I hope the coast guard caught him on an overt act that will make charges stick

A year ago there was the case of a black nationalist terrorist who was training for an assault on police/white people/etc and had his own hate list, posting vague threats, stockpiling weapons, training for his attack, etc. The FBI was monitoring him as a Black Identity Extremist- the first one with the label- and arrested him on gun charges for being a domestic abuser in possession on firearms. The other stuff like plotting the attack and training for it couldn't warrant an arrest on its own because it would be 'futurecrime'. But then it turned out there was a quirk in the state vs local domestic violence statutes. He had been arrested for violently threatening his girlfriend and screaming he was going to kill her while chasing her, but the federal definition used for barring firearms from domestic abusers required either the presence of a weapon while making threats, or physical contact. Because he did it without a weapon or physical contact, he wasn't barred from possessing firearms and they released him and he's back out on the streets.

So reading this story set off my spidey sense. The guy dreamt of being a domestic terrorist and made a hit list and owned weapons. But did he do anything illegal?
>Mr Hasson is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and controlled substances
first count sounds familiar, eh? And arresting a 'terrorist' on steroid possession isn't going to keep him off the streets. Doesn't take Johnnie Cochran Jr to say you can't lock someone away forever for a first-time growth hormone offense

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 21 2019 09:19am

speaks for itself this is the only part of my post you dared to reply to, ignoring the destruction of your retarded "only logical" pivot and pointing out the distinctions that you were too stupid to identify. hacks gonna hack...

again:

even if you choose to deflect, i specifically addressed this: no political leader on 'the left' is having a coordinated campaign to pit 'the people' against them, constantly suggesting they are 'the enemy', playfully (for deniability) condoning or even inciting violence. that's the main difference and the reason i chose the topic of my thread.


fox news is the biggest / most watched news channel in america - and their reporting is objectively worse than that of ANY of trump's targets: they are more biased, tell more lies and inaccuracies, and don't have the same standards of correcting the record.

so how come they are not targeted by terrorists or intimidated on campaign rallies when it's "only logical" to you? hmmm... is it because the right might be inherently more violent or maybe, crazy thought now, could it have to do with the fact that the president is NOT repeatedly portraying them as "the enemy of the people" and attacking them viciously?

how about you reply to that as well? oh right... you can't.

This post was edited by fender on Feb 21 2019 09:38am

comes from the guy who never replies to other posts

still waiting on your stance regarding the antifa outrages and attacks, that i mentioned, but i am not expecting anything
we all know that you silently agree with attacking people for their opinions and you should seriously look at your own wording, because your starting argument works the other way around as well
constant exaggerations, namecalling/insults, fake narratives and moralism can also incite people (yes, i am looking at you here)

but i forgot, you are the good guys....

oh and it literally took 5 seconds to find fox news getting attacked



oops fender, another fake narrative "destroyed" to use your words

This post was edited by ampoo on Feb 21 2019 09:48am

'justifying' a dodge by (falsely) accusing others of the same, bitching about it, and dodging again. couldn't make that shit up...

and just because i'm not humouring every lazy deflection attempt does not mean that all my posts explicitly condemning violence by antifa idiots magically disappeared. that's just always your go to lie when confronted with inconvenient facts - otherwise you would have taken me up on my challenge to show me just ONE post where i condoned or even just made excuses for violence - but there simply isn't a single one, that's why you will dodge this challenge again but inevitably make the same lies again in the future.




thread about a systematic campaign by a political leader to discredit and vilify critical press.

question: "so how come they are not targeted by terrorists or intimidated on campaign rallies?"

answer: *posts a video of people shouting at a fox news(!) reporter at some kind of blm demonstration(?)* 'ha, gotcha!'


seriously, what kind of anti-intellectual environment do you have to live in to even HOPE this would be considered a valid 'point' in this conversation? how are you not embarrassed by that? do you really think i am too stupid to notice, or are you simply just not intelligent enough to see the difference?

This post was edited by fender on Feb 21 2019 10:24am

that seems a bit of an arbitrary distinction there, are people attacking journalists at rallies completely sane in your opinion, or is the lack of potentially deadly weaponry the cutoff line? you know that despite trump's public support for the 2nd amendment those aren't allowed at his rallies, right? what if the attacker knows kung fu? ok, i'm obviously kidding here, but my point is that to me it looks like you're trying to draw the line based on some external factor like the actual result / potential outcome / means involved when to me the obvious approach would be to look at the attacker's motivation / reason for escalation.

and just to be clear, i don't think trump is LEGALLY or technically responsible for any of that, he can always plausibly deny and distance himself from physical violence, and of course it's not within his power to control the actions of his followers - i'm talking about moral and political responsibility.

to me these instances share an eerie similarity with bill o'reilly's war against dr. tiller, portraying him as 'baby killer' to an audience of millions, constantly demonising him and instigating. his vicious campaign only ended after tiller was murdered by an anti-abortion nut job who shared o'reilly's views on the issue.



like i said, i disagree - words have consequences and to absolve him of any responsibility by acting like it's just a 'reflection' is an inaccurate description of the situation imo.
his coordinated campaign against the press is clearly more than that, it's an active contribution to worsen the situation, an escalation - and a calculated one at that...

i'm just wondering if one of those terrorists has to succeed first before people stop making excuses. just don't say that no one could have seen it coming or that it's just the normal risk of being a journalist in our 'divisive times'. there is a difference between rands being dicks on facebook or d2jsp, and the president of the united states constantly and systematically riling up his supporters against certain media outlets...

fender aka heinrich triggered into making shitpost thread with doubleposts all over the place. color us shocked - wait don't do that, he will call us racist again

been around mental illness since I was born and worked in the field a majority of my adult life

It doesn't help for people to use it as a weapon for political or social gain or gotcha moments

It's like those that blamed movies and music for the actions of the mentally ill.

The real problem with blaming people for the actions of those with mental illness is it creates an environment of blame where people end up blaming themselves for what their loved ones did.

People blaming themselves for a family member or friend that puts the barrel in their mouth and pulls the trigger. People that blame themselves when someone close to them kills or harms others

Nothing ever gets better when time is wasted on blame it's on what we can do about it

fighting poverty and addiction and child abuse and the stigmas around mental health and how we treat mental illness and those struggling with it changes things

blaming others or ourselves doesn't change anything, just makes a negative toxic environment and more pain

The press is free to say whatever they want. The press is not free of the American people's right to domestic violence.

What worries me even more than the handful of instances of violence, is the greater effect on tens of millions of Americans who are becoming detached from reality. They aren't capable of thinking critically about facts, so all they know is what gets spoonfed to them by Fox News, talk radio, and Trump.

And what gets spoonfed to them is that the opposition is basically evil. The New York Times isn't just politically biased, they're enemies of America. Even if the arsonist leaves office in 2 years, we're still stuck with 1/3 of the population that believes all the loony shit he says.

you cant tell the difference between antagonism and threats of death, got it. lol.

This post was edited by Brian_D on Feb 21 2019 11:16am