3 ms·

> The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a

> The guns in the police armory ultimately belong to the people Well this is just demagogy and slogans, utlimately boiling down an attempt to depicict it as a yet antother romantic dihotomy of "opressive government" and "brave people". As awlays, in reality the real civilians are hiding scared at their homes or fleeing the country and it's just a few armed thugs, who think they can represent and talk for "the people", having tasted some blood and lawlessness. There is enough video evidece to see how "defense against their agressors" turns out to be robbing shops and setting building ablaze. So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government or have some moral high ground.

notch656a 5y ago
In your other quote you said they were "thugs who use firearms against police" but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all. Your words are contradictions. "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.
- foverzar 5y ago
  > but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion. > "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative. Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? > but thugs who use firearms against police [up-thread] contradicts >"So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government. I quote, "So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government." Are police part of government or not? Adding "at all" is merely semantic, it's just the way my part of the US talks. i.e. "Would you like a bag at all with your groceries?" Saying "fighting government" and "fighting government at all" would both mean you are fighting government to some extent, but the latter _could_ be interpreted as slightly weaker if anything. >Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking Ok so what you meant was once you fight, you're a belligerent and not a civilian. Your intent was just to help us understand definition of civilian? Yes yes I agree, I thought you were implying something different like they weren't real citizens with genuine honest intent or something. But you've now made clear you were using the standard definition. Although I'm confused why you didn't just say that in the first place.

notch656a 5y ago

In your other quote you said they were "thugs who use firearms against police" but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all. Your words are contradictions. "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight. It sounds dangerously like the Russian propaganda against Chechens when they were simultaneously calling the rebels "foreign influencers" (no real civilian would fight the Russians!) while simultaneously sending secret police to genocide or jail military age males.

foverzar 5y ago
> but here you say they aren't fighting the government (police are government) at all But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? All I have said is that robbing shops doesn't seem like a glorious heroic struggle against the government. Random skirmishes will obviously occur. Not sure what exactly you see as contradictive and where exactly do you imagine a binary mutual exclusion. > "Real civilian" is apparently anyone without the will to fight Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking? Seems to be still be "a person who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a *belligerent group in a conflict*. So I don't get why you insit on using the wrong term, other than to spin a narrative. Armed belligerents are not civillians, up is not down, war is not peace, words do have specific meanings.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >But that is not what I have said, especially not the "at all" part, why are trying to misqoute me? > but thugs who use firearms against police [up-thread] contradicts >"So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government. I quote, "So please don't act like these people are defending or fighting the government." Are police part of government or not? Adding "at all" is merely semantic, it's just the way my part of the US talks. i.e. "Would you like a bag at all with your groceries?" Saying "fighting government" and "fighting government at all" would both mean you are fighting government to some extent, but the latter _could_ be interpreted as slightly weaker if anything. >Has the definition of word "civillian" changed while I was not looking Ok so what you meant was once you fight, you're a belligerent and not a civilian. Your intent was just to help us understand definition of civilian? Yes yes I agree, I thought you were implying something different like they weren't real citizens with genuine honest intent or something. But you've now made clear you were using the standard definition. Although I'm confused why you didn't just say that in the first place.