

I think the death of Scalise would have several effects. Firstly, for the first time in decades, the repubs would be forced to take gun crime and mass shootings seriously. God knows they aren't bothered when its schools or cinemas or gay clubs, but if their own died? You better believe they'd act. Secondly, it'd have the same effect that punching Richard Spencer had. The right would become fearful. They'd have to accept the unfortunate truth that the hard left are armed and are willing. The people theyve spent decades abusing are marxed up and not afraid. I mean, I knew who he was and I'm a brit. The third in the chain of succession would be a big thing.

You do realize that most Republicans think civilians should have more guns because it would lower crime, right? All the would do is make gun laws more lax so that civilians can have more guns and try to ban gun-free zones (where a lot of our shootings seem to take place). I mean seriously, that gay club was a no-gun zone, all schools are no-gun zones and the shooter at the Dark Knight shooting could've just went to one of the other cinemas that wasn't a no-gun zone, but he just conveniently picked the one that happened to be a no-gun zone.

Secondly, the Right didn't become fearful after Spencer got punched. They were trying to justify retaliatory violence if they were an actual Fascist, try to paint him as a victim to garner sympathy if they were "alt-Right", and some were even mocking the assailant for not even being able to knock down someone with a sucker punch. A real Fascist would not see this and be afraid, a real Fascist would start bringing weapons and creating what would basically be described as platoons like they did back in Italy and Germany.

Plus, their entire shtick is "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" regarding the Alt-Right. Granted, the state would more likely crackdown on a Klansman trying to lynch someone than Antifa throwing a bunch of fireworks into unarmed crowds because "MUH NAZIS".

The armed Klansmen who routinely harass peaceful protesters and attempt to intimidate them left the protest in a hurry when these guys rolled up simply for the fact they too were armed. Think how afraid the police were to just outright murder young black men when a constitutionally backed and legally armed Black Panther movement followed them around. The hard right need fear and oppressive authority to operate, like the schoolyard bully they don't know how to deal with people who are willing to fight back.

Edit: By the way, I provided you a little page from the FBI about the BPP.

This entire paragraph can just be shortened to "But my brand of terrorism isn't actually terrorism, but if it is, it's wholly justified!"

All of those people in that picture are terrorist thugs. When they start shooting someone for real, don't expect the National Guard to give them any mercy. The same goes for any band of people going out and shooting civilians over their political beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

Guess what? The right didn't lose support, Brexit didn't lose support, Britain First didn't lose support. A woman who's only crime was campaigning to help displaced people and treat them as people was shot in the head and brutally stabbed and it didn't have even a small effect on British politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gow

Didn't strengthen the influence of the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family

Didn't stop the Bolsheviks or inspire a mass of royalist sympathy.

So whilst I think your scenario is possible, historically speaking, it is unlikely.

Ian Gow was assassinated by the IRA, which lead to anti-IRA feelings among the populous. Most of the populous were already against the Romanov family due to many influences (such as poor working conditions, not getting out of the war, etc). Most people in Russia wanted out of the war to begin with.

Meanwhile, we have had actions like Antifa's attack in Berkeley give people like Milo a lot of exposure and lead to his book becoming one of the biggest sellers on Amazon (#1 to be exact).

When Martin Luther King Jr. died, he became a martyr for the Civil Rights Movement. His death led to more people supporting it. Granted, there was already the violence doled out against those in the movement as well over dumb shit (like sitting at a segregated Woolworths lunch counter)

 

[Esper]

All forms of political violence are an affront to democracy. Those who want to indulge in political violence are a threat to society and the civilians and there is no justification in the slaughter of any people within our society. Violence only has an end-goal of destruction and invites everyone to contend within the attacks. People cannot be myopic in regards to this kind of violence, as violent direct action will almost always succeed in the one using the most immoral tactics winning (killing all civilians within the opposing side, the use chemical weapons, etc).

I get that violence is generally incompatible with democracy, but let's say you have a democracy that isn't very democratic. Let's say you had a group of politicians who gerrymandered, disenfranchised voters, and lied to keep themselves in power despite not having the votes necessary to do so. People in power despite the will of the people for others to be in power. Not all democracies are equally democratic. (Yes, there are many kinds of democracies with various pros and cons, but that's not what I'm talking about here.) Would it still be correct to call violence against this group "political" if the aim of the people using violence is to restore a more democratic system?

I would love to see all dictators, oligarchs, plutocrats, and other undemocratic people in power ousted by people like Gandhi and MLK Jr. in peaceful protests, but I'm not necessarily going to condemn someone who thinks that peaceful protests have limitations, especially when the people you're opposing use violence themselves. Basically, if you're already the target of violence (for instance, police brutality) and the people responsible for the arming and direction of policing aren't in power by legitimate democratic means, then isn't violence as a response more in line with self-defense than with "political" violence?

 

[Varius]

I get that violence is generally incompatible with democracy, but let's say you have a democracy that isn't very democratic. Let's say you had a group of politicians who gerrymandered, disenfranchised voters, and lied to keep themselves in power despite not having the votes necessary to do so. People in power despite the will of the people for others to be in power. Not all democracies are equally democratic. (Yes, there are many kinds of democracies with various pros and cons, but that's not what I'm talking about here.) Would it still be correct to call violence against this group "political" if the aim of the people using violence is to restore a more democratic system?

That is still a political aim, and thus, political violence. However, the government you are describing is not a true democracy (you cannot have democracy if some people cannot be vote due to disenfranchisement) and is more akin to oligarchy. Without that that detail, most people would try to vote in someone against the gerrymandering or try to get it up to the Supreme Court (which is what is happening currently IIRC) so reform will probably happen. So yes, I could see violence against the state if it is preventing certain groups from voting, but I also think it would be counterproductive to that movement when you can try to get it up the Supreme Court through a lawsuits.

I would love to see all dictators, oligarchs, plutocrats, and other undemocratic people in power ousted by people like Gandhi and MLK Jr. in peaceful protests, but I'm not necessarily going to condemn someone who thinks that peaceful protests have limitations, especially when the people you're opposing use violence themselves. Basically, if you're already the target of violence (for instance, police brutality) and the people responsible for the arming and direction of policing aren't in power by legitimate democratic means, then isn't violence as a response more in line with self-defense than with "political" violence?

Political violence against an authoritarian state with the means to bring democracy can be justified, because you are unlikely to make a change with peaceful protests in an authoritarian government. However, in a democratic government, you can at least try to make a change without violence. An authoritarian government would just quash the dissidents.

By the way, regarding police brutality, I could see defending yourself from the police if they don't have a reason to use force. However, you do need to realize that the police force isn't democratic to begin with. Just like most non-political jobs or professions, you go up the ladder through meritocracy. Sure, there are some elected positions (like Sheriff), but for the most part, positions like Police Chief aren't decided by election. At which point, you want to make the the legal system more accountable to abuses in powers.

 

[Esper]

However, you do need to realize that the police force isn't democratic to begin with. Just like most non-political jobs or professions, you go up the ladder through meritocracy. Sure, there are some elected positions (like Sheriff), but for the most part, positions like Police Chief aren't decided by election. At which point, you want to make the the legal system more accountable to abuses in powers.

I was alluding to things like when a government makes it easier for police forces to get/use military-style equipment and incentivizes them to do so. Or when they make laws that allow for more police freedom in terms of arrests and seizures and the like.

Police chiefs are usually selected by mayors and city councils though, so indirectly affected by politicians and voting.

 

[Varius]

I was alluding to things like when a government makes it easier for police forces to get/use military-style equipment and incentivizes them to do so. Or when they make laws that allow for more police freedom in terms of arrests and seizures and the like.

Police chiefs are usually selected by mayors and city councils though, so indirectly affected by politicians and voting.

Golly gee, I wonder why? It's almost as if rioting in the streets gives people an excuse to give police better equipment! Maybe this wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a bunch of people running down the street armed because they think bashing the fash will do something?

When people commit political violence, what do you think the average Joe is going to do? People have a need for safety, after all. If it means increasing police powers, people will vote accordingly. In fact, the same people who are scared that Donald Trump would become authoritarian are giving him the fuel he needs to become authoritarian to begin with by committing political violence.

Also, I was giving out an example. Thanks for the correction though.

 

[Hands]

This entire paragraph can just be shortened to "But my brand of terrorism isn't actually terrorism, but if it is, it's wholly justified!"

I mean your whole argument is basically this lol.

Politicians are separate to regular civilians, they're exempt from the "terrorist" clause. America wasn't at war with Castro or Cuba at any point in modern history (Castro turned to the US before the USSR after the civil uprising) and all of the 600+ attempts on his life came after the civil war so he was no longer a military target. Your whole argument relies on massive omissions of context and historical fact. Kennedy was as much a military target as Castro was. Castro was entirely political. By your skewed understanding of terrorism, the US committed no less than 600 terrorist acts against one man, never mind the close to two million civilians you've deliberately wiped out for political goals worldwide. Of course, you're Americans, so it can't be terrorism, right?

The IRA were unpopular in Britain because they bombed public places, no one cared that they killed Politicians, we just wanted the troubles to be over.

Greece was a key example of attacks on the welfare state leading to riots. The economy collapsing is part of it but do you think anyone cares if the economy takes a dive so long as the fabric of society remains? Why didn't Britain riot during the recession? Oh that;s right, no one took away over 5 million of our civilians access to healthcare!

Also Poland was your awful example. Poland has a better and more open welfare state than the US and no one has attempted to cut it so your example was legitimately terrible.

 

[Varius]

I mean your whole argument is basically this lol.

Politicians are separate to regular civilians, they're exempt from the "terrorist" clause. America wasn't at war with Castro or Cuba at any point in modern history (Castro turned to the US before the USSR after the civil uprising) and all of the 600+ attempts on his life came after the civil war so he was no longer a military target. Your whole argument relies on massive omissions of context and historical fact. Kennedy was as much a military target as Castro was. Castro was entirely political. By your skewed understanding of terrorism, the US committed no less than 600 terrorist acts against one man, never mind the close to two million civilians you've deliberately wiped out for political goals worldwide. Of course, you're Americans, so it can't be terrorism, right?

The IRA were unpopular in Britain because they bombed public places, no one cared that they killed Politicians, we just wanted the troubles to be over.

Greece was a key example of attacks on the welfare state leading to riots. The economy collapsing is part of it but do you think anyone cares if the economy takes a dive so long as the fabric of society remains? Why didn't Britain riot during the recession? Oh that;s right, no one took away over 5 million of our civilians access to healthcare!

Also Poland was your awful example. Poland has a better and more open welfare state than the US and no one has attempted to cut it so your example was legitimately terrible.

Except I'm not justifying political violence whatsoever, so your entire point is moot.

All politicians are civilians, and thus when a terrorist group is going after a politician, they are committing terrorism. You are defending someone who committed a terrorist act, I am not.

No citizen is exempt from the "terrorism" clause, only military targets. Cuba is a socialist military dictatorship, in which a good bit of the people in power or ex-military and the dictator has complete control over the military. Castro has had a history of leading guerrilla warfare against another military dictatorship under Batista. Not only this, but Castro had threatened the United States under the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which the Soviets tried installing nuclear weapons on Cuba). Castro was a military target whether you like it or not, because his government is a military dictatorship.

Also, I would like a citation for those two million civilians dead. While I am quite aware that previous administrations have committed war crimes (including Obama and Bush), I highly doubt we had killed that many people. Plus, if it was anything like ending terrorism, it was due to war against extremists and not political violence. It doesn't change that they are still war crimes and are thus heinous.

Both the bombings and the slaughter of politicians had led to people hating the IRA. The difference is that explosives kill more people and thus have more of an impact.

Also, the majority of the civil unrest in Greece comes from an economic collapse. Any time you have an economic collapse at their level, there will be civil unrest. It is no mere "recession", it is comparable to the US's Great Depression, and in some aspects, even worse. Combine that with a corrupt political class in that country and you're bound for civil unrest.

Poland isn't a terrible example though. You even said that their social welfare isn't much of a security net, whilst ours is and doesn't even require you to be actively looking for a job. By the way, according to your logic, we would've been having a lot of civil unrest pre-ObamaCare and before the removal of Bill Clinton's stipulations regarding obtaining welfare.

By the way, Castro didn't turn to the US first. He had a small visit and had always been anti-American because we supported a repressive dictator in Cuba. We always worried about him and officially cut ties with him two years after his regime started because he nationalized all industries including American assets in 1960 and all the other Communist/Socialist stuff.

 

[Lucid]

quote

I was basically going to say the same thing. I do t think it did much of anything but give them a victim card to play.

quote

I want want this to be the catalyst to a change in America's gun laws, I really, really do and I hope that I'm wrong when I say I don't believe for a second it's going to change anything. The average person doesn't know who Scalise is. I'm not going to argue with that, I live here and he isn't a big deal. I just find it incomprehensible that after something like Sandy Hook where the country had such a lack luster response that this guy being shot is going to be the turning point. I don't think people are much moved by shootings anymore. It's absolutely awful, but I think enough Americans would rather prevent stricter gun laws then keep people save. Not intentionally, but the response to gun violence tends to be Go buy a gun. I just took my kid to see a movie in a theater 3 people died in less then a year ago and no one in the community desires stricter gun laws or any sort of change in that respect. It's treated as a tragedy and then everyone goes on to the next one 2 months later. I will eat my own foot if this is what causes republicans to have any sort of epiphany.

Turning the other cheek isn't about submitting in the face of oppression. When the term was created, there were a lot of Roman soldiers policing just about everyone. Striking someone with an open palm meant they were treating you as an equal, while hitting someone with the back of your hand meant they were striking someone beneath them. Most Roman soldiers were right handed, so turning the other cheek literally meant you were forcing them to treat you as an equal if only momentarily. It humanized and promoted empathy to some degree. There are ways to protest peacefully and effectively but ultimately you can't undermine the effectiveness of voting people who want to create change into office is best route.

 

[Hands]

Except I'm not justifying political violence whatsoever, so your entire point is moot.

All politicians are civilians, and thus when a terrorist group is going after a politician, they are committing terrorism. You are defending someone who committed a terrorist act, I am not.

No citizen is exempt from the "terrorism" clause, only military targets. Cuba is a socialist military dictatorship, in which a good bit of the people in power or ex-military and the dictator has complete control over the military. Castro has had a history of leading guerrilla warfare against another military dictatorship under Batista. Not only this, but Castro had threatened the United States under the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which the Soviets tried installing nuclear weapons on Cuba). Castro was a military target whether you like it or not, because his government is a military dictatorship.

Also, I would like a citation for those two million civilians dead. While I am quite aware that previous administrations have committed war crimes (including Obama and Bush), I highly doubt we had killed that many people. Plus, if it was anything like ending terrorism, it was due to war against extremists and not political violence. It doesn't change that they are still war crimes and are thus heinous.

Both the bombings and the slaughter of politicians had led to people hating the IRA. The difference is that explosives kill more people and thus have more of an impact.

Also, the majority of the civil unrest in Greece comes from an economic collapse. Any time you have an economic collapse at their level, there will be civil unrest. It is no mere "recession", it is comparable to the US's Great Depression, and in some aspects, even worse. Combine that with a corrupt political class in that country and you're bound for civil unrest.

Poland isn't a terrible example though. You even said that their social welfare isn't much of a security net, whilst ours is and doesn't even require you to be actively looking for a job. By the way, according to your logic, we would've been having a lot of civil unrest pre-ObamaCare and before the removal of Bill Clinton's stipulations regarding obtaining welfare.

By the way, Castro didn't turn to the US first. He had a small visit and had always been anti-American because we supported a repressive dictator in Cuba. We always worried about him and officially cut ties with him two years after his regime started because he nationalized all industries including American assets in 1960 and all the other Communist/Socialist stuff.

This is getting beyond tedious. You have, at best, a loose grasp of history. Castro went to the US for help and Eisenhower refused to meet with him. The USA would rather see Cubans starve than thrive under a system that was rooted in social equality. The USSR didn't trust Castro, they thought he was a CIA plant because he was so willing to work with others. Ultimately, Castro had to make a call and side with the USSR to ensure the survival of his newly liberated people.

Poland has a better and more sustained welfare system than the US. They have healthcare, financial support and aid for those who cannot work. The only reason they flocked to Britain is Britain has arguably the greatest healthcare system in the world and had more job opportunities. This is partly down to the fall of the USSR and the effect it had on the slavic nations. I'm assuming you googled "countries with no welfare" or something stupid and just trusted the first link you came across because I cannot fathom how you thought Poland either did not have a welfare state or had a severely lacking one.

You didn't see as much civil unrest under prior presidents because they either all advanced social care and the state of welfare or they were more clever and sneaky with cutting it. Trump has been unabashed in his attacks on society's poorest and his suckling up to the rich and his party has been beyond boneheaded in their attempt to destroy the AHCA alongside all the hard work of the EPA over the past few decades.

You keep going back to Greece because I guess it's the only thing left you can hold onto but you're making a moot point. Originally you tried telling me that

Dismantling a welfare state does not justify violence nor would it spur growing violence.

Greece, France, Spain, Britain etc would disagree. It doesn't matter what the economic situation is (in fact, two of those four are in the top 10 economies in the world) those protests and riots were specifically about Austerity and cuts to the poorest. Attacking the poorest historically leads to violence. I mean if you want to be pedantic and talk solely about mistreatment of the poorest and those who need welfare and assistance then you can look at Russia, Cuba, Ireland, France, England, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe (under it's prior name of Rhodesia), England again, Angola and numerous other countries who historically had revolutions/rebellions/mass riots in response to mistreatment of the poor and working class for the profit of the rich.

All politicians are civilians

Why can't you just admit that the US committed over 600 acts of terrorism against one man who ceased being a military target almost 6 years before their initial attempt?

I mean you'd have a point if you were using the League of Nations definition from the 30s. You're not though, you're using the modern definition that outright separates non political entities as targets. The definition is to cover people like the victims of 9/11, 7/7, the Boston Bombings etc.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+assassination

This was an attempted political assassination. He didn't go and open fire on a bunch of Trump supporters, or Right wing activists, or even Klansmen. He opened fire on politicians with a clear target. Either every single attempt on Castro was terrorism, or this isn't. You can't have both.

I was basically going to say the same thing. I do t think it did much of anything but give them a victim card to play.

I want want this to be the catalyst to a change in America's gun laws, I really, really do and I hope that I'm wrong when I say I don't believe for a second it's going to change anything. The average person doesn't know who Scalise is. I'm not going to argue with that, I live here and he isn't a big deal. I just find it incomprehensible that after something like Sandy Hook where the country had such a lack luster response that this guy being shot is going to be the turning point. I don't think people are much moved by shootings anymore. It's absolutely awful, but I think enough Americans would rather prevent stricter gun laws then keep people save. Not intentionally, but the response to gun violence tends to be Go buy a gun. I just took my kid to see a movie in a theater 3 people died in less then a year ago and no one in the community desires stricter gun laws or any sort of change in that respect. It's treated as a tragedy and then everyone goes on to the next one 2 months later. I will eat my own foot if this is what causes republicans to have any sort of epiphany.

Turning the other cheek isn't about submitting in the face of oppression. When the term was created, there were a lot of Roman soldiers policing just about everyone. Striking someone with an open palm meant they were treating you as an equal, while hitting someone with the back of your hand meant they were striking someone beneath them. Most Roman soldiers were right handed, so turning the other cheek literally meant you were forcing them to treat you as an equal if only momentarily. It humanized and promoted empathy to some degree. There are ways to protest peacefully and effectively but ultimately you can't undermine the effectiveness of voting people who want to create change into office is best route.

I mean, I think this might change their minds. Republicans only care for themselves, they're self serving. 1,000,000 kids could be shot and they wouldn't care, but their own ilk? That's different, when their lives are at risk they're more likely to act.

In regards to turning the other cheek, that may have been "morally just" but it wasn't what brought down the Empire. People like Boadicea brought the empire down through fighting back. I have the great privilege of having Boadicea's people in my heritage, You could argue that physical resistance is in my city's blood.

 

[Varius]

This is getting beyond tedious. You have, at best, a loose grasp of history. Castro went to the US for help and Eisenhower refused to meet with him. The USA would rather see Cubans starve than thrive under a system that was rooted in social equality. The USSR didn't trust Castro, they thought he was a CIA plant because he was so willing to work with others. Ultimately, Castro had to make a call and side with the USSR to ensure the survival of his newly liberated people.

You do realize that very link I listed was in fact about that trip, which was not spurred by Castro wanting to help Eisenhower, but because a bunch of people in the press wanted to help him. Here is a quote from the source I gave you:

In April 1959, Castro accepted an invitation from the American Society of Newspaper Editors to visit the U.S.

His visit was never meant to be diplomatic to begin with. He went to the US because some people in the press invited him. He never meant for that to be a diplomatic trip. His speeches always had anti-American rhetoric.

Poland has a better and more sustained welfare system than the US. They have healthcare, financial support and aid for those who cannot work. The only reason they flocked to Britain is Britain has arguably the greatest healthcare system in the world and had more job opportunities. This is partly down to the fall of the USSR and the effect it had on the slavic nations. I'm assuming you googled "countries with no welfare" or something stupid and just trusted the first link you came across because I cannot fathom how you thought Poland either did not have a welfare state or had a severely lacking one.

No, I searched for countries with less welfare compared to the rest of Europe and most of them seem to be Eastern European. And no, you've even said that their financial aid isn't even that much of a security net. What does that say when you're trying to say ours is worse when people can live off of our system in some states (not comfortably, mind you) and don't need to be looking for a job? You are assuming that I thought it had no welfare state. I just said that it has a lot less of a welfare state compared to Western European countries like Germany. We currently have all of those, including a half-assed public healthcare system that punishes people who can't afford it.

By the way, here is what I said:

Most of those riots seem to be in Italy and Greece, which happen to have really terrible economies. Terrible economies bring civil unrest, not cutting the welfare state, else there would be much more rioting in places like Poland where there is a lot less welfare.

Here is what you've said about their security/safety net:

I mean you're outright wrong about Poland's welfare state, they have one and it's relatively well backed. It's not as advanced as others and there's not as much of a safety net, hence the mass movement of people into more affluent EU countries with stronger social states.

Pick one. You cannot have both.

You didn't see as much civil unrest under prior presidents because they either all advanced social care and the state of welfare or they were more clever and sneaky with cutting it. Trump has been unabashed in his attacks on society's poorest and his suckling up to the rich and his party has been beyond boneheaded in their attempt to destroy the AHCA alongside all the hard work of the EPA over the past few decades.

Or, you know, you just pulled that out of no where because you know your point is moot and have to find some wording that makes it seem true. It is not whether or not it is "sneaky", it is that it does not cause civil unrest. By the way, I'm pretty sure trying to bring back industrial jobs isn't "unabashed" either, since most of those aren't minimum wage compared to almost the entirety of the service industry.

By the way, the EPA isn't anything to do with welfare, social security or health care. Plus I'm pretty sure trying to disband a government organization doesn't justify political violence.

Greece, France, Spain, Britain etc would disagree. It doesn't matter what the economic situation is (in fact, two of those four are in the top 10 economies in the world) those protests and riots were specifically about Austerity and cuts to the poorest. Attacking the poorest historically leads to violence. I mean if you want to be pedantic and talk solely about mistreatment of the poorest and those who need welfare and assistance then you can look at Russia, Cuba, Ireland, France, England, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe (under it's prior name of Rhodesia), England again, Angola and numerous other countries who historically had revolutions/rebellions/mass riots in response to mistreatment of the poor and working class for the profit of the rich.

Greece has an economy equivalent to the US during the Great Depression and the rest you have listed regarding the Anti-Austerity Protests had small riots that were outliers from extremists. Just because you have a bunch of people from the extreme left doesn't meat that cutting part of the welfare state is obviously going to justify political violence. It doesn't and won't spur violence unless you're in the extreme left.

By the way, last time I checked, cutting a welfare state isn't the same as having shitty working conditions with little to no pay and no social mobility in either a feudal or a laissez-faire capitalist system. None of those are comparable.

Why can't you just admit that the US committed over 600 acts of terrorism against one man who ceased being a military target almost 6 years before their initial attempt?

I mean you'd have a point if you were using the League of Nations definition from the 30s. You're not though, you're using the modern definition that outright separates non political entities as targets. The definition is to cover people like the victims of 9/11, 7/7, the Boston Bombings etc.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+assassination

This was an attempted political assassination. He didn't go and open fire on a bunch of Trump supporters, or Right wing activists, or even Klansmen. He opened fire on politicians with a clear target. Either every single attempt on Castro was terrorism, or this isn't. You can't have both.

Again, Castro is a military target because his position gives him the power to control his entire military. He is in a military dictatorship. If you go shoot a military commander, it is not terrorism. If you shoot the supreme head of the military in a military dictatorship, especially if they had attacked your ally (Batista's regime), it is not terrorism.

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I mean, you know, except that the political class are civilians and last time I checked, this definition makes no exclusion for the political class. Notice the bold there. "Especially against civilians."

I mean, it's not like Castro waged guerrilla war again an ally of the United States and is a military leader, but let's ignore reality because a bloodthirsty dictator is your person hero and a "true" champion of the people and thus exempt from all criticism. (Granted, Batista was shitty as well).

 

[Hands]

You do realize that very link I listed was in fact about that trip, which was not spurred by Castro wanting to help Eisenhower, but because a bunch of people in the press wanted to help him. Here is a quote from the source I gave you:



His visit was never meant to be diplomatic to begin with. He went to the US because some people in the press invited him. He never meant for that to be a diplomatic trip. His speeches always had anti-American rhetoric.


No, I searched for countries with less welfare compared to the rest of Europe and most of them seem to be Eastern European. And no, you've even said that their financial aid isn't even that much of a security net. What does that say when you're trying to say ours is worse when people can live off of our system in some states (not comfortably, mind you) and don't need to be looking for a job? You are assuming that I thought it had no welfare state. I just said that it has a lot less of a welfare state compared to Western European countries like Germany. We currently have all of those, including a half-assed public healthcare system that punishes people who can't afford it.

By the way, here is what I said:

Here is what you've said about their security/safety net:

Pick one. You cannot have both.


Or, you know, you just pulled that out of no where because you know your point is moot and have to find some wording that makes it seem true. It is not whether or not it is "sneaky", it is that it does not cause civil unrest. By the way, I'm pretty sure trying to bring back industrial jobs isn't "unabashed" either, since most of those aren't minimum wage compared to almost the entirety of the service industry.

By the way, the EPA isn't anything to do with welfare, social security or health care. Plus I'm pretty sure trying to disband a government organization doesn't justify political violence.


Greece has an economy equivalent to the US during the Great Depression and the rest you have listed regarding the Anti-Austerity Protests had small riots that were outliers from extremists. Just because you have a bunch of people from the extreme left doesn't meat that cutting part of the welfare state is obviously going to justify political violence. It doesn't and won't spur violence unless you're in the extreme left.

By the way, last time I checked, cutting a welfare state isn't the same as having ****ty working conditions with little to no pay and no social mobility in either a feudal or a laissez-faire capitalist system. None of those are comparable.


Again, Castro is a military target because his position gives him the power to control his entire military. He is in a military dictatorship. If you go shoot a military commander, it is not terrorism. If you shoot the supreme head of the military in a military dictatorship, especially if they had attacked your ally (Batista's regime), it is not terrorism.


I mean, you know, except that the political class are civilians and last time I checked, this definition makes no exclusion for the political class. Notice the bold there. "Especially against civilians."

I mean, it's not like Castro waged guerrilla war again an ally of the United States and is a military leader, but let's ignore reality because a bloodthirsty dictator is your person hero and a "true" champion of the people and thus exempt from all criticism. (Granted, Batista was ****ty as well).

I don't even know where to begin with this mess.

You're going by the definition that civilian means anybody who is non military/ a non combatant, yet your definition of terrorism includes those people (since it says ESPECIALLY and not EXCLUSIVELY) so even if you were right about Castro (pro tip, you aren't, in any regard, close to correct about Castro) by your definition, every attempt on his life was still terrorism.

I said Poland didn't have as much of a safety net as Germany, Britain or a few others, that does not mean it has "Much less welfare" than other countries and it cannot be used as an example that austerity does not spur on violent responses as you tried to frame it.

Cuts to welfare are austerity measures. Austerity has historically been met by riots and violence, especially when the poor are targeted in their millions.

Trump won't be bringing back industry jobs because those industries are dead. It's also completely irrelevant to his boasting about killing off "Obamacare" and his attacks against the most needy. It's like me saying "I dont see how grabbing a woman by the pussy is unabashed austerity". It holds zero relevance to the topic at hand, as have most of your posts. Trump is loud and boastful about his crusades of cuts, other presidents (with the exception of Reagan) were not. Most either expanded the welfare state or cut elements of it in a far quieter way.

Not that it matters because none of what you said on this held any relevance to why Scalise was shot or provided some form of backing as to why the shooter supporting Bernie should be the headline. It's just been constant deflecting and throwing tangents into the mix. Poland isn't a good example, Castro wasn't a military target anymore than Kennedy was, you can't just excuse terrorism when the USA routinely does it, Castro asked to meet Eisenhower who refused to talk with him, Austerity absolutely spurs on violence, whether extremist or not, Scalise deserved to be shot and as a result of him unfortunately surviving he will likely continue to make the lives of millions of innocent Americans notably worse over the next 4 years alongside all his other self serving buddies. There's really nothing else left for you to say to me now, we've explored virtually everything except for the situation at hand, I'd like to get off the tangent train now and return to discussing the one topic you've done everything to avoid.

 

[Varius]

You're going by the definition that civilian means anybody who is non military/ a non combatant, yet your definition of terrorism includes those people (since it says ESPECIALLY and not EXCLUSIVELY) so even if you were right about Castro (pro tip, you aren't, in any regard, close to correct about Castro) by your definition, every attempt on his life was still terrorism.

Yeah, the definition says especially civilian targets. Castro is a leader of a military dictatorship that was established through a guerrilla war against one of our allies. Do you honestly expect any other country to not do the same when a bunch of insurgents take over their ally? Just imagine this; Vietnam a revolt that deposed the Communist rule before Mao was dead and creates a military dictatorship/junta. If Mao tried to assassinate the new leader, you wouldn't say it was terrorism because Mao is on your side. I wouldn't say it was terrorism because the new leader gave Mao a casus belli anyways, and because he is a military target.

I said Poland didn't have as much of a safety net as Germany, Britain or a few others, that does not mean it has "Much less welfare" than other countries and it cannot be used as an example that austerity does not spur on violent responses as you tried to frame it.

Cuts to welfare are austerity measures. Austerity has historically been met by riots and violence, especially when the poor are targeted in their millions.

Actually, it does. Germany has one of, if not the biggest welfare state on that continent. If your welfare state isn't much of a safety net, it would have much less welfare. In fact, the entire region is like this except Slovenia. Where is there no civil unrest, yet when you magically cut some welfare in UK, a bunch of extremists go around LARPing a revolution and riot?

And by historically, you mean a bunch of cherrypicked feudal systems and systems that had little-to-no welfare at the time and/or were the byproducts of colonialism as you have shown if they weren't a hand few of riots or riots that were also spurred by a terrible economy. But when the US used austerity policies, it didn't spur violence, so you have to say it was "sneaky".

Trump won't be bringing back industry jobs because those industries are dead. It's also completely irrelevant to his boasting about killing off "Obamacare" and his attacks against the most needy. It's like me saying "I dont see how grabbing a woman by the pussy is unabashed austerity". It holds zero relevance to the topic at hand, as have most of your posts. Trump is loud and boastful about his crusades of cuts, other presidents (with the exception of Reagan) were not. Most either expanded the welfare state or cut elements of it in a far quieter way.

Not exactly, protectionism and protect industry over here and spur growth. I made a genuine mistake anyways. By the way, if you want to argue who's posts are "on-topic", all I've been doing is saying that the guy went up and committed terrorism and that he was radicalized by violent left-wing rhetoric. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't pull up muh "cutting the welfare justifies political violence against the dirty bourgeoisie state by the proletariat" and bringing up Castro in the first place.

So why did no one call Oswald a terrorist? Why is no one calling the US Terrorists for their 600+ attempts on Castro's life?

That's absolutely subjective. The repubs have ruined millions of lives via their attacks against the welfare state, Obama's and against public and social programmes. Maybe the repubs will take mass shootings seriously now they've been on the receiving end of one.

So if anyone is derailing the topic, it would be you for starting this "tangent".

Not that it matters because none of what you said on this held any relevance to why Scalise was shot or provided some form of backing as to why the shooter supporting Bernie should be the headline. It's just been constant deflecting and throwing tangents into the mix. Poland isn't a good example, Castro wasn't a military target anymore than Kennedy was, you can't just excuse terrorism when the USA routinely does it, Castro asked to meet Eisenhower who refused to talk with him, Austerity absolutely spurs on violence, whether extremist or not, Scalise deserved to be shot and as a result of him unfortunately surviving he will likely continue to make the lives of millions of innocent Americans notably worse over the next 4 years alongside all his other self serving buddies. There's really nothing else left for you to say to me now, we've explored virtually everything except for the situation at hand, I'd like to get off the tangent train now and return to discussing the one topic you've done everything to avoid.

Except I said that his actions were terrorism that was being caused by left-wing violent rhetoric that I've linked in the first two pages numerous times. You brought up austerity and I'm bringing up how that isn't necessarily causing violence within most people.

When I brought up terrorism, you brought up Oswald and Kennedy. But I'm the one derailing the topic I suppose. Castro is a military target whether you like it or not because he has supreme control over his military, has always led the military, and even if he wasn't, the US's aim for assassination isn't entirely political (part of it has to do with him overthrowing an ally of ours).

No human being deserves to be shot over political differences, and if you support that, you support terrorism on your behalf. You are just digging yourself into more lunacy.

And you know, it's not like I've been discussing the topic from the very beginning and you were trying to derail the topic and then justify violence in which you know almost everyone here despises political violence. My my, I wonder if this happened in the past regarding an Antifa riot.