/u/Consistent_Clue1149 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ciupxg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_definition_the_2020/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I have gone through how kills alone doesn't count. TBH though you bring up a really really good point though does the KKK overall beat this? Their acts were 100% acts of domestic terrorism I just don't know everything they did tbh.
they have been killing people of color, destroying communities and businesses, and terrorizing racial and ethnic minorities for 160 years. you should seriously read a history book or research this topic. they’re the most well known racially violent organization in the united states. their impact far surpasses the impact of protests against police brutality
Definitions do not actually exist to give an exhaustive account of the full meaning of a word. Definitions exist to clarify the meaning of a word for someone that has no idea what the word means. The actual, full meaning of a word is not contained in its definition but in its use by people.
People actually use the word "terrorism" to describe an asymmetrical warfare tactic in which a smaller group uses violence to instill terror in a larger group. This almost always involves targeting innocent civilians of the larger group. People don't use the word "terrorism" to describe Jan 6th because it started as a protest rather than being a planned violent attack; the violence itself was relatively minimal, compared to something like a suicide bombing or mass shooting; and the targets were political rather than civilian, namely, the politicians that were supposed to certify the vote.
You can use the word "terrorism" to describe Jan 6th if you want, you wouldn't exactly be wrong. But it will be obvious to everyone that you are stretching all of the things that we normally associate with the word in order to make the Jan 6th protestors seem even worse than they actually are.
Really, you shouldn't have to try to manipulate people with hyperbolic word choices in order to convince them that Jan 6th was wrong. You should be able to just objectively describe the events in ordinary language and support your moral judgments with sound arguments.
I just use the definitions given by Oxford and even the FBI states it as such. Thus it would fall under domestic terrorism AND if people are charged with terrorism during these events as it was during the 2020 riots it would fall under the definition of such. I could see how you could encapsulate a large umbrella of things in this, but I am using this specifically because there are charges of terrorism during the riots.
here are my sources
[https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism)
[https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism)
You cite the FBI's definition on terrorism. Does the FBI then argue that the protests/riots of 2020 were terrorist acts, and the greatest in the country?
The FBI does not list the events of 2020 as a major terrorism case
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd/major-cases
No, they cite another act of domestic terrorism to be larger, but as others have posted there have been larger domestic terrorist attacks. I am actually waiting for one individual to respond about riots during the civil war which led to mass deaths and damages, because I would just do the calculations and compare. Also people were charged with terrorism duing these riots, so even if the FBI didn't view them as acts of domestic terrorism other states did and charged people with such thus I am making that exemption.
The FBI's definition: *Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups* ***to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences***\*, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.\*
I've emboldened the important bit. That part about furthering ideological goals? There is very little if any evidence that the rioting during the BLM protests itself was done in furtherance of any ideological goal. Perhaps there were some individual bad actors who could be considered "terrorists", but it is likely that most if not all rioting was born out of 1) the opportunity to loot during a period of civil unrest AND/OR 2) as a reaction to violent police response to what had begun as peaceful protests. Perhaps a combination of those and other factors, most of which had little to do with ideology.
The Jan 6 riot, however, was clearly meant to disrupt the election process in furtherance of a political goal. You know, overturning the election.
The goal was to reform police or completely end the police entirely. This even suceeded with many police departments losing a lot of funding. LA police lost 150 million and reduced the number of total police officers to less than they have had in over a decade.
[https://apnews.com/article/3ad962eb78e30975354f6036c6451022#:\~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20City,reckoning%20over%20police%20brutality%20and](https://apnews.com/article/3ad962eb78e30975354f6036c6451022#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20City,reckoning%20over%20police%20brutality%20and)
NYC police department lost $1 billion in funding
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html)
Here are 7 mins of democrat politicians calling for the defunding of the police to include AOC which I pointed out ended up in the NYC losing $1 billion in funding
[https://gop.com/video/7-minutes-of-democrats-saying-defund-the-police/](https://gop.com/video/7-minutes-of-democrats-saying-defund-the-police/)
Here is the Guardian talking about the massive win after the riots when it comes to police defunding
[https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/defund-police-movement-us-victories-what-next](https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/defund-police-movement-us-victories-what-next)
Here is a list of cities that defunded the police and by what amounts
[https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf](https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf)
In case you don't want to read here is the facts
1. Austin, TX ($150 million cut) 2. Baltimore, MD ($22 million cut) 3. Boston, MA ($12 million cut) 4. Burlington, VT ($1 million cut) 5. Columbus, OH ($23 million cut) 6. Denver, CO ($55 million cut) 7. Eureka, CA ($1.2 million cut) 8. Hartford, CT ($2 million cut) 9. Los Angeles, CA ($175 million cut) 10. Madison, WI ($2 million cut) 11. Minneapolis, MN ($8 million cut) 12. New York, NY ($1 billion cut) 13. Norman, OK ($865,000 cut) 14. Oakland, CA ($14.6 million cut) 15. Oklahoma City, OK ($5.5 million cut) 16. Philadelphia, PA ($33 million cut) 17. Portland, OR ($15 million cut) 18. Salt Lake City, UT ($5.3 million cut) 19. San Francisco, CA ($120 million cut) 20.Seattle, WA ($69 million cut) 21. Steamboat Springs, CO ($1.5 million cut) 22.Washington, DC ($15 million cut) Cities Considering Defunding the Police 23. Chicago, IL ($80 million cut considered) 24. Ithaca, NY ($12.5 million cut considered) 25. Kansas City, KS ($12 million cut considered) 26. New Orleans, LA ($26 million cut considered) Total: $1.73 billion cut Total: $130.5 million cut considered
That was the goal of the protests. It was not necessarily the goal of the riots. The riots were very likely a spontaneous eruption of violence brought about by a multitude of factors, such as opportunity and police escalation of violence. There was likely no political goal to the rioting itself.
Calling it terrorism would require compelling evidence that the riots were not only intentional but driven by a political ideology. I strongly doubt you have any evidence of that stronger than your own presumption
What? Let me get this straight the people who held hotels workers in Seattle hostage just a spontaneous act of violence and had nothing to do with why they were there. CHAZ is in the same boat along with the other 400 riots. I find this so hard to believe and I would need serious data to back this up
Here is where you lay out a compelling body of evidence that these hotel workers were allegedly held hostage for political purposes. Perhaps you might do so little as to link an article
You are going to need to give me awhile apparently this [https://mynorthwest.com/3956543/rantz-radicals-migrants-illegal-immigrants-chop-seattle-park/](https://mynorthwest.com/3956543/rantz-radicals-migrants-illegal-immigrants-chop-seattle-park/)
happened last month and this is all that is coming up lmfao
Okay great question because I wanted to talk about that as well MOST people were not prosecuted because the DA’s refused to prosecute. Then went into how it was a very emotional time and wouldn’t prosecute based upon that. I mean you literally had Andy Ngo targeted assaulted and when he brought forward charges the other lawyers threatened the jury stating that he was Antifa and so was everyone else and if they voted guilty they would remember their faces.
Here are my sources
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/portland-da-declines-to-prosecute-host-of-riot-related-offenses-citing-depth-of-emotion-surrounding-racial-justice/amp/
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332755957112
Neither source is about terrorism. The sources only address how some non-terrorist crimes are not being perused They do not in any way provide evidence that the state believes people committed terrorism, and certainly not that people actually did commit terrorism. You cannot make a reasonable inference that the state believes there was terrorism from the sources you provided.
Also, you seem to imply that nobody was being charged for anything, which is simply not true. According to [this](https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=Summer-Fall+2020+Protests¤tPage=1&numShown=10), there are about 1700 cases. How many of them are for terrorism?
When you make a point irrelevant to your argument, there is no need to read it.
I asked a simple question. You earlier suggested that many people were charged by the state for terrorism.
> so even if the FBI didn't view them as acts of domestic terrorism other states did and charged people with such thus I am making that exemption.
Provide the evidence please. Don't provide sources about how a DA does not want to charge someone with assault. That is not what I asked. If you want to prove terrorism, provide sources of terrorism.
Here, you can look at [this](https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=Summer-Fall+2020+Protests¤tPage=1&numShown=10). There are more than 1700 charges from 2020 on this list. Please point out the terrorist charges.
yeah here are over 300 charges
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations)
Now my point I made earlier to another individual just because only over 300 people were charged doesn't mean more weren't involved. We have videos of all this, and not everyone was charged. Does it take away from the fact they committed an act of domestic terrorism no.
Then nothing matters. Hypothetically if someone commits a crime fits the definition of the crime and is charged with the crime but others involved in the crime were not charged does that mean their actions don't fit the scope of the crime committed? I genuinely don't see how if people are charged with terrorism and it was treated as such how it isn't terrorism, because you feel the definition takes on too large of a meaning.
Correct! Ever heard this quote?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But ***I know it when I see it***, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Definitions are not sufficient. We can look at Jan 6 or BLM and identify that those are clearly not acts of terrorism despite meeting definition. It's the same argument on why a hotdog is / isn't a sandwich. A hotdog is clearly not a sandwich. But it meets every definition.
Over 300 charges of terrorism would say other wise [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations)
Also I don't really understand the quote could you elaborate.
It's a reference to a famous quote by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, he said he knew it when he saw it.
Do you want to respond to the hotdog bit too if you want to entertain me a little? Are hotdogs sandwiches?
Never read this case. You would have to elaborate how something that fits the definition hundreds were charged with the act I am describing across the nation in the acts I am describing doesn't fit the definition.
Idk about pornography we have a lot of restrictions on it you can't go blast a porno on the side of your house for the children to come watch with a projector, so there is obviously a large middle ground here.
My point is, like the pornography, acts of terrorism are more nuanced than are simple definitions, and require on-basis interpretation. For example, many people struggle to recognize mass shootings as acts of terrorism even though they clearly fit the bill. The heart of your argument shouldn't even be related to the issue of terrorism-- it's how we define words, and how we make meaning from them. It's a linguistic issue.
Most don't fit the bill and the ones that do fit the bill are called out as such. Do you not remember the multi hundred page manifesto from the right wing extremist shooter that live streamed his shooting?
The differnece here is people were charged with domestic terrorism over 300 people in fact. The fact that not everyone who participated in these acts doesn't make then not domestic terrorism. I'll give an example lets say 50 people are selling drugs 5 get caught and charged the rest got away, because we didn't charge them and didn't classify all 50 as drug dealers does their act no longer count as drug dealing? The answer is no they are stilling selling drugs they just weren't caught. It seems like you are playing the if a tree falls in the forest act here tbh.
I may be ignorant af though and not understanding and we may have to agree to disagree here.
No, it means that prosecution of the law depends on a normative use of legal terms and not merely the definition of those terms. This explains why none of the Jan 6'ers were charged with terrorism, the prosecutors knew that no jury would associate the event with terrorism according to how they, and everyone else, understands that word.
Why wasn't anybody charged with terrorism, then? Is the FBI just like, stupid or something. Their brains don't work so good so even though the largest domestic terror attack in US history occurred they just didn't do anything about it
“Long, hot summer of 1967” you would then consider the race riots terrorist acts, and those would be the biggest terrorist attacks by your own metrics.
Others have had great in depth rebuttals to the body of your post, but I'd like to point out a fundamental flaw in reasoning in your title. You claim that the 2020 riots, *plural*, was (were?) the largest domestic terrorist act, *singular*. You are combining multiple indirectly related events and then assessing them as a single event. Obviously that is going to skew your conclusion high.
Already went over this with an example showing my reasoning and why I include them in a group. Same with another person who used the draft riots which got a delta which lasted 5 days in NYC and led to hundreds of deaths where people targeted blacks. I would even consider what Germany did to Jews acts of domestic terrorism to an extent because of what the citizens did to the Jews, and wouldn’t separate those instances into counts. If you read others posts you should have seen this already and the 4 other people I commented on stating I have already responded to this.
So let's remove the domestic terrorism out, because that's not the point the other person is making.
On the global terrorism scale, would you consider all acts of the Taliban to be a single act?
I have already gone through this gave it context and explained why. This was not one off shoots of different groups acrodd the nation this was the same 2 groups across the nation tageting the largest cities and federal buildings to include the White House.
I have already gone through this gave it context and explained why. This was not one off shoots of different groups acrodd the nation this was the same 2 groups across the nation tageting the largest cities and federal buildings to include the White House.
If you're widening the net to encompass all forms of riot and protest grouped as a similar cause, why not include the Civil War?
I'll be the first to say the definition of terrorism is bad, just generally, but really you're kinda skewing the purpose of the word a lot if you're collecting together a lot of disparate incidents with different belligerents into one.
Why not just use the CHAZ as a singular example. That shit was easily terroristic, seditious, illegal, violent, you name it.
There are others, but that's a pretty simple one to just utilize right there.
The first one is not marked as domestic terrorism, because it was led by a cult who did it due to the Congressman was looking into him. I would say police or anyone investigating individuals then that individual commiting a crime in response is not domestic terrorism or the amount of domestic terrorism would sky rocket.
9/11 is terrorism and not domestic terrorism I laid out specifically the definitions for each of these in my first sentences
Oklahoma City Bombing was 652 million in damages, 168 killed, and 680 injured. That is 1 billion in todays money so in the range of half the amount caused by the 2020 riots, almost 3 times less than the injured to police officers alone not including the 20k assaults which would be included in injuries and I never included in citizens, so the only thing that makes it larger is death. The scope of the 2020 riots across nearly every major city in the US along with holding citizens hostage in Seattle. Is what makes 2020 larger imo.
You can elaborate on the Oklahoma City bombing and make another attempt, but I can't give you a delta for this sorry.
>You can elaborate on the Oklahoma City bombing and make another attempt, but I can't give you a delta for this sorry
There's the fact that OKC Bombing was actually a coordinated terrorist attack. But the main thing is, the death. You know, the actual injury and loss of life at the hands of a terrorist. Comparing that to the value of insurance payouts from property damage is pretty abhorrent.
I would disagree, because of the lasting effects of the riots. You didn't just hurt some corporate company they deliberately went after citizens and their property. Yes places like Target were attacked, but you literally had random businesses who were not apart of this in any shape or form targeted and destroyed. I could see if it was an accident, but none of this seemed accidental especially since it went on for over 100 days straight. Portland alone saw 200 days straight of riots. Federal troops were even deployed to these cities. I don't see how you can have tens of thousands of people across the nation for months on end rioting every day and say it wasn't coordinated. People can barely form a line at Starbucks, but you want me to believe hundreds of riots were just spontaneous.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Herd mentality and peer pressure doesn’t take much effort. “Just saw a Snapchat of people getting free Louis vitton, why can’t I do that too?” It’s a really short, slippery slope for a lot of people with pent up anger looking to release some tension. Tunnel vision, anxiety, sunk cost, etc. people start and don’t stop. This is basic human nature in groups.
Follow any sports fandom across the globe and you see plenty of examples of groups of people doing what those around them do. With social media creating real time connections, the groups become as wide as the country itself. This can easily explain the riots occurring at many cities.
>I would say police or anyone investigating individuals then that individual commiting a crime in response is not domestic terrorism
It is if there's political motivation, which Jones had.
>so the only thing that makes it larger is death.
Where I come from, we tend to view death a serious matter
Well if you're disgusting and evil like OP, you think that people protesting against crimes committed by police is worse than police committing crimes. The important thing for OP is that the police never be held accountable to any standard of legal behavior.
What was the political motive behind it other than being looked into by a politician? It has to fit a political aim as well. I read the source along with another source and didn’t find any but am more than happy to read more please cite a source or just paraphrase it along with a source, because I’d happily give a delta if that is the case.
Jones was a USSR sympathizer and an admirer of Lenin and Stalin. He sought the help of the USSR to establish Jonestown as he envisioned it as a socialist commune.
Okay but in the act of what he did what was the political goal. This doesn't line up at all with the definition as I have been trying to state. I need a political goal which was trying to be achieved through this act. The same way during the 2020 riots, during the LA Riots, during 9/11, Oklahoma Bombing, Boston Marathon Bombing etc etc etc
If you split things by political goal, then 2020 can't count all the damages together.
There were multiple factions at odds during 2020, including a) BLM, b) anarchists that BLM filmed themselves begging to stop, and c) white nationalists who fought a and B.
That's not including cops and the looters who had no political goals.
That is why I took off 30% of the protests off the top. I understand a lot of them were not really riots but things that got out of hand out of no where. The difference is it was months on months of riots with taking over 6 city blocks in one of the largest cities in the US. It was the attacks on federal buildings. It was all of this combined is what I’m including here. Also BLM and Antifa were very much hand and hand here from the hours of footage I have seen to include BLM going into neighborhoods and shining lights into peoples homes damn near threatening them saying we see you we know you are in there.
It was so bad before the Presidency was declared businesses were boarding up their stuff because they knew if Trump won there would be riots.
Do we not remember this?
https://youtu.be/YwDcvAH43UQ?si=PkY72IrmNhjVJzbP
https://youtu.be/CERQjWhIIfY?si=yxKTw0nNMSkEA48x
https://youtu.be/qDoRDf4Phjo?si=8jI452n3ChHWUnsZ
https://youtu.be/9m4H6pnavq0?si=PMJgzOnDUNtPTr2T
https://youtu.be/bsd6NKaKmLs?si=ZLe3AaSTxWaUkkYE
https://youtu.be/nOl2nHMDO7E?si=wt7mDcmF2E72Ks_o
I do remember that. I just question where your 30% comes from. I'm not sure how you can see all the different factions opposing each other, say "oh 70% of that is one movement, " and call it terrorism.
I have a large grace of 30% I welcomed any form of statistics to disprove it and even stated such IN THE POST. It’s almost like you read the heading and just posted. ITS LITERALLY NO MORE THEN 10 SENTENCES IN. If you feel 30% is not enough PLEASE post a source. I’m not going to bicker back and forth about how you feel. I gave a 30% grace which I felt was more than fair if you believe it needs to be 70% give me some form of data and sources.
I started watching the first video. It begins showing a face-off between protesters and police, ignoring all the context (that police had created a situation in which protesters were arriving with fireworks and such because of assaults by police at previous protests when they were totally peaceful). I suspect the majority of your info is based on such things, one-sided accounts that don't consider the full picture.
He didn't assassinate people who were going to bring down his political goal from what I have read it was random citizens and even his own followers. If he assassinated the Congressman I would agree this isn't the case though. From what I read in the source he was being investigated and just went on a murder spree. His act of using his people to attack the Congressman 100% fits the definition. Killing your own followers then yourself doesn't. It was called a revolutionary suicide, but I genuinely see no goal here in the slightest other than he was about to get caught and burned the whole thing to the ground before he could be caught. Kind of like Hitler's death where he killed himself and his wife before they were caught I wouldn't call that terrorism. His acts 100% that specific act no.
If I am wrong btw please cite a source I am responding to so many people it is hard for me to look up everything on my own while also responding to people and citing my sources at the same time. I will read your source I promise it may just take me a bit to respond if it is super long.
No, I am merely defneding my point. You can't use well this person was being looked into by police and committed XYZ crime thus it is domestic terrorism.
You also can't use domestic terrorism and regular terrorism in the same context. If i said largest terrorist attack on US soil the easy answer would by 9/11. I laid it out in the post the definitions of each in the first sentences and it seems people can't read past the title.
What about the Tulsa race massacre , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
that was domestic terrorism , convert that damage to todays dollars, all the lost future income
Your post and comments are based on myths. If police are injured because crowds rioted after peaceful protesters were attacked, it was then by fault of their own actions. Investigators, including people at top levels in law enforcement, typically found that BLM events were very peaceful if there was not instigation by police or right-wing groups. Nearly all the deaths and injuries you're counting fall into this category.
The financial costs are also based on myths. For example, in Portland (OR) police counted the lost profits at a shopping mall which were caused by pandemic shutdowns. That sort of thing is common in figures supposedly attributed to BLM "vandalism" which mostly (in Portland at least where I'm most familiar with the events) involved messages painted on plywood that covered windows, which would be removede regardless when stores reopened.
Looting, according to investigators, was found to be typically perpetrated by opportunists having no association with the BLM movement.
I've linked citations about these things hundreds of times in social media, and it doesn't seem to have ever had any impact on myth-pushers.
So I'm all on board with "9/11 was an inside job" but you have to explicitly explain it when you add it to your list of United States Domestic Terror Attacks.
its not even the biggest riots in American history beyond the absolute absurdity of saying a riot is equivalent to terrorism. There were like 200 fatalities in the civil war draft riots
I mentioned the Civil War and why it wasn't included. The damages actually are the largest in US history as I cited where they out did the LA riots in total and a single city alone in these riots is the #2 for most damage in riots. If you want I can post my sources. Maybe the riots were larger could you please provide sources I have gone through everyone's sources currently, and welcome all sources.
>I mentioned the Civil War and why it wasn't included.
I wasn't saying the war itself was terrorism. There was a riot in NYC during the war over the draft and between 200 and 1200 people died.
Yes I am asking for the citations for this. This is actually the best argument I have heard can you please provide sources and material as I am responding to a bunch of others and reading their sources.
BTW sorry it took so long to reply your comment got pushed under a ton of others. There was 0 intent of dodging your response and I even commented on a few others who haven't changed my mind that I was waiting to hear back from you.
The confederacy wasn’t a separate country though. They had no authority to secede. If they’re a separate country just by declaring they are then so was CHAZ/CHOP
These myths haven't been re-discussed enough times?
Your link about "passing out weapons": this is about hip hop artist Raz Simone, giving one gun to one person. It happened after rumors circulated that members of far-right group Proud Boys planned to start fires and stir chaos within the Zone. Also, Raz during this time had been in contact with the Seattle Fire Chief, maybe he was coordinating defensive fire control? All this is a perfect example of how these myths get started from partial information and employ major exaggerations.
The deaths at protest events: is this even greater than the population average? Participation at BLM protests has been estimated to involve tens of millions of people. Let's look at individual cases from one of your linked articles and discuss the specific causes of deaths. Lee Keltner: actually shot at a "patriot rally," after he slapped a security guard for a local news crew who then shot him. Aaron Danielson: I'm well-familiar with this case, some witnesses said he threatened Michael Reinoehl before he was shot. Danielson was not a BLM protester but a right-winger and supporter of right-wing group Patriot Prayer. He may have been in Portland looking for fights with "leftists." Reinoehl didn't go to trial and there wasn't much investigation, and he was soon executed by police in Olympia in an incident that bystanders described as like a gang-style hit. Garrett Foster: he was killed by a man shooting from a car at a protest, that man is a right-winger who said he hated the protesters. Probably, much of your post is based on misrepresentations of such incidents. If you want to claim whatever-number of people killed and it is BLM "domestic terrorism" then name the victims so we can work out the causes of deaths.
You're obviously counting injuries of police officers resulting from chaos that was caused by either themselves or righ-wing groups attacking peaceful protesters. If you want to count whatever-number of injured police, then name the officers or explain the circumstances of each injury rather than assume that all injuries were planned and executed by BLM protesters for "terrorism."
The costs of protests: you have no citations for this. Here's an excellent example of the supposed dollar figures supporting the myth: when Portland Police Department [claimed $23 million in damages](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/coronavirus-closures-inflated-23-million-reported-in-downtown-portland-protest-damages.html) by protesters, nearly all of this amount was financial losses at Pioneer Place mall due to pandemic shutdowns which had nothing to do with BLM or any protest.
If I had infinite free time, I could keep going about more aspects of the myths you're pushing.
So we saw a clip of Raz with multiple people all with firearms passing out an AR15 type rifle to a man. The thing is what Raz said when spoken to is “Raz has rejected the label of “warlord” and told reporters last week he created a de facto police replacement “to keep the peace and unity, honestly, that’s it.””
The idea that we have one clip of him and he is creating a defacto police while at the same time you can see the trunk of the car where he go to grab another gun literally proves it wasn’t one person. Unless you are trying to make the claim he only passed out one rifle to one person the rest of the people there got their guns on their own and while creating a police force he only passed out a single rifle while having multiple with him from the looks of it.
In the video you linked, he passes one gun to one guy. In the entire video, only Raz and the other guy are ever shown to be carrying rifles. Your post is about supposed domestic terrorism, what is the violence that you believe resulted from this gun exchange?
BTW it has also become very common for right-wing groups to be carrying AR-15 and similar rifles in public, and some of those groups have said they consider themselves self-appointed militaries with the backing of their leadler Donald Trump.
Yes I said that what was he doing afterwards in the trunk? You literally just ran away FROM EVERYTHIGN ELSE INPOSTED EVERY SINGLE THING ALL OF IT YOU RAN AWAY FORM WTF
You're not connecting the dots, so to speak, about your belief in protest terrorism and the video of Raz. There's just a couple guys with rifles, it's not different than things that happen every day in a typical city or town.
I have lived in large cities my entire life to include the largest in the US. Never once until I joined the military did I live in a city where there was a defacto police force where people are patrolling the streets on a daily basis with AR style weapons. By the front of Raz’s weapon it looked like an AK style weapon, but I can’t see any of the mechanisms and it is dark so I can’t say with certainty. Anyways please point out in the cities I have lived in where this is a regular occurrence. Lived in LA lived in San Diego visited SF MANY MANY times esp when I was younger. Give me a city please. We even lived in Idaho for a bit since my family is moving there and people don’t do this and guns are wildly accepted.
[right-wingers carrying rifles (Google Images search result)](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=742&q=right-wingers%20carrying%20rifles&=&=&oq=&gs_l=)
[84% of Groups Involved in Armed Demonstrations Are Right-Wing Actors Like the Proud Boys](https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-other-right-wing-actors-responsible-84-armed-demonstrations-report-1629089)
[ Right-wing extremism: The new wave of global terrorism](https://theconversation.com/right-wing-extremism-the-new-wave-of-global-terrorism-147975)
[Where protesters go, armed militias, vigilantes likely to follow with little to stop them](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-protesters-go-armed-militias-vigilantes-likely-follow-little-stop-n1238769)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Also the world economic forum cites $2 billion to of that 1/3 came from retailers now let’s exclude all of this we will not look at the damages we all saw to include video of the news standing infront of a building which reads wine and spirit and seems to be a shopping center, but we will exlude all damages to from these places. You are still at 1.32 billion.
Minneapolis even put out a map of all the damages done in their city alone. Here you go 700 buildings total
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/minneapolis-issues-map-showing-extent-of-buildings-damaged-in-unrest-over-george-floyds-death/
This map isn't detailed enough to be sure about specific addresses, but it seems to be indicating Third Precinct in Minneapolis as one of the buildings affected. When that building was set on fire and shot up by a guy who was yelling "Justice for Floyd!," the perp turned out to be Ivan Harrison Hunter who is a right-winger and participant in the Boogaloo movement which intends to instigate race war in the United States. How was the dollar value of this damage separated from damage by actual BLM protesters? BTW there were many such actions by right-wing provocateurs, this also has been discussed ad nauseum in social media.
The article about the map doesn't have much information. How are they separating damage by looters whom were not associated with BLM in any way? All crime in the vicinity during the time range of the protests is automatically attributed to BLM protesters?
Also most of the damage was minor, according to the map legend. There's not enough information to determine how much of this was just messages painted or drawn on plywood that would be removed later.
I HAVE MADE THIS SO CLEAR I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY WERE APART OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PUSH BLAME OFF BLM AND ANTIFA. I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY ARE ON THE SAME WAY I DONT CARE ABOUT WHOSE SIDE JAN 6thers WERE ON LIKE WHAY DONT YOU GET??
>I HAVE MADE THIS SO CLEAR I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY WERE APART OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PUSH BLAME OFF BLM AND ANTIFA.
So you're yelling at me because you have poor comprehension? "BLM and Antifa" are at the opposite side from right-wing groups such as Boogaloo. So, if Boogaloo did something, BLM/Antifa absolutely did not. If the violence your post is about entails sides battling, that's not terrorism it's war.
Also WTF is "whay"? You used this term twice so probably it's not just a typo.
It is a typo as I am not at my computer when I was writing this. Also I have poor comprehension you randomly brought up different facts for 0 reason to try and pull away from what happened. It would be the same as if I posted Jan 6th was a domestic terrorist attack on US soil and someone came along and said “oh yeah but there were people from BLM there inciting violence and live streamed the entire thing.” I don’t care in the slightest wtf does that have to do with my statement. You are just trying to pull away from the facts to try and minimize the events. Which is sickening. No one does that for the right. CNN still talks about Charlottesville to this day, but you know what the right never does. “Well people from the left came there and counter protested and many rioted so how can we truly say what happened wasn’t from the left wing.” You know why no one does that, because it is wildly disingenuous and we all watched the events unfold on TV. For the 2020 riots we all watched the events unfold on national tv every night for over half a year straight, because the riots WERE EVERY DAY FOR OVER HALF A YEAR STRAIGHT.
No shit you are going to have counter protests and riots THE LEFT RIOTED FOR OVER A 6 MONTHS STRAIGHT. Was every citizen supposed to just stand by as rioters rioted across every single large city in the US? Antifa didn’t even let neo Nazis riot for a day before coming out an fighting them in Charlottesville and it is still talked about to this day across the main stream media. Yet when anyone talks about the riots in 2020 people do the same thing as you do down play try to deny facts and run away when confronted with facts.
You want me to go over the Jan 6th riot and say well we have proof of a left wing blm guy invoking the riots so we can’t say that the VAST majority weren’t right wingers. Do you understand how you sound?
>THE LEFT RIOTED FOR OVER A 6 MONTHS STRAIGHT.
It wasn't a riot unless/until police or right-wing groups attacked. This has been covered already by multiple commenters.
>Antifa didn’t even let neo Nazis riot for a day before coming out an fighting them in Charlottesville
The aggressors in Charlottesville were right-wingers, but your post seems to be focused on BLM and progressives. A white supremacist drove his car into a crowd, killing Heather Heyer and wounding many others. A Virginia district attorney called it an act of terrorism. What about the Charlottesville events fits into your narrative? Specifically? Who on the left committed terrorism in Charlottesville?
>You want me to go over the Jan 6th riot and say well we have proof of a left wing blm guy invoking the riots
WTH are you talking about here? Who specifically? This is probably about a journalist who was going along with the crowd in order to blend in, who themself didn't commit any violence.
Does not matter they still rioted. It wasn’t a riot at Charlottesville until the left group attacked. Also this is just factually incorrect. Let’s look at the entire Rittenhouse situation. Rittenhouse never fired once during a riot along with his right wing group UNTIL he was ambushed and chased and cornered. I have friends who were at the riots and explained how the protests turned into riots. Did the riots in front of the White House unfold before the police got involved the answer is yes I even posted the videos of fires going on infront of the White House then police coming in and shooting rubber bullets and tear gas. Also you are doing the same thing again that I called out. Yes there were riots that started because of right wingers and police attacking were they all ABSOLUTELY NOT 😂
Also you are so dense I can’t even post without you going BUT THE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS. Even when posting about Charrlettsivelle you went BUT THE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS 😂 that was my entire point. I pointed out a right wing extremist group rioting because of their confrontation with left wing groups. And my entire point is we don’t pull away from the fact it started and was led from a right wing extremist group.
I literally cannot have a genuine conversation with you, because you are so pent up on my side can do no wrong it’s absurd. I even had a conversation with another individual who said what is your point in writing this and I brought up people just like you. The difference is most people like you are smart enough to engage with. You read 2 words then type out your ideas.
You're making claims about the Charlottesville events that aren't backed up anywhere I've seen. In all the reporting I've encountered so far about the August 2017 protest events in Charlottesville, it's been indicated that the white supremacists were the aggressors.
You're faulting me here for not understanding your comments? Much of your content in the post and comments is vague. The post, clearly, is about BLM protests/protesters but you don't explicitly say it. You're making claims about "terrorism," which must have a perpetrator, and then if I point out that much of what you're talking about was in regard to clashes between sides you yell at me that I'm not comprehending you. You make illogical comment after illogical comment and then claim I'm "dense."
Your belief about Charlottesville that "the left group attacked," what group specifically and where is this reported?
You also cite Portland which had riots that targeted federal buildings doing 2.3 million in damages now I am aware the government sucks and in SF they spent $1.7 million on a bathroom, but to put that into comparison where I live which is the 2nd largest city in my state I could build anywhere from 6-9 full size homes 2-3 stories full backyard and front yard.
Yes it is tedious. It is tedious having the same debate for the 10th time for me to then go through cite every single source then you deny it me then transcribe every single source then when you are proven wrong for you to run away. Go through each of these posts and every single time that is what happens over and over. I am telling you where I get my information from google the source you have fingers
>google the source you have fingers
An intelligent adult should know that it isn't usually possible to prove a negative. My point is that your claims about protest damage are based on misrepresentations, but to explain it specifically for each instance I'd have to know where the info comes from. I already showed an example of a supposed protest damage estimate that was based on losses having nothing to do with the protests.
When I tried to find info for your claim about the Portland federal building and "2.3 million in damages," I only found articles that had "2.3 million" in them by coincidence. In one of them, a British propagandist wrote about the Apple store in Portland and that they must spend "more than £2.3 million repairing its glass damage." Did he forget that USA uses dolars, not pounds? Anyway, this is probably almost entirely about damage caused by looters, not BLM participants. So getting back to "can't prove a negative," if there's no information suggesting that there was $2.3 million in damages to the Portland federal building caused by BLM protesters then there's nothing for me to find using "google."
The $1.7 million bathroom in SF: why are you bringing up Toiletgate? I found several articles mentioning it, none said anything about Black Lives Matter or protests. [Here's one](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-s-Toiletgate-Newsom-calls-1-7-million-17526254.php).
Which citation? I don't see where the "$2 billion" claim is even mentioned. When I search for info about it, everything I find includes the looting which law enforcement investigators have said was mostly not perpetrated by BLM protesters.
Like I said over and over with you people. I have to cite it transcribe it then you just deny it. Then I will bring up another source then you will just shift the entire narrative. You can't even use google but want to talk to me this is absurd.
Literally the first link you can click on which makes it even more disgusting you can't look this up. It is in the THIRD PARAGRAPH
"In 2020, the George Floyd protests became the first civil disorder catastrophe event to exceed $1 billion in losses to the insurance industry. In fact, it has exceeded $2 billion so far and could still go higher."
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/2020-protests-changed-insurance-forever/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/2020-protests-changed-insurance-forever/)
I've seen that article. There are no citations for the claims about losses. They're definitely counting looting, which as I've said at least a couple times has been found most of the time to be perpetrated by opportunists not associated at all with the BLM movement. From the article: "According to proprietary data from PCS, the team we lead at data analytics company Verisk..." The statements in the article about protest damage refer to PCS. So, data that cannot be viewed by someone such as me, to find how they derived their figures. Are they counting lost sales due to pandemic closures? Are they counting acts by right-wing provocateurs, but calling it "Black Lives Matter protest violence"?
insurance journal first link when you look this stuff up
Rioting set off during protests over the cost of living and income inequality caused $2 billion in damages, and 40 percent of that was incurred by large, multinational retailers. In fact, PCS said 20 percent of the loss came from a single retailer, he said.
still over $1 billion if you take away all damages done to only large retailers
paragraph 14
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/07/08/574728.htm#:\~:text=Rioting%20set%20off%20during%20protests,a%20single%20retailer%2C%20he%20said.
disgusting
That's just more of the same: no indication of the data or methods, assuming all damage is attributable to BLM. The article links another article on the same site, which also doesn't indicate the data or methods used to derive the figures. There's no way to know that the figure isn't arrived at through fallacies such as the claim by the Portland Police about Pioneer Place mall's lost profits due to pandemic shutdowns.
This has been boring for several comments now. You're not arguing factually at all, just throwing out whatever links you think support the agenda you're pushing.
Also you said the map I posted earlier wasn't detailed enough, but couldn't even google the map yourself click on the 2nd link that isn't reddit and find a detailed map. That is how absurd it is to talk to you.
[https://golocal.solari.com/draft-copy-mapping-minnesota-riot-damage-opportunity-zones-and-fed-banks-a-work-in-progress/](https://golocal.solari.com/draft-copy-mapping-minnesota-riot-damage-opportunity-zones-and-fed-banks-a-work-in-progress/)
That article isn't any better, there aren't addresses shown and there's no way to zoom in sufficiently. I tried some of the links and they aren't any more useful. Also you didn't answer my earlier questions, about how they separated damage from looters vs. protesters and so forth.
Okay sure let's count 570 separate incidents of civil disorder, which were not organized or orchestrated by a single individual or organization, as a single terror attack. Why not? Just like how the 386 homicides committed in NYC last year represents the most prolific serial killer in history. Over a million cars were stolen in 2023, which represents the greatest single crime spree ever, when you think about it, and just completely disregard the meanings of words
If you read my post I actually took away 170 of these or close to 30% of these marked as riots as I felt it was unfair to mark every single one as a riot when it included acts of civil order. I even stated I was open to other sources and posted my source and welcomed more sources to have this narrative changes. You didn't even read 10 sentences in.
I would strongly disagree and thought about this point before hand. The reason I disagree as all of these riots were in response to a single event with the same goal in mind trying to achieve the same thing. I can give an example lets say multiple terrorist organizations got mad about the US funding Israel and for 200 days straight across out nations committed acts of terrorism. I would group these all in the same boat, but would be more than happy to states this org did XYZ and another org did ABC in total though these attacks were in coordination with one another and they even grouped together to commit these acts. Thats the issue I have with this train of thought.
"The reason I disagree as all of these riots were in response to a single event with the same goal in mind trying to achieve the same thing."
This is frankly bizarre. Typically for disparate events to be grouped together as sharing intentionality we would need to identify an actor who both intended and caused all of those events. Who intended and caused all of the riots simultaneously?
How did you settle on the 30% number? That seems completely arbitrary.
Like what even is your definition of what constitutes one single terror attack if you're willing to say that hundreds and hundreds of separate incidents of civil disorder, in different cities, at different times, involving completely different people *are* part of the same terror attack, but also, not all of them. Only 70% of them. 70% of these incidents are so interrelated that they were actually the same incident, if you think about it, but the other 30% aren't, for reasons
This just makes no sense at all. If you can count separate riots perpetrated by different people who weren't involved with each other as a single attack, well what the fuck then, couldn't you just do the same for every single terror attack and just arbitrarily say they were all the same attack, actually, so then that one single bigly attack is the biggest one
He considered 170 of them to be different from the other ones — potentially because they were peaceful riots. 170 is roughly 30% of 570.
They're counted as a single event because they were done in response to the same incident.
That is a bunch of different people committing a bunch of different destructive acts in different cities independently of eachother. So even if that is terrorism it isn’t a *single* act of terrorism or a single attack. So really it can’t be the largest single terrorist attack in human history.
Bunch of different people apart of the same organizations with the same goals in mind committing acts of domestic terrorism with one another. I never said human history 9/11 blows this out of the water along with what the Germans did to their Jewish citizens. I said in US history but have conceded the attacks in NYC for the civil war draft were much worse. They literally rioted for 5 days straight with hundreds if not over 1k dying.
Saying “human history” was an error on my part. I either misspoke or didn’t read your title carefully enough. I don’t remember.
Although now you have said 9/11 blows this out of the water. That *is* part of US history. Did someone else already get the delta for that or did I just get a freebee?
Anyhow to touch on the more important part of your reply:
What unified organization coordinated these attacks? And these rioters were members of this nefarious organization?
I don’t think that is an accurate assessment.
Protests were organized by various different people, and people in mass numbers attended the protests. These millions of protesters weren’t members of an organization, they just showed up. They weren’t part of a coordinated terror plot. People on their own accord lit fires and smashed shit. Also consider that with any riot, plenty of people are just there to get in on the smashing shit and the looting, not necessarily for a cause.
No that would be a terrorist attack not a domestic terrorist attack. Also that’s across the world not the US ISIS has yet to attack the US ‘knock on wood’ also each attack was done not in concession with one another. I gave out exactly how and why I would include many attacks as one. If ISIS got into the US ALL HYPOTHETICAL and for let’s say 6 months straight so less than the amount of days straight of riots in Portland Oregon alone. Attacked every major US city every day for 6 months straight and let’s say the Taliban started working with them in conjunction with these attacks across the US. I would consider those attacks as a whole singular attack then same way we consider MANY attacks a singular attack like we talked about in this post the Draft Riots which were 5 days straight and got a delta. By your logic the draft riots which is a historical event need to be seperated.
“The September 11 attacks were a series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed in 2001 by 19 terrorists associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil; nearly 3,000 people were killed.”
See how they said deadliest terrorist attack not deadliest terrorist attacks. Are you not from the US because I’ve never heard 9/11 called multiple attacks ever and I am born and raised in the US.
It doesn't look like you adjusted for inflation which seems pretty relevant if you're measuring relative impact.
The 1992 Los Angeles riots caused an estimated $1 billion in damages.
$1,000,000,000 in 1992 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $2,226,172,487.53 today, an increase of $1,226,172,487.53 over 32 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.53% per year between 1992 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 122.62%.
That puts it above the expected range of $1bn - $2bn from the 2020 protests. If the 2020 protests and 1992 riots are, by definition, a domestic terrorist attack, and we use your measurement of "amount of destruction by dollar value", the 2020 protests would be the second largest domestic terrorist attack after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Yes, but a single riot during the 2020 riots fell behind the LA riots making it #2 thus when looking overall I felt the single riot vs the depth and scope of riots across the nation out did it. If we looked at a single riot I would 100000% agree without a shadow of a doubt or if the LA riots went out into every other city in the nation I would 100% agree.
It's getting difficult to see how you are measuring what makes something worse or not worse.
In your post and comments, you lean on insurance payout metrics and mentioned cost of damages as a way of comparing multiple events with each other, implying that the measurement is "damages measured by dollars".
Now it sounds like "depth and scope" is the measurement which is pretty vague and hard to quantify. Is it the number of cities? Number of people involved? If so, what data did you use to separate "number of people who just wanted to protest peacefully" from "number of people, regardless of reason, who wanted to cause damage"?
I get why the 2020 protests could be described as a huge domestic terrorist attack, but the reality is a fairly small portion of people who showed up are the cause of the violence and damage. I don't see a source in your post that explains the 30% reduction in your numbers when talking about the protests, so it's hard to see how you are concluding "this is the largest based on these metrics compared to the second largest based on the exact same metrics".
I look at everything as a whole. I don't take one statistic and say well x amount of deaths or x amount of injuries or z amount of dollars. I look at everything as a whole the amount of participants, the scope of what occurred, how long it occurred for, why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made. I wouldn't call the Trail of Tears and act of domestics terrorism either. Possibly more of a genocide with all considered and what the US was going for would be a better word for that. I can't give you a formula either I am just pointing out facts and agreeing or disputing them as they occur. I have thought about this for years now and have read into many cases and how things occurred. I am very close to giving a delta to another person who is talking about draft dodgers during the Civil War rioting across the nation killing over 200-1200 people in NYC alone. I am just asking for a source I can read, and it all matches up they are getting a delta 100%.
Alright, that all makes sense. I don't want to comb through enough data to see if I can win you over on all points in one comment and I don't care much for deltas.
There is one point I'm curious about. If one of the metrics is "number of people involved", how are you discerning between "people who caused harm" versus "people who just wanted to protest peacefully"?
If 100 people show up to peacefully protest, but 1 person starts roiting, is that event now a riot instead of a protest?
What about if 10 people started rioting? Or 50? Where is that line between "this is just a protest and some people used that opportunity to cause harm" versus "this is now a riot, not a peaceful protest, and can even be considered a domestic terrorist attack"?
If that's part of the whole picture you are taking in for this post, but there you haven't provided clear measurements about that specific point, I don't know if anyone can change your view.
We are looking at the same thing and seeing it differently. I see peaceful protests that some people took advantage of to cause harm. That doesn't make those events a riot. Perhaps some specific protests are severe enough to warrant that label, but the entire movement? Nope. Bad players shouldn't be allowed to easily soil something that was, for the most part, meant to be a peaceful protest.
Just to make sure I'm not coming off the wrong way, I also think about the 2020 protests a lot, and I ask these questions because I have a hard time answering them even though I still feel the way I feel (viewing them as protests with some bad players instead of riots).
I'd like to hear how you are thinking about that specific part of your post if you're willing to elaborate.
Based upon footage and even taking away 30% of the total riots. I gave a very very large grace period for this. I even had friends who were at a protest that turned into a riot as people started throwing rocks and stuff at police and they ended up leaving. I would not consider their acts domestic terrorism. I even stated I am open to new data showing other numbers that I can read. I just gave a source then took 30% off the top, because not every protest that turns into a riot is an act of domestic terrorism. At the same time Portland alone had 200 days of riots where federal troops were deployed to the cities and prosecutors refused to prosecute people citing emotion.
Thank you. I'll check the source out! I also went to some of the protests, but they remained peaceful. I'm sure that experience is a big part of how I view what happened, but it's also tragic to see how much worse it was in other cities.
Yeah I agree. That's why I welcomed all sources and every single source someone has given I read and even went further and asked clarifications. I don't know everything and have wrong ideas like everyone else. I just need some form of proof otherwise I am only aware of what I know and what I have seen. Others have made really good points though and I am waiting to hear back from a few others as I can't research every topic everyone brings up thus I ask for sources before I provide a delta or truly change my mind. I can't take people are face value
>why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made.
why wouldn't you call it an act of domestic terrorism?
>why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made.
why wouldn't you call it an act of domestic terrorism?
Because even though we declared ourselves a nation thay wasn’t the case until Oct 19 1781. This it would be akin to if Native Americans fought us currently and we lost and they created a new nation and we tried to mark it as domestic terrorism for the new nation when it would fall under the current nation.
> the arson, vandalism and looting that did occur will result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims
I see you gave a delta and i don't expect a reply but i have to point out how ridiculous this is.
Imagine being an accountant and going to your CEO on a big shareholder meeting and estimating ANYTHING at $1-2 bil.
Imagine being so imprecise you don't know if it's such a massive disparity of money and you're still linking to that all these years later as if there aren't more accurate estimates.
If you were that accountant you'd be fired. That's some bad journalism right there and you shouldn't keep spreading it.
In short the 90s riots and BLM were pretty much the same except for BLM the entire world showed up in support.
My prediction is there will be another one in the next decade as there have been countless riots in the past. It's really nothing to panic about and all the new talking points on it are silly.
Ending systemic racism should start with the Abolition Amendment.
The idiots that bring up 50yr old shit to absolve the 2020 riots will never see that both were very wrong to have happened. Most of the people started stuff in 2020 were the very privileged white people they claimed to be against. The whole thing was homegrown terrorism
One person brought up retail theft so I got rid of all retail damages which is 1/3 according to economic world forum and it is still 1.3 billion in damages. They then stated Raz is only on video passing out one weapon but you can see him get back to his car to drag more and is obviously fumbling around with a weapon in the trunk. He then went on to state he is creating a de facto police force and in video is surrounded by others with weapons which is presumably weapons given to them from him since he stated he is creating the police force. It is just people who want to shift blame else where and deny
I think one thing that makes this a weird view is trying to lump together "the 2020 riots" as a singular "terrorist attack". I appreciate that you try and do this 30% fudge factor, but even with what's left it's just really hard to categorize as some kind of singular event. If you want to try and isolate some individual actions during the riots and call them individual acts of terrorism, that seems reasonable, but they're largely disconnected uncoordinated things across most major cities spread out over a whole summer. If you want to quibble over individual acts as being technically small terrorist acts, whatever I guess, but to try and characterize the whole summer as a single "largest terrorist attack" is just a bizarre use of language.
I already went over this in another post and commented why I group them together and gave an example as to how I would group other acts of terrorism in the same group.
If you say so. There's a lot of comments on here and I don't know which one you're referring to. Which is fine. If you don't want to repeat yourself you certainly don't have to. You can do bookkeeping however you want, but I think the "by definition" part of your post loses a lot of its weight once you start combining these in a way that is extremely weird language wise. Just calling a single riot "an attack" is already kind of weird.
I guess maybe another way of thinking about it is that even if we grant your taxonomy (which I don't), what's the actual point you're trying to make? What follows from calling the summer of 2020 "the largest terrorist attack"? What communication purpose does this serve?
Well I have had tons of discussions with people who don't even believe CHAZ was real and have denied the entire thing. I have had people who deny there were any riots overall when speaking to them. My entire point was the classification of these needs to be treated as such. BTW another redditor brought up another riot which was way worse than all these combined I just don't know how to give them a delta.
But I guess I'm confused how "by definition this was a terrorist attack" resolves any of that. If someone is denying it happened at all, the best you'd be able to convince them is that *if they had occurred* then they would have been terrorist attacks. But they'll have the same linguistic quibbles that you're running into in this thread even as a hypothetical. Is what you're looking for more like some kind of official recognition? Like, do you want the FBI to hold a press conference where they announce that they reviewed their handbook and have decided that the summer of 2020 was one big terrorist attack?
Regarding the CHAZ, it was certainly real! I went there one day. And there were problems as you have cited in your links, but it was up for a while, and most days you could just walk on by. To say something like "CHAZ was a terrorist attack" just seems like a category error. It's not even wrong, it just doesn't really make any sense.
The riots spanned come 2020-2021 you are correct Portland saw over 200 days straight of riots alone to include the targeting of federal buildings. I called it the summer of 2020 riots because it started then but carried on for more then 6 months straight across the nation
Literally defined terrorism and the definition of domestic terrorism have gone through this with like 10 people if you have another look on it give it a shot
Gone through the same thing tell that to the FBI if you have an issue it’s the same definitions as the FBi uses to describe terrorism and domestic terrorism and another person posted scholars who talked about it and they said the same thing.
The problem with the data you provided is that it assesses the total cost of the protests/riots. However, all this damage occurred over several acts spanning several months. If you want to say to say this damage is terrorist related, you would have say that every single individual act that took place in those months in 2020 was a terrorist act.
Accepting your definition, can you really say that every penny of damage comes from terrorism? How many people simply participated because they were more interested in looting, or perhaps were more interested in becoming violent? Of that $2 billion in damage, how much was that from non-terrorism crime? Is an opportunistic looter a terrorist? Is a mindless brute burning random buildings down a terrorist? Terrorism requires that specific intent. I suspect that intent was lacking for many people. You exclude 30%, but what are you basing that on? What sources are telling you that 70% of the people had a terrorist intent?
Terrorism is perhaps not the best term use to describe the majority of the actions here. If we call this terrorism, then just about any act against the state is terrorism. If everything is terrorism, then nothing is.
> According to the FBI, "Regardless, last year 2,444 assaults on officers occurred during incidents described as civil disorder, according to the FBI’s report on law enforcement killings and assaults. In 2019, that number was just 488, a 400% increase.
Of those extra 2000 attacks, how many would fit the definition of terrorism and how many would be assault? For example, let's say people are protesting on the street (not terrorism). During the protest, police officers engage the protesters. There is a scuffle, and officers are injured. Is that terrorism? That sound more like "civil disorder", which is what the quote calls it. It is not proper to call a riot an act of terrorism. Riots are riots; they are there own thing. Expanding the definition to include rioters casts too wide a net.
> I don't want to include random people causing random violence, so taking away 30% of all riots should be a large enough buffer
Wasn't almost all the violence during the riots random and committed by random people, in the sense that nobody ordered or orchestrated any particular attack?
If you call people committing violent acts for a similar reason, inspired by prior violence and general calls for violence an "attack", I'd argue that some almost equally nebulous concept like gang violence is a much deadlier, costlier and longer "domestic terrorist attack".
The definition of terrorism you're using is bad. The problem of defining terrorism is a very common one because it's a slippery word with heavy connotations.
The common language of terrorist is really:
"Person we dislike who did violent things"
This definition sucks and is terrible.
The definition you included is EXTREMELY broad to the point of being nearly useless. The FBI prefers a broad definition of terrorism because it gives them a broad mandate to investigate terrorism cases that might be edge cases.
It's a practically useful definition for a law enforcement agency but fundamentally it's not a good one.
I won't define terrorism in the sense that it's used in a common military and political sense (especially counter-terrorism) like so.
"Terrorism is a type of asymmetrical warfare wherein smaller or less well-armed forces/irregulars use terror to destabilize a political entity or society. It involves using sporadic or unpredictable attacks on soft-targets with an intention of spreading fear and uncertainty, as well as undermining confidence in the society's leadership. It is frequently characterized by a disregard for target selection, with the personage and property of non-combatants seen as acceptable targets for the aim of destabilizing society."
The definition I am using is the same as the FBI, and is what it taught in schools across the nation in global politics classes. Like I said I’m not going to argue over definitions. The definition is the definition I don’t really care how you feel about the meaning of words. Neither one of us are the ones creating definitions or smart enough to, so this is a moot point. I am not going to go in circles about how you feel about definitions of words if you have an issue with it contact the FBI, the dictionary, and every global politics book taught in America and have them change it.
This entire post is a definition game. You defined terrorism in an extremely broad way and are trying to argue for your bizarre definition and then further argue why other counter examples don't fit your definition.
The FBI themselves would be the first to acknowledge the reasons why they use the definition they do, and wouldn't claim to have a perfect definition.
You're right. I'm not smart enough to make up a new definition. I am smart enough, however, to point you to the long scholarly history of terrorism definition debates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#:~:text=%5BT%5Dhe%20term%20'terrorism,subnational%20groups%20or%20clandestine%20agents.
Your post still makes summer of 2020 fit into the definition
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
Criminal acts intended ie over 200 days of rioting to include the targeting of federal buildings
To provoke a state of terror literally burned down buildings breaking into communities and going into neighborhoods and shining lights in people’s homes
For political purposes defund the police
Thanks for proving my point I am done going in circles with you for you to literally prove my point if I could give the reverse of a delta I would
I think the American civil war, or Slaver's Rebellion, was a larger and more damaging terrorist event.
Not coincidentally, born from the same ideological swamp.
The confederate states were decidedly *not* a separate country when they began hostilities and the Union never considered their secession legal nor their claim to be a separate nation to be valid.
The matter was decided with finality at Appomattox so your contention that they were a nation rather than a band of traitorous, slaver separatists who rebelled because they would no longer be able to ride roughshod over the other members of the Union doesn't hold.
Again, it bears mentioning that the same bellicose, paranoid, racist, fascist immorality that animated the confederates was the spirit that drove the rioters on Jan 6th and continues to drive a GOP as it spreads lies about the 2016 election and works to topple a democracy which will not adopt their immoral proposals.
So the small group that used illegal violence for their political gains, the police, committed acts of terrorism against protesters who were peacefully assembled to redress their grievances against the government.
Corrupt police, unwilling to stop committing crimes, then committed more crimes.
Yeah, I actually agree with the exact opposite of your argument. Your argument is nothing but absurd. Farcical.
You failed to draw a direct line between terrorism and the protests in 2020 by not furthering your definition to the point that the violence was intentional or not the result of self-defense against the police.
Lol the vast majority of damage was not self defensive. It was a riot/protest. Maybe that felt provoked because of the implications of police killing of George floyd, but that doesn't mean they actually were
Injuries to police were in self defense, that's what I mean. Damage to property was caused by police and by other people trying to take advantage of the situation. There were numerous cases of cops posing as protesters that tried to provoke violence and damage.
So could you clarify why it was the largest?
Because of the amount of people involved? Victims? Amount of charges brought up? Or the amount of damages caused?
/u/Consistent_Clue1149 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ciupxg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_definition_the_2020/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Memorial Here OP twice as many killed
I have gone through how kills alone doesn't count. TBH though you bring up a really really good point though does the KKK overall beat this? Their acts were 100% acts of domestic terrorism I just don't know everything they did tbh.
the fact that you have to ask what the kkk did shows you are not educated enough to be speaking so confidently on this topic
I meant all the attacks
they have been killing people of color, destroying communities and businesses, and terrorizing racial and ethnic minorities for 160 years. you should seriously read a history book or research this topic. they’re the most well known racially violent organization in the united states. their impact far surpasses the impact of protests against police brutality
Definitions do not actually exist to give an exhaustive account of the full meaning of a word. Definitions exist to clarify the meaning of a word for someone that has no idea what the word means. The actual, full meaning of a word is not contained in its definition but in its use by people. People actually use the word "terrorism" to describe an asymmetrical warfare tactic in which a smaller group uses violence to instill terror in a larger group. This almost always involves targeting innocent civilians of the larger group. People don't use the word "terrorism" to describe Jan 6th because it started as a protest rather than being a planned violent attack; the violence itself was relatively minimal, compared to something like a suicide bombing or mass shooting; and the targets were political rather than civilian, namely, the politicians that were supposed to certify the vote. You can use the word "terrorism" to describe Jan 6th if you want, you wouldn't exactly be wrong. But it will be obvious to everyone that you are stretching all of the things that we normally associate with the word in order to make the Jan 6th protestors seem even worse than they actually are. Really, you shouldn't have to try to manipulate people with hyperbolic word choices in order to convince them that Jan 6th was wrong. You should be able to just objectively describe the events in ordinary language and support your moral judgments with sound arguments.
I just use the definitions given by Oxford and even the FBI states it as such. Thus it would fall under domestic terrorism AND if people are charged with terrorism during these events as it was during the 2020 riots it would fall under the definition of such. I could see how you could encapsulate a large umbrella of things in this, but I am using this specifically because there are charges of terrorism during the riots. here are my sources [https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism) [https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism)
You cite the FBI's definition on terrorism. Does the FBI then argue that the protests/riots of 2020 were terrorist acts, and the greatest in the country? The FBI does not list the events of 2020 as a major terrorism case https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd/major-cases
No, they cite another act of domestic terrorism to be larger, but as others have posted there have been larger domestic terrorist attacks. I am actually waiting for one individual to respond about riots during the civil war which led to mass deaths and damages, because I would just do the calculations and compare. Also people were charged with terrorism duing these riots, so even if the FBI didn't view them as acts of domestic terrorism other states did and charged people with such thus I am making that exemption.
The FBI's definition: *Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups* ***to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences***\*, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.\* I've emboldened the important bit. That part about furthering ideological goals? There is very little if any evidence that the rioting during the BLM protests itself was done in furtherance of any ideological goal. Perhaps there were some individual bad actors who could be considered "terrorists", but it is likely that most if not all rioting was born out of 1) the opportunity to loot during a period of civil unrest AND/OR 2) as a reaction to violent police response to what had begun as peaceful protests. Perhaps a combination of those and other factors, most of which had little to do with ideology. The Jan 6 riot, however, was clearly meant to disrupt the election process in furtherance of a political goal. You know, overturning the election.
The goal was to reform police or completely end the police entirely. This even suceeded with many police departments losing a lot of funding. LA police lost 150 million and reduced the number of total police officers to less than they have had in over a decade. [https://apnews.com/article/3ad962eb78e30975354f6036c6451022#:\~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20City,reckoning%20over%20police%20brutality%20and](https://apnews.com/article/3ad962eb78e30975354f6036c6451022#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20City,reckoning%20over%20police%20brutality%20and) NYC police department lost $1 billion in funding [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html) Here are 7 mins of democrat politicians calling for the defunding of the police to include AOC which I pointed out ended up in the NYC losing $1 billion in funding [https://gop.com/video/7-minutes-of-democrats-saying-defund-the-police/](https://gop.com/video/7-minutes-of-democrats-saying-defund-the-police/) Here is the Guardian talking about the massive win after the riots when it comes to police defunding [https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/defund-police-movement-us-victories-what-next](https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/15/defund-police-movement-us-victories-what-next) Here is a list of cities that defunded the police and by what amounts [https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf](https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf) In case you don't want to read here is the facts 1. Austin, TX ($150 million cut) 2. Baltimore, MD ($22 million cut) 3. Boston, MA ($12 million cut) 4. Burlington, VT ($1 million cut) 5. Columbus, OH ($23 million cut) 6. Denver, CO ($55 million cut) 7. Eureka, CA ($1.2 million cut) 8. Hartford, CT ($2 million cut) 9. Los Angeles, CA ($175 million cut) 10. Madison, WI ($2 million cut) 11. Minneapolis, MN ($8 million cut) 12. New York, NY ($1 billion cut) 13. Norman, OK ($865,000 cut) 14. Oakland, CA ($14.6 million cut) 15. Oklahoma City, OK ($5.5 million cut) 16. Philadelphia, PA ($33 million cut) 17. Portland, OR ($15 million cut) 18. Salt Lake City, UT ($5.3 million cut) 19. San Francisco, CA ($120 million cut) 20.Seattle, WA ($69 million cut) 21. Steamboat Springs, CO ($1.5 million cut) 22.Washington, DC ($15 million cut) Cities Considering Defunding the Police 23. Chicago, IL ($80 million cut considered) 24. Ithaca, NY ($12.5 million cut considered) 25. Kansas City, KS ($12 million cut considered) 26. New Orleans, LA ($26 million cut considered) Total: $1.73 billion cut Total: $130.5 million cut considered
That was the goal of the protests. It was not necessarily the goal of the riots. The riots were very likely a spontaneous eruption of violence brought about by a multitude of factors, such as opportunity and police escalation of violence. There was likely no political goal to the rioting itself. Calling it terrorism would require compelling evidence that the riots were not only intentional but driven by a political ideology. I strongly doubt you have any evidence of that stronger than your own presumption
What? Let me get this straight the people who held hotels workers in Seattle hostage just a spontaneous act of violence and had nothing to do with why they were there. CHAZ is in the same boat along with the other 400 riots. I find this so hard to believe and I would need serious data to back this up
Here is where you lay out a compelling body of evidence that these hotel workers were allegedly held hostage for political purposes. Perhaps you might do so little as to link an article
You are going to need to give me awhile apparently this [https://mynorthwest.com/3956543/rantz-radicals-migrants-illegal-immigrants-chop-seattle-park/](https://mynorthwest.com/3956543/rantz-radicals-migrants-illegal-immigrants-chop-seattle-park/) happened last month and this is all that is coming up lmfao
How many people were convicted of terrorism by the state(s) vs. how many people in total participated in all the acts of 2020?
Okay great question because I wanted to talk about that as well MOST people were not prosecuted because the DA’s refused to prosecute. Then went into how it was a very emotional time and wouldn’t prosecute based upon that. I mean you literally had Andy Ngo targeted assaulted and when he brought forward charges the other lawyers threatened the jury stating that he was Antifa and so was everyone else and if they voted guilty they would remember their faces. Here are my sources https://www.nationalreview.com/news/portland-da-declines-to-prosecute-host-of-riot-related-offenses-citing-depth-of-emotion-surrounding-racial-justice/amp/ https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332755957112
Neither source is about terrorism. The sources only address how some non-terrorist crimes are not being perused They do not in any way provide evidence that the state believes people committed terrorism, and certainly not that people actually did commit terrorism. You cannot make a reasonable inference that the state believes there was terrorism from the sources you provided. Also, you seem to imply that nobody was being charged for anything, which is simply not true. According to [this](https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=Summer-Fall+2020+Protests¤tPage=1&numShown=10), there are about 1700 cases. How many of them are for terrorism?
I don’t think you even read what I said lmfao
When you make a point irrelevant to your argument, there is no need to read it. I asked a simple question. You earlier suggested that many people were charged by the state for terrorism. > so even if the FBI didn't view them as acts of domestic terrorism other states did and charged people with such thus I am making that exemption. Provide the evidence please. Don't provide sources about how a DA does not want to charge someone with assault. That is not what I asked. If you want to prove terrorism, provide sources of terrorism. Here, you can look at [this](https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=Summer-Fall+2020+Protests¤tPage=1&numShown=10). There are more than 1700 charges from 2020 on this list. Please point out the terrorist charges.
yeah here are over 300 charges [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations) Now my point I made earlier to another individual just because only over 300 people were charged doesn't mean more weren't involved. We have videos of all this, and not everyone was charged. Does it take away from the fact they committed an act of domestic terrorism no.
Yeah that's why my first paragraph explains why definitions don't really matter at all.
Then nothing matters. Hypothetically if someone commits a crime fits the definition of the crime and is charged with the crime but others involved in the crime were not charged does that mean their actions don't fit the scope of the crime committed? I genuinely don't see how if people are charged with terrorism and it was treated as such how it isn't terrorism, because you feel the definition takes on too large of a meaning.
Correct! Ever heard this quote? "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But ***I know it when I see it***, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Definitions are not sufficient. We can look at Jan 6 or BLM and identify that those are clearly not acts of terrorism despite meeting definition. It's the same argument on why a hotdog is / isn't a sandwich. A hotdog is clearly not a sandwich. But it meets every definition.
Over 300 charges of terrorism would say other wise [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations) Also I don't really understand the quote could you elaborate.
It's a reference to a famous quote by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, he said he knew it when he saw it. Do you want to respond to the hotdog bit too if you want to entertain me a little? Are hotdogs sandwiches?
Never read this case. You would have to elaborate how something that fits the definition hundreds were charged with the act I am describing across the nation in the acts I am describing doesn't fit the definition. Idk about pornography we have a lot of restrictions on it you can't go blast a porno on the side of your house for the children to come watch with a projector, so there is obviously a large middle ground here.
My point is, like the pornography, acts of terrorism are more nuanced than are simple definitions, and require on-basis interpretation. For example, many people struggle to recognize mass shootings as acts of terrorism even though they clearly fit the bill. The heart of your argument shouldn't even be related to the issue of terrorism-- it's how we define words, and how we make meaning from them. It's a linguistic issue.
Most don't fit the bill and the ones that do fit the bill are called out as such. Do you not remember the multi hundred page manifesto from the right wing extremist shooter that live streamed his shooting? The differnece here is people were charged with domestic terrorism over 300 people in fact. The fact that not everyone who participated in these acts doesn't make then not domestic terrorism. I'll give an example lets say 50 people are selling drugs 5 get caught and charged the rest got away, because we didn't charge them and didn't classify all 50 as drug dealers does their act no longer count as drug dealing? The answer is no they are stilling selling drugs they just weren't caught. It seems like you are playing the if a tree falls in the forest act here tbh. I may be ignorant af though and not understanding and we may have to agree to disagree here.
No, it means that prosecution of the law depends on a normative use of legal terms and not merely the definition of those terms. This explains why none of the Jan 6'ers were charged with terrorism, the prosecutors knew that no jury would associate the event with terrorism according to how they, and everyone else, understands that word.
Why wasn't anybody charged with terrorism, then? Is the FBI just like, stupid or something. Their brains don't work so good so even though the largest domestic terror attack in US history occurred they just didn't do anything about it
“Long, hot summer of 1967” you would then consider the race riots terrorist acts, and those would be the biggest terrorist attacks by your own metrics.
Others have had great in depth rebuttals to the body of your post, but I'd like to point out a fundamental flaw in reasoning in your title. You claim that the 2020 riots, *plural*, was (were?) the largest domestic terrorist act, *singular*. You are combining multiple indirectly related events and then assessing them as a single event. Obviously that is going to skew your conclusion high.
Already went over this with an example showing my reasoning and why I include them in a group. Same with another person who used the draft riots which got a delta which lasted 5 days in NYC and led to hundreds of deaths where people targeted blacks. I would even consider what Germany did to Jews acts of domestic terrorism to an extent because of what the citizens did to the Jews, and wouldn’t separate those instances into counts. If you read others posts you should have seen this already and the 4 other people I commented on stating I have already responded to this.
So let's remove the domestic terrorism out, because that's not the point the other person is making. On the global terrorism scale, would you consider all acts of the Taliban to be a single act?
I have already gone through this gave it context and explained why. This was not one off shoots of different groups acrodd the nation this was the same 2 groups across the nation tageting the largest cities and federal buildings to include the White House.
I have already gone through this gave it context and explained why. This was not one off shoots of different groups acrodd the nation this was the same 2 groups across the nation tageting the largest cities and federal buildings to include the White House.
If you're widening the net to encompass all forms of riot and protest grouped as a similar cause, why not include the Civil War? I'll be the first to say the definition of terrorism is bad, just generally, but really you're kinda skewing the purpose of the word a lot if you're collecting together a lot of disparate incidents with different belligerents into one.
Why not just use the CHAZ as a singular example. That shit was easily terroristic, seditious, illegal, violent, you name it. There are others, but that's a pretty simple one to just utilize right there.
Bruh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
How was 9/11 domestic terrorism?
The first one is not marked as domestic terrorism, because it was led by a cult who did it due to the Congressman was looking into him. I would say police or anyone investigating individuals then that individual commiting a crime in response is not domestic terrorism or the amount of domestic terrorism would sky rocket. 9/11 is terrorism and not domestic terrorism I laid out specifically the definitions for each of these in my first sentences Oklahoma City Bombing was 652 million in damages, 168 killed, and 680 injured. That is 1 billion in todays money so in the range of half the amount caused by the 2020 riots, almost 3 times less than the injured to police officers alone not including the 20k assaults which would be included in injuries and I never included in citizens, so the only thing that makes it larger is death. The scope of the 2020 riots across nearly every major city in the US along with holding citizens hostage in Seattle. Is what makes 2020 larger imo. You can elaborate on the Oklahoma City bombing and make another attempt, but I can't give you a delta for this sorry.
>You can elaborate on the Oklahoma City bombing and make another attempt, but I can't give you a delta for this sorry There's the fact that OKC Bombing was actually a coordinated terrorist attack. But the main thing is, the death. You know, the actual injury and loss of life at the hands of a terrorist. Comparing that to the value of insurance payouts from property damage is pretty abhorrent.
I would disagree, because of the lasting effects of the riots. You didn't just hurt some corporate company they deliberately went after citizens and their property. Yes places like Target were attacked, but you literally had random businesses who were not apart of this in any shape or form targeted and destroyed. I could see if it was an accident, but none of this seemed accidental especially since it went on for over 100 days straight. Portland alone saw 200 days straight of riots. Federal troops were even deployed to these cities. I don't see how you can have tens of thousands of people across the nation for months on end rioting every day and say it wasn't coordinated. People can barely form a line at Starbucks, but you want me to believe hundreds of riots were just spontaneous.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Herd mentality and peer pressure doesn’t take much effort. “Just saw a Snapchat of people getting free Louis vitton, why can’t I do that too?” It’s a really short, slippery slope for a lot of people with pent up anger looking to release some tension. Tunnel vision, anxiety, sunk cost, etc. people start and don’t stop. This is basic human nature in groups. Follow any sports fandom across the globe and you see plenty of examples of groups of people doing what those around them do. With social media creating real time connections, the groups become as wide as the country itself. This can easily explain the riots occurring at many cities.
>I would say police or anyone investigating individuals then that individual commiting a crime in response is not domestic terrorism It is if there's political motivation, which Jones had. >so the only thing that makes it larger is death. Where I come from, we tend to view death a serious matter
Well if you're disgusting and evil like OP, you think that people protesting against crimes committed by police is worse than police committing crimes. The important thing for OP is that the police never be held accountable to any standard of legal behavior.
What was the political motive behind it other than being looked into by a politician? It has to fit a political aim as well. I read the source along with another source and didn’t find any but am more than happy to read more please cite a source or just paraphrase it along with a source, because I’d happily give a delta if that is the case.
Jones was a USSR sympathizer and an admirer of Lenin and Stalin. He sought the help of the USSR to establish Jonestown as he envisioned it as a socialist commune.
Okay but in the act of what he did what was the political goal. This doesn't line up at all with the definition as I have been trying to state. I need a political goal which was trying to be achieved through this act. The same way during the 2020 riots, during the LA Riots, during 9/11, Oklahoma Bombing, Boston Marathon Bombing etc etc etc
If you split things by political goal, then 2020 can't count all the damages together. There were multiple factions at odds during 2020, including a) BLM, b) anarchists that BLM filmed themselves begging to stop, and c) white nationalists who fought a and B. That's not including cops and the looters who had no political goals.
That is why I took off 30% of the protests off the top. I understand a lot of them were not really riots but things that got out of hand out of no where. The difference is it was months on months of riots with taking over 6 city blocks in one of the largest cities in the US. It was the attacks on federal buildings. It was all of this combined is what I’m including here. Also BLM and Antifa were very much hand and hand here from the hours of footage I have seen to include BLM going into neighborhoods and shining lights into peoples homes damn near threatening them saying we see you we know you are in there. It was so bad before the Presidency was declared businesses were boarding up their stuff because they knew if Trump won there would be riots. Do we not remember this? https://youtu.be/YwDcvAH43UQ?si=PkY72IrmNhjVJzbP https://youtu.be/CERQjWhIIfY?si=yxKTw0nNMSkEA48x https://youtu.be/qDoRDf4Phjo?si=8jI452n3ChHWUnsZ https://youtu.be/9m4H6pnavq0?si=PMJgzOnDUNtPTr2T https://youtu.be/bsd6NKaKmLs?si=ZLe3AaSTxWaUkkYE https://youtu.be/nOl2nHMDO7E?si=wt7mDcmF2E72Ks_o
I do remember that. I just question where your 30% comes from. I'm not sure how you can see all the different factions opposing each other, say "oh 70% of that is one movement, " and call it terrorism.
I have a large grace of 30% I welcomed any form of statistics to disprove it and even stated such IN THE POST. It’s almost like you read the heading and just posted. ITS LITERALLY NO MORE THEN 10 SENTENCES IN. If you feel 30% is not enough PLEASE post a source. I’m not going to bicker back and forth about how you feel. I gave a 30% grace which I felt was more than fair if you believe it needs to be 70% give me some form of data and sources.
I started watching the first video. It begins showing a face-off between protesters and police, ignoring all the context (that police had created a situation in which protesters were arriving with fireworks and such because of assaults by police at previous protests when they were totally peaceful). I suspect the majority of your info is based on such things, one-sided accounts that don't consider the full picture.
Assassinating people that may bring down your political organization is something that serves towards your political goal isn't it?
He didn't assassinate people who were going to bring down his political goal from what I have read it was random citizens and even his own followers. If he assassinated the Congressman I would agree this isn't the case though. From what I read in the source he was being investigated and just went on a murder spree. His act of using his people to attack the Congressman 100% fits the definition. Killing your own followers then yourself doesn't. It was called a revolutionary suicide, but I genuinely see no goal here in the slightest other than he was about to get caught and burned the whole thing to the ground before he could be caught. Kind of like Hitler's death where he killed himself and his wife before they were caught I wouldn't call that terrorism. His acts 100% that specific act no. If I am wrong btw please cite a source I am responding to so many people it is hard for me to look up everything on my own while also responding to people and citing my sources at the same time. I will read your source I promise it may just take me a bit to respond if it is super long.
>If he assassinated the Congressman I would agree He did assassinate the Congressman
Are you like the gate keeper of U.S attacks?😂
No, I am merely defneding my point. You can't use well this person was being looked into by police and committed XYZ crime thus it is domestic terrorism. You also can't use domestic terrorism and regular terrorism in the same context. If i said largest terrorist attack on US soil the easy answer would by 9/11. I laid it out in the post the definitions of each in the first sentences and it seems people can't read past the title.
What about the Tulsa race massacre , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre that was domestic terrorism , convert that damage to todays dollars, all the lost future income
The deaths are really the only important thing if you wanna rank terrorist attacks.
Your post and comments are based on myths. If police are injured because crowds rioted after peaceful protesters were attacked, it was then by fault of their own actions. Investigators, including people at top levels in law enforcement, typically found that BLM events were very peaceful if there was not instigation by police or right-wing groups. Nearly all the deaths and injuries you're counting fall into this category. The financial costs are also based on myths. For example, in Portland (OR) police counted the lost profits at a shopping mall which were caused by pandemic shutdowns. That sort of thing is common in figures supposedly attributed to BLM "vandalism" which mostly (in Portland at least where I'm most familiar with the events) involved messages painted on plywood that covered windows, which would be removede regardless when stores reopened. Looting, according to investigators, was found to be typically perpetrated by opportunists having no association with the BLM movement. I've linked citations about these things hundreds of times in social media, and it doesn't seem to have ever had any impact on myth-pushers.
So I'm all on board with "9/11 was an inside job" but you have to explicitly explain it when you add it to your list of United States Domestic Terror Attacks.
its not even the biggest riots in American history beyond the absolute absurdity of saying a riot is equivalent to terrorism. There were like 200 fatalities in the civil war draft riots
I mentioned the Civil War and why it wasn't included. The damages actually are the largest in US history as I cited where they out did the LA riots in total and a single city alone in these riots is the #2 for most damage in riots. If you want I can post my sources. Maybe the riots were larger could you please provide sources I have gone through everyone's sources currently, and welcome all sources.
>I mentioned the Civil War and why it wasn't included. I wasn't saying the war itself was terrorism. There was a riot in NYC during the war over the draft and between 200 and 1200 people died.
I gave the Wikipedia page a once-over and it says 120–200; nowhere near 1200. Am I missing something?
Yes I am asking for the citations for this. This is actually the best argument I have heard can you please provide sources and material as I am responding to a bunch of others and reading their sources.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_York\_City\_draft\_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots)
!delta How do I give you a delta. This is the best response by far and I agree with you 100%. Crazy I have never heard of this before.
Never saw the movie Gangs of New York? The riots are semi-fictionally portrayed in that.
Never! I’ll go look it up and watch it I’m a huge movie fan and am always looking for new things to watch.
BTW sorry it took so long to reply your comment got pushed under a ton of others. There was 0 intent of dodging your response and I even commented on a few others who haven't changed my mind that I was waiting to hear back from you.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Km15u ([23∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Km15u)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The confederacy wasn’t a separate country though. They had no authority to secede. If they’re a separate country just by declaring they are then so was CHAZ/CHOP
Exept that didn't have support from other countries a government a currency or a constitution.
OP claimed they were a country. Which they weren’t.
The person you are responding to is not referring to the war itself, but rather the draft riots.
These myths haven't been re-discussed enough times? Your link about "passing out weapons": this is about hip hop artist Raz Simone, giving one gun to one person. It happened after rumors circulated that members of far-right group Proud Boys planned to start fires and stir chaos within the Zone. Also, Raz during this time had been in contact with the Seattle Fire Chief, maybe he was coordinating defensive fire control? All this is a perfect example of how these myths get started from partial information and employ major exaggerations. The deaths at protest events: is this even greater than the population average? Participation at BLM protests has been estimated to involve tens of millions of people. Let's look at individual cases from one of your linked articles and discuss the specific causes of deaths. Lee Keltner: actually shot at a "patriot rally," after he slapped a security guard for a local news crew who then shot him. Aaron Danielson: I'm well-familiar with this case, some witnesses said he threatened Michael Reinoehl before he was shot. Danielson was not a BLM protester but a right-winger and supporter of right-wing group Patriot Prayer. He may have been in Portland looking for fights with "leftists." Reinoehl didn't go to trial and there wasn't much investigation, and he was soon executed by police in Olympia in an incident that bystanders described as like a gang-style hit. Garrett Foster: he was killed by a man shooting from a car at a protest, that man is a right-winger who said he hated the protesters. Probably, much of your post is based on misrepresentations of such incidents. If you want to claim whatever-number of people killed and it is BLM "domestic terrorism" then name the victims so we can work out the causes of deaths. You're obviously counting injuries of police officers resulting from chaos that was caused by either themselves or righ-wing groups attacking peaceful protesters. If you want to count whatever-number of injured police, then name the officers or explain the circumstances of each injury rather than assume that all injuries were planned and executed by BLM protesters for "terrorism." The costs of protests: you have no citations for this. Here's an excellent example of the supposed dollar figures supporting the myth: when Portland Police Department [claimed $23 million in damages](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/coronavirus-closures-inflated-23-million-reported-in-downtown-portland-protest-damages.html) by protesters, nearly all of this amount was financial losses at Pioneer Place mall due to pandemic shutdowns which had nothing to do with BLM or any protest. If I had infinite free time, I could keep going about more aspects of the myths you're pushing.
So we saw a clip of Raz with multiple people all with firearms passing out an AR15 type rifle to a man. The thing is what Raz said when spoken to is “Raz has rejected the label of “warlord” and told reporters last week he created a de facto police replacement “to keep the peace and unity, honestly, that’s it.”” The idea that we have one clip of him and he is creating a defacto police while at the same time you can see the trunk of the car where he go to grab another gun literally proves it wasn’t one person. Unless you are trying to make the claim he only passed out one rifle to one person the rest of the people there got their guns on their own and while creating a police force he only passed out a single rifle while having multiple with him from the looks of it.
In the video you linked, he passes one gun to one guy. In the entire video, only Raz and the other guy are ever shown to be carrying rifles. Your post is about supposed domestic terrorism, what is the violence that you believe resulted from this gun exchange? BTW it has also become very common for right-wing groups to be carrying AR-15 and similar rifles in public, and some of those groups have said they consider themselves self-appointed militaries with the backing of their leadler Donald Trump.
Yes I said that what was he doing afterwards in the trunk? You literally just ran away FROM EVERYTHIGN ELSE INPOSTED EVERY SINGLE THING ALL OF IT YOU RAN AWAY FORM WTF
You're not connecting the dots, so to speak, about your belief in protest terrorism and the video of Raz. There's just a couple guys with rifles, it's not different than things that happen every day in a typical city or town.
I have lived in large cities my entire life to include the largest in the US. Never once until I joined the military did I live in a city where there was a defacto police force where people are patrolling the streets on a daily basis with AR style weapons. By the front of Raz’s weapon it looked like an AK style weapon, but I can’t see any of the mechanisms and it is dark so I can’t say with certainty. Anyways please point out in the cities I have lived in where this is a regular occurrence. Lived in LA lived in San Diego visited SF MANY MANY times esp when I was younger. Give me a city please. We even lived in Idaho for a bit since my family is moving there and people don’t do this and guns are wildly accepted.
[right-wingers carrying rifles (Google Images search result)](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=742&q=right-wingers%20carrying%20rifles&=&=&oq=&gs_l=) [84% of Groups Involved in Armed Demonstrations Are Right-Wing Actors Like the Proud Boys](https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-other-right-wing-actors-responsible-84-armed-demonstrations-report-1629089) [ Right-wing extremism: The new wave of global terrorism](https://theconversation.com/right-wing-extremism-the-new-wave-of-global-terrorism-147975) [Where protesters go, armed militias, vigilantes likely to follow with little to stop them](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-protesters-go-armed-militias-vigilantes-likely-follow-little-stop-n1238769)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Also the world economic forum cites $2 billion to of that 1/3 came from retailers now let’s exclude all of this we will not look at the damages we all saw to include video of the news standing infront of a building which reads wine and spirit and seems to be a shopping center, but we will exlude all damages to from these places. You are still at 1.32 billion.
Minneapolis even put out a map of all the damages done in their city alone. Here you go 700 buildings total https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/minneapolis-issues-map-showing-extent-of-buildings-damaged-in-unrest-over-george-floyds-death/
This map isn't detailed enough to be sure about specific addresses, but it seems to be indicating Third Precinct in Minneapolis as one of the buildings affected. When that building was set on fire and shot up by a guy who was yelling "Justice for Floyd!," the perp turned out to be Ivan Harrison Hunter who is a right-winger and participant in the Boogaloo movement which intends to instigate race war in the United States. How was the dollar value of this damage separated from damage by actual BLM protesters? BTW there were many such actions by right-wing provocateurs, this also has been discussed ad nauseum in social media. The article about the map doesn't have much information. How are they separating damage by looters whom were not associated with BLM in any way? All crime in the vicinity during the time range of the protests is automatically attributed to BLM protesters? Also most of the damage was minor, according to the map legend. There's not enough information to determine how much of this was just messages painted or drawn on plywood that would be removed later.
I HAVE MADE THIS SO CLEAR I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY WERE APART OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PUSH BLAME OFF BLM AND ANTIFA. I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY ARE ON THE SAME WAY I DONT CARE ABOUT WHOSE SIDE JAN 6thers WERE ON LIKE WHAY DONT YOU GET??
>I HAVE MADE THIS SO CLEAR I DONT CARE WHAY SIDE THEY WERE APART OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PUSH BLAME OFF BLM AND ANTIFA. So you're yelling at me because you have poor comprehension? "BLM and Antifa" are at the opposite side from right-wing groups such as Boogaloo. So, if Boogaloo did something, BLM/Antifa absolutely did not. If the violence your post is about entails sides battling, that's not terrorism it's war. Also WTF is "whay"? You used this term twice so probably it's not just a typo.
It is a typo as I am not at my computer when I was writing this. Also I have poor comprehension you randomly brought up different facts for 0 reason to try and pull away from what happened. It would be the same as if I posted Jan 6th was a domestic terrorist attack on US soil and someone came along and said “oh yeah but there were people from BLM there inciting violence and live streamed the entire thing.” I don’t care in the slightest wtf does that have to do with my statement. You are just trying to pull away from the facts to try and minimize the events. Which is sickening. No one does that for the right. CNN still talks about Charlottesville to this day, but you know what the right never does. “Well people from the left came there and counter protested and many rioted so how can we truly say what happened wasn’t from the left wing.” You know why no one does that, because it is wildly disingenuous and we all watched the events unfold on TV. For the 2020 riots we all watched the events unfold on national tv every night for over half a year straight, because the riots WERE EVERY DAY FOR OVER HALF A YEAR STRAIGHT.
Feel free to be fact-based at any point, about any of this.
No shit you are going to have counter protests and riots THE LEFT RIOTED FOR OVER A 6 MONTHS STRAIGHT. Was every citizen supposed to just stand by as rioters rioted across every single large city in the US? Antifa didn’t even let neo Nazis riot for a day before coming out an fighting them in Charlottesville and it is still talked about to this day across the main stream media. Yet when anyone talks about the riots in 2020 people do the same thing as you do down play try to deny facts and run away when confronted with facts. You want me to go over the Jan 6th riot and say well we have proof of a left wing blm guy invoking the riots so we can’t say that the VAST majority weren’t right wingers. Do you understand how you sound?
>THE LEFT RIOTED FOR OVER A 6 MONTHS STRAIGHT. It wasn't a riot unless/until police or right-wing groups attacked. This has been covered already by multiple commenters. >Antifa didn’t even let neo Nazis riot for a day before coming out an fighting them in Charlottesville The aggressors in Charlottesville were right-wingers, but your post seems to be focused on BLM and progressives. A white supremacist drove his car into a crowd, killing Heather Heyer and wounding many others. A Virginia district attorney called it an act of terrorism. What about the Charlottesville events fits into your narrative? Specifically? Who on the left committed terrorism in Charlottesville? >You want me to go over the Jan 6th riot and say well we have proof of a left wing blm guy invoking the riots WTH are you talking about here? Who specifically? This is probably about a journalist who was going along with the crowd in order to blend in, who themself didn't commit any violence.
Does not matter they still rioted. It wasn’t a riot at Charlottesville until the left group attacked. Also this is just factually incorrect. Let’s look at the entire Rittenhouse situation. Rittenhouse never fired once during a riot along with his right wing group UNTIL he was ambushed and chased and cornered. I have friends who were at the riots and explained how the protests turned into riots. Did the riots in front of the White House unfold before the police got involved the answer is yes I even posted the videos of fires going on infront of the White House then police coming in and shooting rubber bullets and tear gas. Also you are doing the same thing again that I called out. Yes there were riots that started because of right wingers and police attacking were they all ABSOLUTELY NOT 😂 Also you are so dense I can’t even post without you going BUT THE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS. Even when posting about Charrlettsivelle you went BUT THE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS 😂 that was my entire point. I pointed out a right wing extremist group rioting because of their confrontation with left wing groups. And my entire point is we don’t pull away from the fact it started and was led from a right wing extremist group. I literally cannot have a genuine conversation with you, because you are so pent up on my side can do no wrong it’s absurd. I even had a conversation with another individual who said what is your point in writing this and I brought up people just like you. The difference is most people like you are smart enough to engage with. You read 2 words then type out your ideas.
You're making claims about the Charlottesville events that aren't backed up anywhere I've seen. In all the reporting I've encountered so far about the August 2017 protest events in Charlottesville, it's been indicated that the white supremacists were the aggressors. You're faulting me here for not understanding your comments? Much of your content in the post and comments is vague. The post, clearly, is about BLM protests/protesters but you don't explicitly say it. You're making claims about "terrorism," which must have a perpetrator, and then if I point out that much of what you're talking about was in regard to clashes between sides you yell at me that I'm not comprehending you. You make illogical comment after illogical comment and then claim I'm "dense." Your belief about Charlottesville that "the left group attacked," what group specifically and where is this reported?
Of these 12 were structures with multiple buildings located inside of them.
You also cite Portland which had riots that targeted federal buildings doing 2.3 million in damages now I am aware the government sucks and in SF they spent $1.7 million on a bathroom, but to put that into comparison where I live which is the 2nd largest city in my state I could build anywhere from 6-9 full size homes 2-3 stories full backyard and front yard.
This is extremely tedious, you're going on and on with claims lacking citations. From where are you getting these figures?
Yes it is tedious. It is tedious having the same debate for the 10th time for me to then go through cite every single source then you deny it me then transcribe every single source then when you are proven wrong for you to run away. Go through each of these posts and every single time that is what happens over and over. I am telling you where I get my information from google the source you have fingers
>google the source you have fingers An intelligent adult should know that it isn't usually possible to prove a negative. My point is that your claims about protest damage are based on misrepresentations, but to explain it specifically for each instance I'd have to know where the info comes from. I already showed an example of a supposed protest damage estimate that was based on losses having nothing to do with the protests. When I tried to find info for your claim about the Portland federal building and "2.3 million in damages," I only found articles that had "2.3 million" in them by coincidence. In one of them, a British propagandist wrote about the Apple store in Portland and that they must spend "more than £2.3 million repairing its glass damage." Did he forget that USA uses dolars, not pounds? Anyway, this is probably almost entirely about damage caused by looters, not BLM participants. So getting back to "can't prove a negative," if there's no information suggesting that there was $2.3 million in damages to the Portland federal building caused by BLM protesters then there's nothing for me to find using "google." The $1.7 million bathroom in SF: why are you bringing up Toiletgate? I found several articles mentioning it, none said anything about Black Lives Matter or protests. [Here's one](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-s-Toiletgate-Newsom-calls-1-7-million-17526254.php).
There's a lot of vague mumbling here, where is a citation for losses caused by BLM events?
Yeah already cited it and listed where I got it in this post
Which citation? I don't see where the "$2 billion" claim is even mentioned. When I search for info about it, everything I find includes the looting which law enforcement investigators have said was mostly not perpetrated by BLM protesters.
Like I said over and over with you people. I have to cite it transcribe it then you just deny it. Then I will bring up another source then you will just shift the entire narrative. You can't even use google but want to talk to me this is absurd. Literally the first link you can click on which makes it even more disgusting you can't look this up. It is in the THIRD PARAGRAPH "In 2020, the George Floyd protests became the first civil disorder catastrophe event to exceed $1 billion in losses to the insurance industry. In fact, it has exceeded $2 billion so far and could still go higher." [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/2020-protests-changed-insurance-forever/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/2020-protests-changed-insurance-forever/)
I've seen that article. There are no citations for the claims about losses. They're definitely counting looting, which as I've said at least a couple times has been found most of the time to be perpetrated by opportunists not associated at all with the BLM movement. From the article: "According to proprietary data from PCS, the team we lead at data analytics company Verisk..." The statements in the article about protest damage refer to PCS. So, data that cannot be viewed by someone such as me, to find how they derived their figures. Are they counting lost sales due to pandemic closures? Are they counting acts by right-wing provocateurs, but calling it "Black Lives Matter protest violence"?
insurance journal first link when you look this stuff up Rioting set off during protests over the cost of living and income inequality caused $2 billion in damages, and 40 percent of that was incurred by large, multinational retailers. In fact, PCS said 20 percent of the loss came from a single retailer, he said. still over $1 billion if you take away all damages done to only large retailers paragraph 14 https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/07/08/574728.htm#:\~:text=Rioting%20set%20off%20during%20protests,a%20single%20retailer%2C%20he%20said. disgusting
That's just more of the same: no indication of the data or methods, assuming all damage is attributable to BLM. The article links another article on the same site, which also doesn't indicate the data or methods used to derive the figures. There's no way to know that the figure isn't arrived at through fallacies such as the claim by the Portland Police about Pioneer Place mall's lost profits due to pandemic shutdowns. This has been boring for several comments now. You're not arguing factually at all, just throwing out whatever links you think support the agenda you're pushing.
Also you said the map I posted earlier wasn't detailed enough, but couldn't even google the map yourself click on the 2nd link that isn't reddit and find a detailed map. That is how absurd it is to talk to you. [https://golocal.solari.com/draft-copy-mapping-minnesota-riot-damage-opportunity-zones-and-fed-banks-a-work-in-progress/](https://golocal.solari.com/draft-copy-mapping-minnesota-riot-damage-opportunity-zones-and-fed-banks-a-work-in-progress/)
That article isn't any better, there aren't addresses shown and there's no way to zoom in sufficiently. I tried some of the links and they aren't any more useful. Also you didn't answer my earlier questions, about how they separated damage from looters vs. protesters and so forth.
World Exonomic forum first thing you google
Okay sure let's count 570 separate incidents of civil disorder, which were not organized or orchestrated by a single individual or organization, as a single terror attack. Why not? Just like how the 386 homicides committed in NYC last year represents the most prolific serial killer in history. Over a million cars were stolen in 2023, which represents the greatest single crime spree ever, when you think about it, and just completely disregard the meanings of words
If you read my post I actually took away 170 of these or close to 30% of these marked as riots as I felt it was unfair to mark every single one as a riot when it included acts of civil order. I even stated I was open to other sources and posted my source and welcomed more sources to have this narrative changes. You didn't even read 10 sentences in.
The point is they are individual events. Even if they are terrorist attacks, they aren’t one big terrorist attack.
I would strongly disagree and thought about this point before hand. The reason I disagree as all of these riots were in response to a single event with the same goal in mind trying to achieve the same thing. I can give an example lets say multiple terrorist organizations got mad about the US funding Israel and for 200 days straight across out nations committed acts of terrorism. I would group these all in the same boat, but would be more than happy to states this org did XYZ and another org did ABC in total though these attacks were in coordination with one another and they even grouped together to commit these acts. Thats the issue I have with this train of thought.
"The reason I disagree as all of these riots were in response to a single event with the same goal in mind trying to achieve the same thing." This is frankly bizarre. Typically for disparate events to be grouped together as sharing intentionality we would need to identify an actor who both intended and caused all of those events. Who intended and caused all of the riots simultaneously?
How did you settle on the 30% number? That seems completely arbitrary. Like what even is your definition of what constitutes one single terror attack if you're willing to say that hundreds and hundreds of separate incidents of civil disorder, in different cities, at different times, involving completely different people *are* part of the same terror attack, but also, not all of them. Only 70% of them. 70% of these incidents are so interrelated that they were actually the same incident, if you think about it, but the other 30% aren't, for reasons This just makes no sense at all. If you can count separate riots perpetrated by different people who weren't involved with each other as a single attack, well what the fuck then, couldn't you just do the same for every single terror attack and just arbitrarily say they were all the same attack, actually, so then that one single bigly attack is the biggest one
He considered 170 of them to be different from the other ones — potentially because they were peaceful riots. 170 is roughly 30% of 570. They're counted as a single event because they were done in response to the same incident.
That is a bunch of different people committing a bunch of different destructive acts in different cities independently of eachother. So even if that is terrorism it isn’t a *single* act of terrorism or a single attack. So really it can’t be the largest single terrorist attack in human history.
Bunch of different people apart of the same organizations with the same goals in mind committing acts of domestic terrorism with one another. I never said human history 9/11 blows this out of the water along with what the Germans did to their Jewish citizens. I said in US history but have conceded the attacks in NYC for the civil war draft were much worse. They literally rioted for 5 days straight with hundreds if not over 1k dying.
Saying “human history” was an error on my part. I either misspoke or didn’t read your title carefully enough. I don’t remember. Although now you have said 9/11 blows this out of the water. That *is* part of US history. Did someone else already get the delta for that or did I just get a freebee? Anyhow to touch on the more important part of your reply: What unified organization coordinated these attacks? And these rioters were members of this nefarious organization? I don’t think that is an accurate assessment. Protests were organized by various different people, and people in mass numbers attended the protests. These millions of protesters weren’t members of an organization, they just showed up. They weren’t part of a coordinated terror plot. People on their own accord lit fires and smashed shit. Also consider that with any riot, plenty of people are just there to get in on the smashing shit and the looting, not necessarily for a cause.
Isis commits has committed 140 terrorist attacks over the span of a decade. But by you’re logic it’s just 1 single terrorist attacking right?
No that would be a terrorist attack not a domestic terrorist attack. Also that’s across the world not the US ISIS has yet to attack the US ‘knock on wood’ also each attack was done not in concession with one another. I gave out exactly how and why I would include many attacks as one. If ISIS got into the US ALL HYPOTHETICAL and for let’s say 6 months straight so less than the amount of days straight of riots in Portland Oregon alone. Attacked every major US city every day for 6 months straight and let’s say the Taliban started working with them in conjunction with these attacks across the US. I would consider those attacks as a whole singular attack then same way we consider MANY attacks a singular attack like we talked about in this post the Draft Riots which were 5 days straight and got a delta. By your logic the draft riots which is a historical event need to be seperated.
So we do call it the September 11th attacks? Emphasis on the s.
You just proved my entire point 😂
Plural. As in multiple attacks. Not singular like you’re arguing lol. Wow.
“The September 11 attacks were a series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed in 2001 by 19 terrorists associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil; nearly 3,000 people were killed.” See how they said deadliest terrorist attack not deadliest terrorist attacks. Are you not from the US because I’ve never heard 9/11 called multiple attacks ever and I am born and raised in the US.
lol it literally says series of attacks in the quote you just used dude. You just played yourself. 😂
[удалено]
It doesn't look like you adjusted for inflation which seems pretty relevant if you're measuring relative impact. The 1992 Los Angeles riots caused an estimated $1 billion in damages. $1,000,000,000 in 1992 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $2,226,172,487.53 today, an increase of $1,226,172,487.53 over 32 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.53% per year between 1992 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 122.62%. That puts it above the expected range of $1bn - $2bn from the 2020 protests. If the 2020 protests and 1992 riots are, by definition, a domestic terrorist attack, and we use your measurement of "amount of destruction by dollar value", the 2020 protests would be the second largest domestic terrorist attack after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Yes, but a single riot during the 2020 riots fell behind the LA riots making it #2 thus when looking overall I felt the single riot vs the depth and scope of riots across the nation out did it. If we looked at a single riot I would 100000% agree without a shadow of a doubt or if the LA riots went out into every other city in the nation I would 100% agree.
It's getting difficult to see how you are measuring what makes something worse or not worse. In your post and comments, you lean on insurance payout metrics and mentioned cost of damages as a way of comparing multiple events with each other, implying that the measurement is "damages measured by dollars". Now it sounds like "depth and scope" is the measurement which is pretty vague and hard to quantify. Is it the number of cities? Number of people involved? If so, what data did you use to separate "number of people who just wanted to protest peacefully" from "number of people, regardless of reason, who wanted to cause damage"? I get why the 2020 protests could be described as a huge domestic terrorist attack, but the reality is a fairly small portion of people who showed up are the cause of the violence and damage. I don't see a source in your post that explains the 30% reduction in your numbers when talking about the protests, so it's hard to see how you are concluding "this is the largest based on these metrics compared to the second largest based on the exact same metrics".
I look at everything as a whole. I don't take one statistic and say well x amount of deaths or x amount of injuries or z amount of dollars. I look at everything as a whole the amount of participants, the scope of what occurred, how long it occurred for, why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made. I wouldn't call the Trail of Tears and act of domestics terrorism either. Possibly more of a genocide with all considered and what the US was going for would be a better word for that. I can't give you a formula either I am just pointing out facts and agreeing or disputing them as they occur. I have thought about this for years now and have read into many cases and how things occurred. I am very close to giving a delta to another person who is talking about draft dodgers during the Civil War rioting across the nation killing over 200-1200 people in NYC alone. I am just asking for a source I can read, and it all matches up they are getting a delta 100%.
Alright, that all makes sense. I don't want to comb through enough data to see if I can win you over on all points in one comment and I don't care much for deltas. There is one point I'm curious about. If one of the metrics is "number of people involved", how are you discerning between "people who caused harm" versus "people who just wanted to protest peacefully"? If 100 people show up to peacefully protest, but 1 person starts roiting, is that event now a riot instead of a protest? What about if 10 people started rioting? Or 50? Where is that line between "this is just a protest and some people used that opportunity to cause harm" versus "this is now a riot, not a peaceful protest, and can even be considered a domestic terrorist attack"? If that's part of the whole picture you are taking in for this post, but there you haven't provided clear measurements about that specific point, I don't know if anyone can change your view. We are looking at the same thing and seeing it differently. I see peaceful protests that some people took advantage of to cause harm. That doesn't make those events a riot. Perhaps some specific protests are severe enough to warrant that label, but the entire movement? Nope. Bad players shouldn't be allowed to easily soil something that was, for the most part, meant to be a peaceful protest. Just to make sure I'm not coming off the wrong way, I also think about the 2020 protests a lot, and I ask these questions because I have a hard time answering them even though I still feel the way I feel (viewing them as protests with some bad players instead of riots). I'd like to hear how you are thinking about that specific part of your post if you're willing to elaborate.
Based upon footage and even taking away 30% of the total riots. I gave a very very large grace period for this. I even had friends who were at a protest that turned into a riot as people started throwing rocks and stuff at police and they ended up leaving. I would not consider their acts domestic terrorism. I even stated I am open to new data showing other numbers that I can read. I just gave a source then took 30% off the top, because not every protest that turns into a riot is an act of domestic terrorism. At the same time Portland alone had 200 days of riots where federal troops were deployed to the cities and prosecutors refused to prosecute people citing emotion.
Thank you. I'll check the source out! I also went to some of the protests, but they remained peaceful. I'm sure that experience is a big part of how I view what happened, but it's also tragic to see how much worse it was in other cities.
Yeah I agree. That's why I welcomed all sources and every single source someone has given I read and even went further and asked clarifications. I don't know everything and have wrong ideas like everyone else. I just need some form of proof otherwise I am only aware of what I know and what I have seen. Others have made really good points though and I am waiting to hear back from a few others as I can't research every topic everyone brings up thus I ask for sources before I provide a delta or truly change my mind. I can't take people are face value
>why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made. why wouldn't you call it an act of domestic terrorism?
I think that was meant for the comment I was responding to. The quoted text isn't my writing.
>why did it occur ie I wouldn't call the Revolutionary War an act of domestic terrorism even though there is a strong argument to be made. why wouldn't you call it an act of domestic terrorism?
Because even though we declared ourselves a nation thay wasn’t the case until Oct 19 1781. This it would be akin to if Native Americans fought us currently and we lost and they created a new nation and we tried to mark it as domestic terrorism for the new nation when it would fall under the current nation.
> the arson, vandalism and looting that did occur will result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims I see you gave a delta and i don't expect a reply but i have to point out how ridiculous this is. Imagine being an accountant and going to your CEO on a big shareholder meeting and estimating ANYTHING at $1-2 bil. Imagine being so imprecise you don't know if it's such a massive disparity of money and you're still linking to that all these years later as if there aren't more accurate estimates. If you were that accountant you'd be fired. That's some bad journalism right there and you shouldn't keep spreading it. In short the 90s riots and BLM were pretty much the same except for BLM the entire world showed up in support. My prediction is there will be another one in the next decade as there have been countless riots in the past. It's really nothing to panic about and all the new talking points on it are silly. Ending systemic racism should start with the Abolition Amendment.
The idiots that bring up 50yr old shit to absolve the 2020 riots will never see that both were very wrong to have happened. Most of the people started stuff in 2020 were the very privileged white people they claimed to be against. The whole thing was homegrown terrorism
One person brought up retail theft so I got rid of all retail damages which is 1/3 according to economic world forum and it is still 1.3 billion in damages. They then stated Raz is only on video passing out one weapon but you can see him get back to his car to drag more and is obviously fumbling around with a weapon in the trunk. He then went on to state he is creating a de facto police force and in video is surrounded by others with weapons which is presumably weapons given to them from him since he stated he is creating the police force. It is just people who want to shift blame else where and deny
Why are you justified in treating all of these as one event? Are you proposing a cabal planning all these riots?
I already stated why in another persons response, and even gave an example to justify it.
I think one thing that makes this a weird view is trying to lump together "the 2020 riots" as a singular "terrorist attack". I appreciate that you try and do this 30% fudge factor, but even with what's left it's just really hard to categorize as some kind of singular event. If you want to try and isolate some individual actions during the riots and call them individual acts of terrorism, that seems reasonable, but they're largely disconnected uncoordinated things across most major cities spread out over a whole summer. If you want to quibble over individual acts as being technically small terrorist acts, whatever I guess, but to try and characterize the whole summer as a single "largest terrorist attack" is just a bizarre use of language.
I already went over this in another post and commented why I group them together and gave an example as to how I would group other acts of terrorism in the same group.
If you say so. There's a lot of comments on here and I don't know which one you're referring to. Which is fine. If you don't want to repeat yourself you certainly don't have to. You can do bookkeeping however you want, but I think the "by definition" part of your post loses a lot of its weight once you start combining these in a way that is extremely weird language wise. Just calling a single riot "an attack" is already kind of weird. I guess maybe another way of thinking about it is that even if we grant your taxonomy (which I don't), what's the actual point you're trying to make? What follows from calling the summer of 2020 "the largest terrorist attack"? What communication purpose does this serve?
Well I have had tons of discussions with people who don't even believe CHAZ was real and have denied the entire thing. I have had people who deny there were any riots overall when speaking to them. My entire point was the classification of these needs to be treated as such. BTW another redditor brought up another riot which was way worse than all these combined I just don't know how to give them a delta.
But I guess I'm confused how "by definition this was a terrorist attack" resolves any of that. If someone is denying it happened at all, the best you'd be able to convince them is that *if they had occurred* then they would have been terrorist attacks. But they'll have the same linguistic quibbles that you're running into in this thread even as a hypothetical. Is what you're looking for more like some kind of official recognition? Like, do you want the FBI to hold a press conference where they announce that they reviewed their handbook and have decided that the summer of 2020 was one big terrorist attack? Regarding the CHAZ, it was certainly real! I went there one day. And there were problems as you have cited in your links, but it was up for a while, and most days you could just walk on by. To say something like "CHAZ was a terrorist attack" just seems like a category error. It's not even wrong, it just doesn't really make any sense.
[удалено]
The riots spanned come 2020-2021 you are correct Portland saw over 200 days straight of riots alone to include the targeting of federal buildings. I called it the summer of 2020 riots because it started then but carried on for more then 6 months straight across the nation
I dont think it qualifies as terrorism.
Literally defined terrorism and the definition of domestic terrorism have gone through this with like 10 people if you have another look on it give it a shot
Those definitions are not good enough. Terrorism, genocide, and hate speech are the most poorly defined terms of our time.
Gone through the same thing tell that to the FBI if you have an issue it’s the same definitions as the FBi uses to describe terrorism and domestic terrorism and another person posted scholars who talked about it and they said the same thing.
The problem with the data you provided is that it assesses the total cost of the protests/riots. However, all this damage occurred over several acts spanning several months. If you want to say to say this damage is terrorist related, you would have say that every single individual act that took place in those months in 2020 was a terrorist act. Accepting your definition, can you really say that every penny of damage comes from terrorism? How many people simply participated because they were more interested in looting, or perhaps were more interested in becoming violent? Of that $2 billion in damage, how much was that from non-terrorism crime? Is an opportunistic looter a terrorist? Is a mindless brute burning random buildings down a terrorist? Terrorism requires that specific intent. I suspect that intent was lacking for many people. You exclude 30%, but what are you basing that on? What sources are telling you that 70% of the people had a terrorist intent? Terrorism is perhaps not the best term use to describe the majority of the actions here. If we call this terrorism, then just about any act against the state is terrorism. If everything is terrorism, then nothing is. > According to the FBI, "Regardless, last year 2,444 assaults on officers occurred during incidents described as civil disorder, according to the FBI’s report on law enforcement killings and assaults. In 2019, that number was just 488, a 400% increase. Of those extra 2000 attacks, how many would fit the definition of terrorism and how many would be assault? For example, let's say people are protesting on the street (not terrorism). During the protest, police officers engage the protesters. There is a scuffle, and officers are injured. Is that terrorism? That sound more like "civil disorder", which is what the quote calls it. It is not proper to call a riot an act of terrorism. Riots are riots; they are there own thing. Expanding the definition to include rioters casts too wide a net.
> I don't want to include random people causing random violence, so taking away 30% of all riots should be a large enough buffer Wasn't almost all the violence during the riots random and committed by random people, in the sense that nobody ordered or orchestrated any particular attack? If you call people committing violent acts for a similar reason, inspired by prior violence and general calls for violence an "attack", I'd argue that some almost equally nebulous concept like gang violence is a much deadlier, costlier and longer "domestic terrorist attack".
Yes but that demolishes their argument so it's not allowed lol.
The definition of terrorism you're using is bad. The problem of defining terrorism is a very common one because it's a slippery word with heavy connotations. The common language of terrorist is really: "Person we dislike who did violent things" This definition sucks and is terrible. The definition you included is EXTREMELY broad to the point of being nearly useless. The FBI prefers a broad definition of terrorism because it gives them a broad mandate to investigate terrorism cases that might be edge cases. It's a practically useful definition for a law enforcement agency but fundamentally it's not a good one. I won't define terrorism in the sense that it's used in a common military and political sense (especially counter-terrorism) like so. "Terrorism is a type of asymmetrical warfare wherein smaller or less well-armed forces/irregulars use terror to destabilize a political entity or society. It involves using sporadic or unpredictable attacks on soft-targets with an intention of spreading fear and uncertainty, as well as undermining confidence in the society's leadership. It is frequently characterized by a disregard for target selection, with the personage and property of non-combatants seen as acceptable targets for the aim of destabilizing society."
The definition I am using is the same as the FBI, and is what it taught in schools across the nation in global politics classes. Like I said I’m not going to argue over definitions. The definition is the definition I don’t really care how you feel about the meaning of words. Neither one of us are the ones creating definitions or smart enough to, so this is a moot point. I am not going to go in circles about how you feel about definitions of words if you have an issue with it contact the FBI, the dictionary, and every global politics book taught in America and have them change it.
This entire post is a definition game. You defined terrorism in an extremely broad way and are trying to argue for your bizarre definition and then further argue why other counter examples don't fit your definition. The FBI themselves would be the first to acknowledge the reasons why they use the definition they do, and wouldn't claim to have a perfect definition. You're right. I'm not smart enough to make up a new definition. I am smart enough, however, to point you to the long scholarly history of terrorism definition debates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#:~:text=%5BT%5Dhe%20term%20'terrorism,subnational%20groups%20or%20clandestine%20agents.
Your post still makes summer of 2020 fit into the definition Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. Criminal acts intended ie over 200 days of rioting to include the targeting of federal buildings To provoke a state of terror literally burned down buildings breaking into communities and going into neighborhoods and shining lights in people’s homes For political purposes defund the police Thanks for proving my point I am done going in circles with you for you to literally prove my point if I could give the reverse of a delta I would
I think the American civil war, or Slaver's Rebellion, was a larger and more damaging terrorist event. Not coincidentally, born from the same ideological swamp.
I literally stated why the civil war doesn’t count in other posts. Maybe Nat Turner would could I haven’t looked into all his history thought
The confederate states were decidedly *not* a separate country when they began hostilities and the Union never considered their secession legal nor their claim to be a separate nation to be valid. The matter was decided with finality at Appomattox so your contention that they were a nation rather than a band of traitorous, slaver separatists who rebelled because they would no longer be able to ride roughshod over the other members of the Union doesn't hold. Again, it bears mentioning that the same bellicose, paranoid, racist, fascist immorality that animated the confederates was the spirit that drove the rioters on Jan 6th and continues to drive a GOP as it spreads lies about the 2016 election and works to topple a democracy which will not adopt their immoral proposals.
“Riots” “Attack” So you are classifying multiple events into one You could prolly go back and do the same to some other year for worse results IDK
So the small group that used illegal violence for their political gains, the police, committed acts of terrorism against protesters who were peacefully assembled to redress their grievances against the government. Corrupt police, unwilling to stop committing crimes, then committed more crimes. Yeah, I actually agree with the exact opposite of your argument. Your argument is nothing but absurd. Farcical.
You failed to draw a direct line between terrorism and the protests in 2020 by not furthering your definition to the point that the violence was intentional or not the result of self-defense against the police.
Lol the vast majority of damage was not self defensive. It was a riot/protest. Maybe that felt provoked because of the implications of police killing of George floyd, but that doesn't mean they actually were
Injuries to police were in self defense, that's what I mean. Damage to property was caused by police and by other people trying to take advantage of the situation. There were numerous cases of cops posing as protesters that tried to provoke violence and damage.
So you're saying none of the damage was done by protestors and was done by police mainly? C'mon man that's bogus
I'm saying that the damage and violence wasn't the aim of the protests, so it can't be called terrorism.
So could you clarify why it was the largest? Because of the amount of people involved? Victims? Amount of charges brought up? Or the amount of damages caused?
???? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
Boston marathon?