3 ms·
No, you're quoting word for word a heavily biased article, pushed from a site that is publishing "information" without being able to prove it or provide support
by Theory5 6y ago
No, you're quoting word for word a heavily biased article, pushed from a site that is publishing "information" without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources, and whose outlandish claims don't match up to multiple reports by news agencies with years if not decades of experience providing news both locally and nationally.
Time, NPR, and several others paint a much different picture, and appear to be able to actually substantiate THEIR articles, unlike this one that you're championing.
- ttwinder 6y agoThis time I didn't even read the article. >without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources Are you disputing that the protests have been filled with people yelling about dismantling the system? Have you seen the BLM website? Do you deny that these same people have commandeered an area in Seattle? Which of these facts is incorrect? And if they are correct, let's look at the definition of terrorism: >he use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals. >Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods. You think the police left peacefully? You think business owners weren't coerced after seeing businesses burned and looted all over the country, including in Seattle by people chanting the same slogans of this movement? If you've only seen portrayal on the news, I'm sorry that you did not witness the violence on the dozens of livestreams from the first week or so.