I haven't seen any videos where a BLM protestor beats a fallen cop with an American flag, or kills a cop. Both of which happened during the violent far-right insurrection on January 6. I have seen many more credible stories about data and studies showing that violence from far-right extremism is a much more dangerous current problem than far-left extremism.
I will continue to call last year's protests what they were, remarkably peaceful world-wide protests against police brutality and for police reform. And I will call the Jan 6 event what it was, a deliberately stoked violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election, on the basis of nothing but lies and grievance. We should strive to accurately describe things as they are.
Molotov cocktail(fire bombs) thrown at officers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H86W82Bgpq4
Molotov cocktails thrown at court building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMkTfGlM-f0
Man hits a federal officer with a hammer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs
Protestor knifes a black trump supporter https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/07/man-knifed-in-back-...
You didn't look for data about how much violence there was relative to other protests, or injury statistics, and you certainly didn't look at comparisons between right wing and left wing violence. You started with the conclusion you needed. You need the protests to be violent to confirm your world view, so you went looking for some instances to try and support your conclusion.
However, nothing in your paltry few examples refutes anything I said. Given the vast numbers of people participating in the protests, and the length of them, they were remarkably peaceful.
On the other hand, a tiny fraction of that number of right-wing violent lunatics concentrated in DC on Jan 6 and in one day committed more violence and slaughtered more law enforcement officers than at all the BLM protests combined. BLM protestors want police officers to stop killing people, the Jan 6 insurrectionists came looking to violently overturn the results of the election, and are feeling emboldened to commit more violence in the next week.
I hope this helps you stop and think.
There is alot of odd cognitive dissonance in your comment which I appreciate proves your own point, you were presented with evidence that goes against your own world view, but instead of "stopping and thinking" you just decided to outright dismiss it instead of acknowledging it.
You stated you didn't see any evidence of violent assaults on police officers in portland, yet I gave you an example of a protestor assaulting a police officer with a hammer and instead of addressing it, you resorted to projecting a false narrative of ad-hominem and assumptions of my world view which are actually incorrect.
The funny thing about human biases is they actually effect us all, including you, and thank you so much for proving this. Its made my argument here easy.
Hopefully you take some time to "stop and reflect" how cognitive dissonance can corrupt your own world view when your presented with evidence that goes against it.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2020/07/20/what-you...
There was definitely some vandalism involved (and e.g. people shooting fireworks at the wall of a fortified building), but federal authorities were incredibly disingenuous in their descriptions of events and justifications of escalation.
Most of the dangerous violence was police-on-protestor.
Molotov cocktail(fire bombs) thrown at officers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H86W82Bgpq4
Molotov cocktails(fire bombs) thrown at court building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMkTfGlM-f0
Man hits a federal officer with a hammer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs
Protestor knifes a black trump supporter https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/07/man-knifed-in-back-...
The vast majority of the protestors in Portland were out during the day, and were peaceful and organized. There were undoubtedly some people who came out at night because they wanted to tussle with the cops, launch their fireworks at that federal building, and so on. My impression (again, second-hand, as an outsider) was that the cops (local and federal) did a terrible job of diffusing that energy.
“Tussle with the cops” and “launch fireworks at federal buildings” and of course who is to blame? “The cops who did a terrible job of diffusing that energy”.
Why are you framing it in such soft terms? I mean, cops had higher powered lasers aimed at their eyes. Molotov cocktails throw at officers and federal buildings (I think most people call that arson). Night, after night, after night.
Yet let me guess, you label the people that shoved their way into the Capitol building “seditionists” and “domestic terrorists”?
Why not couch their actions in the same soft terms? Why does one riot at the Capitol deserve such condemnation when dozens of nights of rioting in Portland are waved away? Why not blame the DC cops for not “diffusing the energy”?
I have no problem condemning what happened at the Capitol building. I’m just tired of hypocrisy when judging the other side.
For one thing, the MAGA insurrectionists' stated goal was to kill members of Congress and the Vice President, and overthrow the government. Their ranks included a bunch of highly trained ex-military and law enforcement people who were apparently prepared and equipped to carry out that plan.
The demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people, and then later also wanted federal authorities to leave their city alone. Instead of letting them tire themselves out shouting in the street and then go home, the cops shot rubber bullets and tear gas, violently rushed at them, and beat people up night after night.
Note again that a bunch of the most violent incidents in Portland were directly perpetrated or instigated by white supremacists.
Seeing how poorly their statements matched the situation, it seems likely that federal authorities directing officers in Portland (and perhaps the local cops as well) wanted to provoke an unending stream of violent clashes for the benefit of TV cameras.
> Why not blame the DC cops for not “diffusing the energy”?
The capitol police, DC police, and national guard (under the direction of the DoD) deserve a ton of criticism. Their leadership screwed up about as badly as can be imagined, and the result was a complete shitshow. A lot more people could have easily been killed or grievously injured. Hopefully a full investigation will get to the bottom of it.
If DC protestors had just wanted to march around outside the barricades shouting and waving signs, that would have been just fine (and that's all many of them did; those folks are unlikely to face charges). They could have stayed all day and night shouting themselves hoarse if they wanted. There would have been no need for police to use force in such a situation.
Ok, I assume you "know" this based on tweets and comments on parler. But what did they do? Bust some windows and force their way in.
"The demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people,"
Ok, but what did they do? Flash lasers into cops eyes. Shoot fireworks and throw molotov cocktails at federal buildings. You claim "white supremacists" instigated this, but what proof do you have? All I hear is rumor.
So let's pause for a second. We have Trump supports forcing their way into the capitol building. And we have Antifa firebombing federal buildings. But in your eyes the first are "MAGA insurrectionists" and the second is "demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people". Yet the second group is far more violent. Why?
And nice dodge with the "The capitol police, DC police, and national guard (under the direction of the DoD) deserve a ton of criticism". You mention nothing about "diffusing the energy". Should they have done that? Were the Trump protestors deserving of "de-escalation"? It appears not.
If you judged each side the same way I'd have no problem (and I'm not saying each side is equal). Both sides are rioting and that's wrong (even if you said Trump supporters were more violent). Or if you said "both side are protesting and some are getting out of hand" (even if you said the Trump supporters were worse). I'd have no problem.
But you're not. You're giving Antifa/BLM every benefit of the doubt ("protestors") and assuming the worst about the Capital Rioters ("insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists"). For two groups whose activities are not that far apart, your judgement has them miles apart.
Nobody firebombed the building. People shot consumer fireworks against a wall. The physical risk to either the building or the people inside was minimal.
"Antifa" had nothing to do with it. It is not clear that "Antifa" even exists, except as a weird right-wing fetish bogeyman (weird name to choose for it, implying their own support for fascism). "Antifa" has been found responsible for exactly 0 deaths across the USA; so a couple hours of MAGA militancy in one place has done vastly more damage than the entire history of "Antifa".
> I assume you "know" this based on tweets and comments on parler.
They were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" at top volume. Once they got inside they were shouting "Where's Nancy?" among other things, and going door to door throughout the building looking for congresspeople. They literally built a gallows outside. A bunch of legislators' offices had the panic buttons removed (not clear yet by who). There were a bunch of ex-military goons carrying flexible handcuffs who broke into the chambers of Congress. etc.
Here is an FBI agent's affidavit which says that an informant who spoke with the MAGAs after the event says that they had planned to kill Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, or any other Congresspeople they could find, and are planning to try again on Jan 20: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1355186/download
> Were the Trump protestors deserving of "de-escalation"? It appears not.
Yes, in my opinion police should always be non-violent with non-violent protestors, and should avoid forcing direct confrontations.
A complete lack of force was in fact what the MAGAs got from the police. Police backing up, standing down, avoiding any use of physical violence except when the mob was literally hitting them, and largely letting the mob do what it wanted, including racking up hundreds of serious federal felonies with 20-year prison terms. The lady who was shot was literally climbing through a broken window into the House chamber while police with drawn guns shouted at her to stay back (I think some congresspeople were still in the chamber at that point?).
Thankfully all of the members of Congress were successfully removed to safe locations in the nick of time. If that one police officer hadn't tricked the crowd into following him the wrong direction, things might have gone much worse. Tragically a bunch of police officers and insurrectionists suffered serious injuries along the way, and even several deaths.
Eventually once the crowd realized its primary goal was thwarted and there was nothing to accomplish by sticking around, they went home.
The problem in this case was that the police did not have the numbers to block entry to the Capitol, and did not get any backup for hours, despite weeks of serious threats, the presence of dozens of people on the FBI's watchlist visiting town for the event, etc. This was a severe planning/mobilization failure, in my opinion substantially caused by Trump being on the side of the insurrectionists. A full investigation will hopefully uncover exactly what happened.
One of the biggest differences between Portland and the Capitol insurrection is that in Portland violent cops forced confrontations, whereas in DC violent MAGAs forced confrontations.
> If you judged each side the same way I'd have no problem
This is a completely disingenuous statement.
And no deaths? What about the unarmed Trump supporter who was shot dead?[2]
And again you do the same thing. Trump supporters post some threat and it’s real and the police should swoop down and stop them.
The left posts threats and they are dismissed as “bad energy”, “they didn’t really mean it”.
[1]https://ktvz.com/news/crime-courts/2020/07/24/fires-set-insi...
[2]https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909515885/protester-suspected...
To be frank, any statement by Bill Barr must be treated with skepticism. He has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to exaggerate, omit context, and just make things up in his public statements.
I don't know what happened with that Reinoehl guy. He sounded mentally unstable to me, and should not have had access to guns. But from what I have read he was a random independent dude who showed up to protests, not part of an organized group.
He claimed he shot the white supremacist in defense of his friend who was being held at knifepoint. Instead of investigating and charging him with a crime in a court of law, police went and assassinated him. We might never find out exactly what happened.
And surprise, surprise the initial reports about “kidnap and kill squads” during the Capitol riots turned out to be false.
No doubt the mainstream media will print retractions...right?
”The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.””
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests...
There is little doubt that some of the MAGAs intended to harm or kill civilians in the Capitol building, including the Vice President. They repeatedly said so on tape, shouted it to the public, bragged about it to each-other, etc.
Whether some groups of them constituted "kill squads" per se (whatever that means precisely) has not yet been proven out.
> you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses
Nobody said that. Literally every comment you make moves the goalposts and makes unfounded accusations, and you seem fundamentally incapable of admitting repeated misstatements.
I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire".
To be honest this conversation is going nowhere. I recommend you find some other interlocutor if you want to keep going.
But that's EXACTLY what they did. Turned out to be a massive exaggeration with no evidence to actually back it up. Didn't stop it from being covered broadly in the media and the "correction" getting no press at all.
I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire".
But why did you say that? And it's disingenuous when the article I linked to showed a burned out door to the building.
And I know exactly why you quibble over "inside the fence/outside the fence" because you're trying to split hairs in an effort to downplay what it is - arson committed against federal buildings.
Again, proving my point you're treating the antifa/BLM side with kid gloves, but believing (without question) every single rumor and innuendo about the Capital Riots and ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
This is a gross mischaracterization, like almost everything else you have written.
> But at a hearing for Chansley later in the day in Phoenix, another prosecutor, Todd Allison, struck the line from the memo.
> Allison said the statement may very well end up being appropriate at Chansley’s trial, but said prosecutors didn’t want to mislead the court and don’t have to rely on the stricken statement to argue that he should remain in jail. Ultimately, a judge on Friday ordered Chansley to be jailed until his trial.
* * *
> quibble [...] split hairs
There is a dramatic difference between "lit the building on fire" vs. "started a fire in the vicinity of the building". Using the former language to describe the latter is grossly misleading.
I don't really know the details here (maybe they did in fact light the building on fire?). I am just comparing the language you used vs. the language used in the source you linked, which do not agree.
If people get charged and tried for arson or attempted arson in Portland in open court, that seems entirely reasonable to me. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will present their evidence, and a judge and/or jury will decide the merits based on the evidence and the text of the relevant statutes.
> every single rumor and innuendo
When a huge crowd is chanting "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" near the gallows they just constructed that is not a "rumor".
> ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
I didn't use any of those labels above. However, I am happy to agree with you that what many of the MAGA insurrectionists did almost certainly meets the legal definitions of both
"seditious conspiracy" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
and "terrorism" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18
* * *
I'm out. Have fun with yourself.
Since Antifa isn't a group or person, it sounds like you're making up facts.
Fox News: "Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared."
Bellingcat: "we rate Bellingcat Left-Center biased based on story selection and positions that moderately favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."
These are vastly, vastly different forms and scales of "bias." They are nearly incomparable.
Fox News has entertainment departments, fought in court to have Tucker Carlson lie to his followers with impunity. They republished incitement to ramming attacks.
Bellingcat.. They just do investigations.
If you want to try to break things down into black and white left vs right, at least try to do it with comparable organizations. Or even better, try to refute the substance of the article instead of going to a media bias site to see how you feel they land on the political spectrum.
Even the site you linked has them listed as "left-center" with "high factual reporting." How is this grounds to outright dismiss them? The slightest degree of "leftness" makes you want to exclude sources? Do you have any factual reason to be doing this, or is this your personal bias towards right wing content forcing you to seek means to exclude information you don't like the looks of?
I mean, how violent could they have been.
My personal experience (not as a participant, but rather someone who observed a few protests from a distance) was that they were peaceful until the cops would engage with the protestors to impose the curfews that many cities had established.
And then the violence was largely 1 sided.
I did some quick fact checking, just for my own peace of mind. I view the George Floyd protests as overall peaceful, but it's good to question one's understanding. So for what it's worth Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Portl...) lists one casualty. I'm guessing that was the August 29th event, which wasn't a police officer.
So yeah, seems you're right, and that's an important fact to keep in mind. 7 months of protests with only one dead, in an area people keep arguing is the worst of the BLM protests.
That's why there are 20,000 national guard troops ringing the nation's capital right now, quartered in the Capitol Building for the first time since the Civil War. That's why corporations with trillions of dollars in market cap shut down communications. We are only at the beginning of an FBI investigation that may last years.
Maybe you won't believe any of it until you see some famous figures perp walked for sedition. I guess we'll find out.
A tweet versus a statement from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that said, "The violent riot in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, was a direct assault on the U.S. Congress, the Capitol building, and our Constitutional process."[2]
The whataboutism continues to be unreal.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-and-fbi-lead...
[2] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/12/unprecedented...
I didn't realize merely posting affidavits from the DoJ was considered political flamewars by anyone. It's a dry read, but it's unadulterated first party sourcing of fact.
Mortars? Are you sure about that? What kind?
Edit: Oh "fireworks mortars". Ffs. Just say fireworks.
Not protest-related, mind you. Just idiocy-related.
“Mortars” and “fireworks” are overlapping categories.
There was at least one molotov cocktail captured on camera in September landing in the street between a group of protestors and a line of cops, though it is not clear whether anyone was injured by it.
I…disagree.
If I heard “small arms and mortars”, I’d think of the military weapon. (Or “rockets and mortars”, without other context.)
If I hear “molotov cocktails and mortars”, though, I’d think of either the fireworks or some improvised device, but not miltary hardware unless there was some other contextual indication favoring the latter. While its obviously not impossible for a group to both be using Molotov cocktails and have access to military heavy weapons, that’s not really, to me, the normal association.
Well, some mortars are. Other mortars are consumer fireworks.
This is probably the most popular example, but there's plenty of YouTube videos showing people popping up at places to tear down window barricades, smash them and run. They aren't there to protest. They're there to stir shit up and exploit human psychology.
The push to change how the city responds to violence came after dozens of people vandalized businesses on New Year’s Eve, spray-painting buildings and breaking windows. At least three people were arrested and police declared the event a riot.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/01/mayor-ted-wheele...
Wheeler was five minutes into a dinner at Cafe Nell with a friend when a small crowd began yelling obscenities at him and soon pushed their way into the outdoor tented area where he was seated, according to Jim Middaugh, the mayor’s communications director, who was briefed by the mayor on the incident.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2021/01/mayor-ted-wheele...
There were no multi-month riots this summer. Multi-month protests, yes. But not riots. The riots were much smaller in number and generally only lasted a few days at any one location prior to order being restored (here in NYC we had a few nights of looting that could be described as a riot). Even the infamous 1992 LA riots only lasted a week. Multi-month riots would be downfall-of-society level.