Terrorists Strike Portland

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Is it not legal for every protester to openly carry a loaded firearm while demonstrating in Portland?
What were the demonstrators protesting about?
Why do we call a group of citizens protesting against DHS officers, police accountability, and violence against Black Indigenous People of Color, TERRORISTS?
And, why do we call the beating/killing of unarmed citizens by police SELF-DEFENSE? I.e., the killing of 2 unarmed BLM demonstrators?



Between 1783 -2021(238 years), there have been a total of 413 incidents of civil unrests, riots, deaths from civil disorder, and property damaged during civil disorders. That's less than 2 incidents per year. Has it now become just fashionable that we now define all smashed windows, all blazing garbage cans, all civil disobedience and police defiance, and simple assaults, as acts of terrorism? And therefore, the people involved must be terrorists? Really??? Were ALL 413 incidents acts of terrorism? Which groups were just looking for attention, and which groups had genuine grievances over a policy or a decision?

Real terrorists are not so open with their actions. Real terrorists, are the far-left extremists, who frequently targets law enforcement, military and government facilities and their personnel. Some even plot to kidnap Governors and other high-profile citizens. Can you imagine what might happen, if al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and ISIL all decided to demonstrate together, somewhere in the world? It would be the shortest, and most violent demonstration ever! Of course those doing the killing, would be acting only in self-defense, right? Wink-wink!!

Now, we have a new brush to broad-stroke all protestors, demonstrations, marches, or any groups that publicly expresses their grievances over policy. It is the Terrorist brush. Once we call them a terrorist, their cause vanishes. Their purpose becomes irrelevant. They are just terrorists, trying to challenge/overthrow the government.

Since it is impossible to vet/control every protestor, or prevent agitators from committing acts of vandalism, and the fact that all demonstrations have the potential for violence, vandalism, and confrontation, then ALL demonstrations should be banned, right? And, our 1st Amendment should be ignored? We must prevent all acts of terrorism at all costs, right? Our founding fathers put that amendment in to save our government from the ignorance of the governed. Trump created his mindless sheep through fear, and the government is still doing the same. BECAUSE IT WORKS!!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
By looking for similarities between apples and oranges and then crying that we're hypocrites for claiming they're not the same fruit?
@mothra

I guess my problem, although I don't see it as a problem, is that I always think independently of government, political, and media narratives. Further, I have grown acutely aware of the partisan bs that infects our national conversation. I have learned all about "politispeak", and I recognize it instantly.

I know what you're thinking.

You're thinking that my play with words like "terrorism" and "insurrection" are out of sympathy for the actions of the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I do have sympathy for the Capitol Police Officer who died of a stroke later that night, be it because of something that happened to him during the riot or not. I also have sympathy for the unarmed woman who was shot to death in the Capitol Building and her loved ones.

But I do not have sympathy for the actions of the crowd that precipitated those deaths.

I didn't then, and I don't now, support what they did. You may recall that I hold Donald Trump morally responsible for what happened that day, and he lost my support to govern on that day. I hope it doesn't happen, but if he were to get the Republican nomination for President in 2024, I wouldn't vote for him. I doubt that I would vote for a Democrat either. For the first time ever as an adult, I might not vote at all for President, or I might vote third party, or write-in someone, but I wouldn't vote for Trump.

But that said, I do object to labeling what happened on January 6th as "terrorism" or "insurrection". Why?

Because we've already seen terrorism, and we know what it's like.

- the 9/11 attacks
- beheading people and posting it on video
- the Boston Marathon bombing
- the San Bernardino massacre
- when Sunni radicals blow up Shiite mosques in Iraq or Pakistan
- that awful massacre in New Zealand
- the "panty bomber" attempt to destroy an airliner in flight
- the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics
- and, from our past, when the KKK lynches black people, or burns their houses and churches

And an "insurrection" may fail, but it is a determined attempt to overthrow the established government. It is usually characterized by the use of arms. It is usually a sustained rebellion until it wins or loses. The American Revolution was an insurrection. The South carried out an insurrection that quickly led to the Civil War. We have also seen insurrections in the Middle East in recent years against the governments of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Often, an insurrection may have broad popular appeal.

I'm afraid I just don't see the January 6th incident as an insurrection. It was not carried out with the use of deadly force and firearms, it was not sustained, and it lacked popular appeal. They stormed into the Capitol Building for a short time, and then they simply walked out again.

There actions were illegal. They disrupted a single proceeding, which was finished after they left. But an "insurrection"? A real insurrection would have been far more widespread, perhaps involving more than just D.C., and it would have been sustained until it either won or lost.

Nah, I don't see that as an "insurrection".

So I don't see that event as either "terrorism" or an "insurrection". I am sick about the officer who died, but the truth is, you don't intend to murder someone with bear spray. If you are a terrorist or a participating in an insurrection, you come prepared with lethal weapons and with the intent to kill. If the bear spray exposure somehow led to the officer dying of a stroke, the guy who sprayed him is criminally responsible for some level of homicide, but not intentional homicide. In this country, where people can possess firearms, you don't try to overthrow the government with bear spray, nor do you plan to commit murder with bear spray.

One man was arrested at the Capitol for carrying a firearm. It was not used; it was not displayed. It was detected by Capitol Police, and he was peaceably arrested at the scene. That doesn't sound like an act of terrorism to me. Illegal, yes. Terrorism, no. And what kind of "terrorist" or "insurrectionist" allows the police to simply peaceably arrest him for carrying a concealed firearm?

So why do people want to label that event as an "insurrection" or say that the participants were "terrorists"?

The answer of course ... politics. And I can recognize this instantly. I can also recognize the hypocrisy and double standards instantly in those who use those labels, and I understand their motives. Their motives are not intellectual honesty. The motive, of course, is not to label those participants, but to smear anyone who voted Republican, and specifically, anyone who voted for Donald Trump. The double standard, of course, is that they will not, under any circumstances, label any other kind of civil disorder the same way as long as that disorder is for a cause they support, even if that disorder causes death, injuries, and destruction.

To deny that is either naive (at best) or deliberately ignorant (closed minded), or it's just knowingly lying.

It's verbal overreach.

And it's done for political purposes.

I was in downtown Portland a few weeks ago. You should see it. I was there in the middle of the week during business hours. Ordinarily, it's bustling with traffic and pedestrians and business. Do you know what I saw? I saw a friggin ghost town. Almost no traffic. Almost no pedestrians. Businesses in downtown boarded up and closed. Almost a year of ongoing Antifa/anarchist riots and destruction, causing tens of millions of dollars worth of damage, have shut down downtown.

But nobody labels that as "insurrection" or "terrorism".

And there's your double standard, and it's a fact, and I've seen it for myself.

Seth
 

Squire

Active member
For Seth Bullock: Justice, rights and principles outrank business and economics especially in Portland.

Societies that allow police brutality suffer two hits. One from having to pay off the relatives of the victims of police violence and one from the effect on business and economics because the police and local government did not act appropriately to head off protests.

Police have to be accountable for killing people.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
For Seth Bullock: Justice, rights and principles outrank business and economics especially in Portland.

Societies that allow police brutality suffer two hits. One from having to pay off the relatives of the victims of police violence and one from the effect on business and economics because the police and local government did not act appropriately to head off protests.

Police have to be accountable for killing people.
And yet, they are not protesting some act of the Portland Police Bureau, a police department that is headed by and administered by one of the most left wing, progressive cities in the nation. The Antifa/anarchists are pretending to be protesting the death of George Floyd, a death that occurred involving a police department almost 2000 miles away from Portland, Oregon. Listen to what local Portland black leaders have to say.

 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I guess my problem, although I don't see it as a problem, is that I always think independently of government, political, and media narratives.
It doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting. You're just as guilty of pushing the Trump bandwagon as anyone else from team Trump. It didn't matter what he did or said you almost always excused atrocious behaviour or his stupid comments to 'biased media' You finally spoke out during the attempted insurrection. Despite 4 years of lie after lie after lie, and countless faux pars by Trump, you never once spoke out against him.

You're thinking that my play with words like "terrorism" and "insurrection" are out of sympathy for the actions of the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
No, I'm thinking you're trying to show that 'your side did it too'.

Because we've already seen terrorism, and we know what it's like.
terrorism is defined as:

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

ter•ror•ism tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm

n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

n. Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.

n. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.

The riot was exactly the 'use of violence in the pursuit of political goals'. They wanted to force the senate to ignore the count and name Trump as the winner of the election. They even wanted to hang Pence FFS. They themselves referred to the riot as 'the start of a REVOLUTION' when it began. Terrorism is more than Muslims and bombs. You can't give some examples omitting the riots and think that is the definition of terrorism.


They disrupted a single proceeding, which was finished after they left.
Yes, the declaration of the winner of the election and the next President.... quite a biggie don't you think Seth.


Nah, I don't see that as an "insurrection".
Again, because you don't want to. They were armed, they were prepared to, and did, use violence, they wanted to overthrow the democratically elected winner and put Trump in as President.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
in•sur•rec•tion ĭn″sə-rĕk′shən

n. A rising up; uprising.

n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

n. The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.
The riots seem to fit the definition of an insurrection to me. Was it the worst case of an insurrection we've ever seen? Certainly not, it was a pretty lame attempt as far as insurrections go, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempted insurrection.

It was not carried out with the use of deadly force and firearms,
They found five guns, eleven Molotov cocktails, a crossbow, smoke bombs and a stun gun. Others used flagpoles, fire extinguishers, lengths of pipe and pieces of barrier to attack . And even though they didn't get to use the more lethal weapons, we still ended up with one dead and 130 police officers injured in the line of duty. Not a bad effort for one day ehh Seth.

Ohh, and the length of the attempted insurrection has no bearing on whether it was an insurrection or not
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
there isn't a single thing i disagree with here JS ..

every american should be more concerned about how it has come to this
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I guess my problem, although I don't see it as a problem, is that I always think independently of government, political, and media narratives.

It doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting. You're just as guilty of pushing the Trump bandwagon as anyone else from team Trump. It didn't matter what he did or said you almost always excused atrocious behaviour or his stupid comments to 'biased media' You finally spoke out during the attempted insurrection. Despite 4 years of lie after lie after lie, and countless faux pars by Trump, you never once spoke out against him.
That part I put in bold is factually false. I spoke out many times against Trump's general behavior. What I supported him for, and I said so many, many times, was national policy. I agreed with his immigration policies, pro-America trade policies, making NATO pay its fair share, his overtures to N. Korea, letting the military act independently to finish off ISIS, no new wars, lower taxes on business, prison sentencing reform, energy independence, high employment, low unemployment, rising wages, seeking peace in Afghanistan, and reduction of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also agreed with him on respect for our flag and anthem.




You're thinking that my play with words like "terrorism" and "insurrection" are out of sympathy for the actions of the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
No, I'm thinking you're trying to show that 'your side did it too'.
No. What I said is that using those terms are deliberate, politically inspired, hypocritical verbal overreach.




terrorism is defined as:
Yes, yes. I looked it up too before I talked about it. "Terrorism" has its official definition, but "terrorism" as we know it in the modern age is characterized by bombs, mass shootings, and often mass deaths.

n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

And if we are to go by the dictionary definition, this easily fits into the activities of the antifa/anarchist thuggery that has gone on in Portland this past year ... easily. And yet, it is never referred to as "terrorism" by left wingers, and therein lies the hypocrisy.

I am calling out that hypocrisy.





The riot was exactly the 'use of violence in the pursuit of political goals'. They wanted to force the senate to ignore the count and name Trump as the winner of the election. They even wanted to hang Pence FFS. They themselves referred to the riot as 'the start of a REVOLUTION' when it began. Terrorism is more than Muslims and bombs. You can't give some examples omitting the riots and think that is the definition of terrorism.
John, we can only judge their intent by what they actually did do. They did manage to temporarily disrupt the Senate vote, but then they simply walked out of the building. They did not try to hold the building. They didn't act as though the nation was going to rise up by the millions to support them. No, they just walked away. The Senate simply met later and completed their business. That does not look like much of an insurrection or revolution to me. It looks like a lot of other things - a violent demonstration to make a statement, trespassing, assaults on police officers, theft, and vandalism. I did not then, nor do I now, defend what they did. And while I do not defend it, I remain objective about what it actually was.




Yes, the declaration of the winner of the election and the next President.... quite a biggie don't you think Seth.
Yes, it's important, but that is not the point of the discussion.






The riots seem to fit the definition of an insurrection to me. Was it the worst case of an insurrection we've ever seen? Certainly not, it was a pretty lame attempt as far as insurrections go, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempted insurrection.
Yeah, I'm going to reserve my definition of an "insurrection" to something that is more determined, more sustained, more violent, more organized, and more widespread.

The Portland and Seattle rioting fits that bill better than this one event.

In all honesty, I don't see the antifa/anarchist activities as a legitimate "insurrection" either. I see it as thuggery by a bunch of losers, enabled by feckless, gutless, emasculated city leaders.



They found five guns, eleven Molotov cocktails, a crossbow, smoke bombs and a stun gun. Others used flagpoles, fire extinguishers, lengths of pipe and pieces of barrier to attack . And even though they didn't get to use the more lethal weapons, we still ended up with one dead and 130 police officers injured in the line of duty. Not a bad effort for one day ehh Seth.

Ohh, and the length of the attempted insurrection has no bearing on whether it was an insurrection or not
As I said before, the death of Officer Brian Sicknick saddens me and angers me. But until we know more about that death, there are questions. Reports say he was hit with bear spray, which is just a stronger form of pepper spray. Reports also say he died later of a stroke. No official autopsy report has been released. I have never heard of pepper spray causing a stroke, but I shall wait for the release of an official autopsy report.

A few people died of natural causes. That happens.

One person was deliberately killed - an unarmed woman in the Capitol building - shot in the upper torso or neck by a Capitol Police Officer.

Regardless of whatever presence of firearms carried by the members of the crowd, none were used or threatened by anyone in the crowd. One guy was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm, but not for displaying it or using it. You said that other firearms were "found", which means they were abandoned. Some "insurrection"!

The weapons, including the firearms, that were found are typical of the same weapons found among Portland antifa/anarchist people. If we are to define "insurrection" and "terrorist" by those weapons, then the Portland thugs are also "insurrectionists" and "terrorists".
We know for a fact that, when antifa took over 6 square blocks of Seattle last summer, and held it for weeks, they guarded the perimeter with men armed with rifles. Two firearms murders occurred within that area during the time they were holding the area.

So the bottom line is that I am looking for consistency. And intellectual honesty. That's it.

Seth
 

Squire

Active member
Seth Bullock believes his ilk, right-wing extremists, are incapable of terrorism because their actions align with Seth Bullock's dogma and beliefs.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
"First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

"Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years.

"Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020."
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
That part I put in bold is factually false. I spoke out many times against Trump's general behavior. What I supported him for, and I said so many, many times, was national policy
you were willing to excuse anything and everything because you agreed with his purported politics. Saying you don't like his personality 'but', time after time after time, just doesn't cut it in my books.


"Terrorism" has its official definition, but "terrorism" as we know it in the modern age is characterized by bombs, mass shootings, and often mass deaths.
I think you're still missing the point. Terrorism is not the setting off of a bomb, or the cutting off of a head, terrorism is the use of such violence, but not limited to that sort of viloence, to try and affect political change. Which is EXACTLY what the rioters were doing. Before (or After) 9/11 you never once saw an example of terrorism with someone flying a plane into a building, yet you had no trouble labelling THAT as terrorism. Using your attempted method of redefining terrorism, that should never have been labelled terrorism.

With terrorism it's not the method of terrorism that defines it, it's the attempted goals of the terror.

John, we can only judge their intent by what they actually did do.
Why? There were many public declarations of intent, both on camera to the media and on the internet, by the rioters ... examples include that they were 'starting a revolution', or wanted to 'hang Pence' or 'stop the steal' or 'force the senate to declare trump the winner'. Why do you ignore that? It clearly shows intent.

Tell me, do you apply the same rule to all law breakers? Or are these rules reserved for those rioters?How many terrorist have you in your jails who were charged when caught in the planning of their acts, and they never got to actually implement their plan, or failed at it? I know we have a few in our jails. Why aren't you claiming they're not terrorists because you can only judge them on what they actually did?


Yeah, I'm going to reserve my definition of an "insurrection" to something that is more determined, more sustained, more violent, more organized, and more widespread.
no surprise there.

The Portland and Seattle rioting fits that bill better than this one event.
The rioters were opportunists and thugs. The protesters on the other hand had no wish to attempt to overthrow any govt. ... they just want the systemic racism to stop, regardless of who is in govt.

Reports say he was hit with bear spray, which is just a stronger form of pepper spray. Reports also say he died later of a stroke. No official autopsy report has been released. I have never heard of pepper spray causing a stroke, but I shall wait for the release of an official autopsy report.
being hit in across the head with a fire extinguisher can't be good for you either.

One person was deliberately killed - an unarmed woman in the Capitol building - shot in the upper torso or neck by a Capitol Police Officer.
a terrorist was shot whilst attempting to break into a secure area in the capital building with the goal of 'starting a revolution' (her words).

Regardless of whatever presence of firearms carried by the members of the crowd, none were used or threatened by anyone in the crowd. One guy was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm, but not for displaying it or using it. You said that other firearms were "found", which means they were abandoned
or hadn't been handed out yet. One man showed up with five rifles in his car ... why would anyone need five rifles with them unless he planned to hand them out when the shooting started?

So the bottom line is that I am looking for consistency. And intellectual honesty. That's it.
you keep redefining key words to suit your agenda. Thats not honesty Seth.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
you were willing to excuse anything and everything because you agreed with his purported politics. Saying you don't like his personality 'but', time after time after time, just doesn't cut it in my books.
Yep, gotta agree.

Very little in the way of criticism coming from Seth.

There was always an excuse, no matter what he did.
 
Top