A person can be a threat while unarmed. Sorry about your racism derail.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
I think we're getting somewhere with these to monumental realizations. Lets put its all together.
That's your takeaway from that post?
You've reviewed all of the evidence? Fascinating, make sure you let the FBI know!
Okay, sure.
Show me some arms then.
It was a mob of Biden supporters! I didn’t see any Biden signs but I haven’t reviewed all the evidence either.
I said calling it an “armed invasion” without arms is stupid. Perhaps you should re-read the last two pages.
When I see stuff like that, I just think, "It's a Monet"
When a crowd/person takes an object whatever it may be, and uses it to bring violence against someone else, wouldn't you say the person armed themselves with "XYZ object", even if the object itself isn't necessarily "arms" in the weapon pew-pew sense? The crowd/person has taken up objects for violent purposes so, "armed crowd" is accurate because of their express use of the objects to bring violence? Obviously just a small portion of the crowd in question... and invasion is maybe overkill.
Oh, I'm well aware of the last two pages of posts. That's how we ended up establishing precedence for the definition of "armed" because you played the semantics card. But thank you for calling into question my reading comprehension.
I have a feeling there's another reason you think the phrase "armed invasion" is stupid... but that's probably a conversation for another cooler forum, with blackjack and hookers.
I think this thread jack has run its course. Ok we're done here. ( Did I do that right?)
Last edited:
This guy had a spear, among other accessories.
You're right, I don't see any Biden signs, flags or buttons among these folks...soooo, Antifa, crisis actors or just plain losers like the guy whose name is on the flags?
Clarity time...I do NOT think we are actually living in a "Big Brother" state and I fully support law enforcement in reigning in those people who rioted on January 6, 2021 or in any other riot that involves the destruction of property (private, state,or federal).
But, that said, there is no moral high ground here. History has a long, unflinching eye and it doesn't need too much hindsight to remember January 20, 2017 and the "J20" Movement. It was all over the press (I'll try to attach some video later). Their sole purpose, as clearly stated by the group, follows...
"The idea ... is we want to undermine Trump's presidency from the get-go. There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition." (Jaffe, Sarah January 19, 2017, "Interviews for Resistance: A Conversation with Legba Carrefour". The Baffler)
Now, if I were the lady with the blindfold holding up the scales of JUSTICE and someone asked me..."Is there a difference between the 1/20/17and 1/6/21 actions?" "NO." is my undoubted answer. More than 200 people were arrested for 1/20/17 and I am pretty sure close to that number have been arrested for 1/6/21. But this is where it gets interesting...
In the pursuit of "justice" the DOJ issued a warrant to search the J20 group's website (more info...more arrests). This, of course, led to a legal challenge that went all the way to the Superior Court of D.C. where a judge decided that although a warrant could be issued (executed), "it does not have the right to rummage through the information contained on the [sic] website and discover the identity of, or access communications by, individuals not participating in alleged criminal activity, particularly those persons who were engaging in protected First Amendment activities."
We have been where we are now before. In the end only 6 members of J20 went on trial and were found not guilty. Charges for the remaining 190 or so were dropped. I imagine the results for Jan 6, 2021 (with the critical exception of the murder of the officer) will be much the same. The government is going to level charges that are based on actions more than words but no one will face the charge of insurrection (just ask Cliven Bundy).
Some "saint" (Augustine, I believe) once said "Right is right even if no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it." As I wrote at the beginning...there is no moral high ground here and my only/biggest fear is that the real losers will be ordinary American citizens who may lose fundamental rights for the sake of an Orwellian "peace."
But, that said, there is no moral high ground here. History has a long, unflinching eye and it doesn't need too much hindsight to remember January 20, 2017 and the "J20" Movement. It was all over the press (I'll try to attach some video later). Their sole purpose, as clearly stated by the group, follows...
"The idea ... is we want to undermine Trump's presidency from the get-go. There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition." (Jaffe, Sarah January 19, 2017, "Interviews for Resistance: A Conversation with Legba Carrefour". The Baffler)
Now, if I were the lady with the blindfold holding up the scales of JUSTICE and someone asked me..."Is there a difference between the 1/20/17and 1/6/21 actions?" "NO." is my undoubted answer. More than 200 people were arrested for 1/20/17 and I am pretty sure close to that number have been arrested for 1/6/21. But this is where it gets interesting...
In the pursuit of "justice" the DOJ issued a warrant to search the J20 group's website (more info...more arrests). This, of course, led to a legal challenge that went all the way to the Superior Court of D.C. where a judge decided that although a warrant could be issued (executed), "it does not have the right to rummage through the information contained on the [sic] website and discover the identity of, or access communications by, individuals not participating in alleged criminal activity, particularly those persons who were engaging in protected First Amendment activities."
We have been where we are now before. In the end only 6 members of J20 went on trial and were found not guilty. Charges for the remaining 190 or so were dropped. I imagine the results for Jan 6, 2021 (with the critical exception of the murder of the officer) will be much the same. The government is going to level charges that are based on actions more than words but no one will face the charge of insurrection (just ask Cliven Bundy).
Some "saint" (Augustine, I believe) once said "Right is right even if no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it." As I wrote at the beginning...there is no moral high ground here and my only/biggest fear is that the real losers will be ordinary American citizens who may lose fundamental rights for the sake of an Orwellian "peace."
I’m questioning your comprehension because you’re bringing race into an issue that has nothing to do with race. Also for posting an article titled “Ohio police body cam shows he shot an unarmed black man...” to refute the definition of “armed”. The lady at the Capitol that got shot was also unarmed.
But I guess the crowd was an ARMED INVASION, an ARMED INSURRECTION. ARMED with flags and signs and foul language. ARMED!
Thanks for helping make my point. Claiming they were Biden supporters or antifa or crisis actors is as factually accurate as saying it was an armed invasion.
You've got to be kidding me. Whatever the people arrested on 20 January 2017 were doing it wasn't anywhere close to what the people who invaded the Capitol did on 6 January 2021. The fact I have to type that out is a bit staggering to me.
Violently invading the Capitol isn't a protected First Amendment activity, they were actively trying to interefere with the constitutional duties being undertaken by our elected government. They did so with the stated intention and performed the actions of trying to undermine our government by force, and unlike any other protest or riot in modern US history they succeeded even if it was for just a few short hours.
So no, not even fucking close. With the death of a police officer, the injury of more than a score of others along with the unprecendented takeover of the Capitol Buidling there has been no indication, on the part of the DOJ or the judges who have heard the charges so far, to take this lightly.
Last edited:
I also brought social status into it, but I don't see you biting off on that one...
QUOTE="Treetop Flyer, post: 1014080, member: 23117"]
Also for posting an article titled “Ohio police body cam shows he shot an unarmed black man...” to refute the definition of “armed”. The lady at the Capitol that got shot was also unarmed.
[/QUOTE]
Fun fact, unarmed people are dangerous too. But you're right, I strayed from the topic at hand on my post of what an armed person is.