Throwing paint on some old racist's books (at a book signing) and knocking their dinner to the floor is terrorism? Sure, it's worse to throw paint/ink than a pie at them, but it's not terrorism. Maybe nuisance-ism.
They didn't just throw paint. Someone left in an ambulance. And what does "old racist" have to do with anything? People who attack women getting abortions believe they're acting to prevent actual murders. We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that. You don't get to bust up a restaurant and attack a senior citizen because you don't like what he has to say. The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
And you think that was by design. A guy said "Hey, I think I'll go ruin their books and their dinner, and then I'll maim one of them half to death pour encourager les autres? No, someone fell on broken dinnerware and received a cut(s).
>We don't consider the substance of their positions when we rightfully send them to prison for doing that.
We do, according to you. That's exactly what we're doing when we maintain terrorist watch lists of people who have committed no crimes, or when the crimes are as minor as this dinner crashing, or the Olympic flag burning. In the dinner crashing, tellingly, Hammond was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to four days in jail.
>The antidote to bad speech is more speech, not violence.
I'm not making a unqualified defense of Hammond's behavior. I'm saying that it isn't terrorism.
I don't think it's terrorism either. Just because we don't agree about everything doesn't mean we disagree about everything. I responded to a comment upthread that suggested Hammond was nonviolent. Hammond is not nonviolent.
On this particular subthread, I'm pointing out that Hammond's inclusion in a watchlist doesn't necessarily mean that Anonymous is a terrorist group (obviously, I don't think it is). He had other affiliations that freaked the USG out. As I've said elsewhere on the thread, this being 2015 and not 1970, I don't think the USG has a reasonable fear that "anarchist extremists" are terrorist groups.
Assault is assault. There's a law that covers it. It doesn't consider whether the victim is someone you like or not. It doesn't consider whether the perpetrator is someone you like or not. Secret terrorist lists are a genuine WTF for common assault which occurs and is dealt with many thousand times a week in the justice system.
Are you paid to advance such obvious crap? Are you posting against what you believe to try and stir up action? Are you trying to curry favour and get government contracts? It just doesn't make a lot of sense play the apologist so badly.
You haven't even read the thread. You don't know what you're responding to. You're just so angry that there are people that don't take your side in discussions that you'll accuse people of being shills, which says far more about you than it does about me.
Justifying putting someone on a terrorist list by the accusation of an assault happening is just ridiculous, which is precisely what you did.
But you haven't answered why you spend so much time sprouting this kind of utter rubbish on all these threads. How many posts did you make on this topic alone?
What is your motive. You just want to spend hours defending the USG with obvious garbage like this out of patriotic duty? Is that it? What is it?
Keep on downvoting, it doesn't change the content.
