Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Thats an interesting point, actually.

At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?

You should read that a little closer.

Never once called them terrorists. In fact, I posed a question.

And I answered it.

**jasper76**

I don't know. People rioted because they perceived that they were being oppressed.

There was nothing super-human about the colonists. They were virtually identical to us in DNA.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Thats an interesting point, actually.

At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?

You should read that a little closer.

Never once called them terrorists. In fact, I posed a question.

And I answered it.

You did? I'm not so sure about that.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
[
You still don't get it. What i am saying is that you shouldn't call them terrorists because you disagree with them.

You need to read what I wrote. A little more closely, this time. The only thing I don't get is how you could mix that up, unless you didn't really read it?

I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.

**jasper76**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

the 2014 Ferguson rioters are targeting the economic well-being of people they see nearly every day, they are hurting themselves by targeting their own businesses and their own property.

Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I highly doubt that there's a single rioter who is targetting his or her own home or business.

No... What I mean is... the liquor store, the "beauty supply" store, cell phone shop were all most likely owned by residents of Ferguson, or people who live near it. Obviously, it'd be pretty fethed if Bob, who owned Bob's battery store went and looted his own damn store.

What I'm saying is that, if you're living in a small community, you're generally a bit more connected than say, New York City. As such, when you are destroying and looting a privately owned business in your own town/city, you are hurting your own business owners. You're raising your own insurance rates, you're decreasing your own property values, and you're generally making your spot on this earth a bit less nice to live in.

It's possible that they don't perceive that these things help them in any way. "Nothing to lose", as the saying goes.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Thats an interesting point, actually.

At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?

You should read that a little closer.

Never once called them terrorists. In fact, I posed a question.

And I answered it.

You did? I'm not so sure about that.

How did I not. It's not terrorism simply because terrorism is about intent, and we should not call things terrorism just because we feel it seems like it. I know I wirte in a convoluted way, so that may be causing some confusion.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.

This is the first time you've addressed terrorism at all.

Threatening to riot and vandalize the community if your demands aren't met sure sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

"noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

**Jihadin**

Damn
I mention it was two different animals being I read Cincy post as a question....

**cincydooley**

Jihadin wrote:
Damn
I mention it was two different animals being I read Cincy post as a question....

It was. You and Ahtman responded.

I actually don't think this is terrorism as we typically 'know' it, though by definition it sure could be construed as such, which is why I posed the question in the first place.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.

This is the first time you've addressed terrorism at all.

Threatening to riot and vandalize the community if your demands aren't met sure sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

"noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

That is because I was not addressing it directly in my answer, but with an example. It's quite a common thing to do.

I'm not using that definition, I'm using our own special current usage. Under that definition gangs are all terrorists, but I don't see people running around freaked about all the terrorists in our midst.

**Jihadin**

Terrorist groups and "American" gangs (might as well include Organize Crime) do share some similarities but both are 180 from each other.

**Jimsolo**

Couple of people have said things about Ferguson natives destroying their community. I think it bears pointing out that the reports addressing the issue have all indicated that the violent rioters/looters are not locals, but have instead traveled in from out of town to take advantage of the situation.

**whembly**

Jimsolo wrote:
Couple of people have said things about Ferguson natives destroying their community. I think it bears pointing out that the reports addressing the issue have all indicated that the violent rioters/looters are not locals, but have instead traveled in from out of town to take advantage of the situation.

That's accurate.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

That is because I was not addressing it directly in my answer, but with an example. It's quite a common thing to do.

It's also fairly common to at least tangentially reference the question you claim to be answering. It didn't appear you were to me at all, really.

I'm not using that definition, I'm using our own special current usage. Under that definition gangs are all terrorists, but I don't see people running around freaked about all the terrorists in our midst.

Gangs are terrorists.

I think I'm going to start using my own definitions for things, though, too! That sounds fun!

**Bullockist**

gangs are terrorists? feth me dead, why not just call everyone a terrorist and get on with it. People rioting are not terrorists they are people rioting. Terrorist, the bigot, and misogynist of 2014.

**Jehan-reznor**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.

This is the first time you've addressed terrorism at all.

Threatening to riot and vandalize the community if your demands aren't met sure sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

"noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Well bring in the B-52's then, or the Pinkerton agent to deal with the rabble!

**Jihadin**

Jehan-reznor wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.

This is the first time you've addressed terrorism at all.

Threatening to riot and vandalize the community if your demands aren't met sure sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

"noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Well bring in the B-52's then, or the Pinkerton agent to deal with the rabble!

PPppffttttt

**cincydooley**

Bullockist wrote:
gangs are terrorists? feth me dead, why not just call everyone a terrorist and get on with it. People rioting are not terrorists they are people rioting. Terrorist, the bigot, and misogynist of 2014.

It's not a terribly new concept, nor is it mine:

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/23/opinion/le-och23_vb

Strictly speaking, they are. Do the fit the United States' evolved, post-911 version of terrorism? No.

Doesn't mean they aren't incredibly similar to terrorist organizations.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyhoo. 7 arrests in Cincy tonight when the protesters shut down interstate 75.

**Frazzled**

Psienesis wrote:
Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.

Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.

It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.

There are so many things wrong with that..

You riot. I have a Mossberg. Lets see how that goes.

**Ensis Ferrae**

cincydooley wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Damn
I mention it was two different animals being I read Cincy post as a question....

It was. You and Ahtman responded.

I actually don't think this is terrorism as we typically 'know' it, though by definition it sure could be construed as such, which is why I posed the question in the first place.

Don't forget... I answered as well (rather tongue in cheekly though)

**d-usa**

It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.

The terrorism thing is a red herring, especially since the definition given makes half the people on Dakka terrorists.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
The terrorism thing is a red herring, especially since the definition given makes half the people on Dakka terrorists.

What I just did at work in the bathroom is definitely a textbook example of domestic terrorism.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The terrorism thing is a red herring, especially since the definition given makes half the people on Dakka terrorists.

What I just did at work in the bathroom is definitely a textbook example of domestic terrorism.

Damn you, biological weapons are against the Geneva convention!

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.

I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.

That's okay.

But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".

Oh... and this is bs:

That was Brown's mother and step-dad.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.

Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.

It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.

There are so many things wrong with that..

You riot. I have a Mossberg. Lets see how that goes.

Are there more than 9 of me?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.

I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.

That's okay.

But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".

Oh... and this is bs:

That was Brown's mother and step-dad.

Like I said:

I am able to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for what they are doing while also being able to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong.

I'm not speaking in riddles here.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:

Like I said:

I am able to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for what they are doing while also being able to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong.

I'm not speaking in riddles here.

"valid motivations for what they are doing" + "what they are doing is wrong" = how does that compute?

Sorry... I'm well into the "Zero Feth Given" mindset now.

**d-usa**

You already told me to "feth off" once today, so if this situation makes you too emotional to be logical or to follow the rules then it might be time for you to decide to take some time off Dakka.

Coincidentally that is also a perfect example of what I am saying:

I am able to acknowledge that you have a valid motivation for what you are doing (you are angry because you feel that your community is under attack) and at the same time I can acknowledge that what you are doing is wrong (telling me "feth you" and lashing out at other posters that you disagree with).

It's not rocket science.

**daedalus**

d, unless I missed something, I think you're taking his comments aimed a little more directly toward you than what I assume they are. I think he's not telling you to feth off, I think he's saying he's quickly sliding into apathy.

**hotsauceman1**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.

I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.

That's okay.

But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".

Oh... and this is bs:

That was Brown's mother and step-dad.

Looks like the apple may not fall far from the tree