Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
you discount an article discussing facts and evidence with an anecdote and accuse me of bias - classic. Portland and Seattle both had police retreat and not confront the peaceful protestors and yet the peaceful protestors still rioted. But somewhere in North Carolina the police may have been responsible for stirring up violence - we don't know because there is no link, only the unbiased recounting of a DSF poster.
Are you aware the feds didn't send additional security forces (only to protect the Federal Courthouse) until Portland had seen 45 straight days of riots and violence and the Federal Courthouse had been attacked nightly? The idea that additional security forces are to blame for inciting violence is on it's face, moronic. Equally stupid is the idea that police shouldn't have equipment like armored vehicles to protect them from violent protestors. The reaction to dozens of cops suffering concussions while protecting a building or statue from spoiled, entitled morons shouldn't be "well, being a cop is dangerous." When it comes to violence and destruction of property, it shouldn't be anything close to a fair fight between the cops and the assholes.
By the way, the Feds didn't leave Portland so you may have to wait for your false flag story - unless the story about the Feds leaving Portland is the false flag.
So what? Where do you think you've found 'I told you so' material? Nobody ever said riots weren't possible without militarized police.