Canada adds Proud Boys to the terrorist group list

[Houseman]

I have a lot of respect for those who have stuck with this conversation, as difficult and perhaps emotional as this subject is. I appreciate your objectivity and willingness to be challenged by ideas you disagree with.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

And you disappoint me as well once again. Check the Lester Nightly News. They did have people on the inside that new about the defenseless parts of the capital and where those little no security. They have his actual footage out there. Of them corroborating and getting info from tour guides and relaying it back to the proud boys, q and I and the other hardcore Trump supporters. The evidence is all there and the fact that you're denying it shows you that you're not all that there either. So are you really willing to support Nazis?

Do you want to build your own guillotine?

 

[Elijin]

I have a lot of respect for those who have stuck with this conversation, as difficult and perhaps emotional as this subject is. I appreciate your objectivity and willingness to be challenged by ideas you disagree with.

Because obviously anyone who can't be bothered arguing "actually...", "I think technically..." and whataboutisms can't handle being challenged, right old man houseman?

 

[BrawlMan]

Do you want to build your own guillotine?

What does that even mean?

I'm here to point out that the Proud Boys are terrorists and that's that. I don't know who you're trying to fool thinking they're not, unless you're trying to fool yourself. In case you forgotten, I'm black and they don't give a fuck about my ass. They rather see me and my family being hung from a tree or getting their asses beat by racist cops. I don't know what race you are or what your skin color is, but if you're white or if you pass for "white", they are not in your target range. Not unless you are either Democrat, Trans, or Jewish. Though that didn't stop the Proud Boys from having a Cuban as their leader who was an FBI informant. Once again, goes to show you how petty and stupid racism is. Keep that in mind. I'm ending it here because I have nothing left to say. Either accept it as a fact or don't. The greatest deception is one that that deceives him or herself to feel better about themselves, and not confront the harsh truth. Substituting reality for their own false reality so their feelings won't be hurt.

 

[Houseman]

Because obviously anyone who can't be bothered arguing "actually...", "I think technically..." and whataboutisms can't handle being challenged, right old man houseman?

I am sorry that my expression of appreciation for people that demonstrate qualities that I admire upsets you. Do you, perhaps, feel left out?

 

[Hades]

Did they know that? Did the Proud Boys have detailed information, enough to discern that the Capitol building was poorly defended, and would be, on the 6th? And based on this information they decided not to bring or use guns?

Possibly. After all there was this pre-treason meeting with Trump's inner circle one day before the insurrection. But that's quite frankly irreverent. They still did it. Had security been adequate they would have been pushed back but that didn't mean they wouldn't have tried. Just as the fact that they didn't have guns didn't mean they didn't manage to get inside and nearly lynch people.

No, that's more mental gymnastics, and requires them to know things they couldn't possibly have known. If they did have this inside information, then, by definition, the government itself is guilty of staging, creating, or allowing an attack to occur on itself.

Not really. Their knowledge of the security isn't relevant. They were useful idiots who didn't need to know. But yes, if they did know then that would mean that aspects of the government was guilty of allowing an attack on the government to occur. And that's why we should examine Trump's action with the most amount of scrutiny possible.

What would have happened if the congressmen had not managed to flee is a hypothetical, and we'll never know the answer to that

''Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Where's Nancy!''

Doesn't sound very hypothetical to me. Neither does a man in combat gear walking around with zip ties.

 

[Elijin]

I would like to extend my admiration for all of the good and geniune people on these forums. There exists the temptation to be a miserable shitbag who takes the devils advocate on hotbed topics, but I commend you for not indulging it. It's good not to be the sort of person who thinks that arguing minor pedantry and obfuscation over points they dont believe in, during passionate conversation, is a fun way to spend an evening.

 

[Avnger]

I have a lot of respect for those who have stuck with this conversation, as difficult and perhaps emotional as this subject is. I appreciate your objectivity and willingness to be challenged by ideas you disagree with.

More people might be willing to stick with the conversation if you exhibited a few of those qualities yourself.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I would like to extend my admiration for all of the good and geniune people on these forums. There exists the temptation to be a miserable shitbag who takes the devils advocate on hotbed topics, but I commend you for not indulging it. It's good not to be the sort of person who thinks that arguing minor pedantry and obfuscation over points they dont believe in, during passionate conversation, is a fun way to spend an evening.

It's almost adorable they think anyone here still cares how much alleged "respect" he got for them. That ship has sailed bruh!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What does that even mean?

February 27, 1933.

 

[Houseman]

Just as the fact that they didn't have guns didn't mean they didn't manage to get inside and nearly lynch people.

It does not require a planned insurrection to storm a building. Anyone can do it. A riled-up mob, can do it, for example.
You have very little evidence to back up the claim that this was a planned insurrection.
A) They didn't bring guns
B) They fled after a single shot was fired
C) They never even got close to any of their "targets".

It looks just like an out of control mob, not any sort of coup attempt.

Insurrectionists would have anticipated being met with deadly force, and would have brought guns of their own.

''Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Where's Nancy!''

Doesn't sound very hypothetical to me. Neither does a man in combat gear walking around with zip ties.

It is hypothetical, because it didn't happen. Words spoken out of anger by a riled up mob are meaningless. They are passionate words and people get caught up in the frenzy of the mob. You cannot say "the mob chanted this, so that's proof of their intent!"

I doubt you would apply the same standards to BLM:

"What do we want? Justice!
When do we want it? Now!
If we don't get it? BURN IT DOWN!"

That's their chant.
Surely you wouldn't say "BLM is an arsonist organization", would you? And the fires they have started aren't even hypothetical, they already happened!

You'd either have to condemn both BLM and the capitol rioters, or admit that chants are not admissible evidence of intent.

 

[BrawlMan]

February 27, 1933.

Got it.

Like I said before, Qanon, proud boys, or whatever the fuck they call themselves are Nazis.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Whether or not these racist shitbags are technically terrorists (they are), they're racist shitbags. And racist shitbags getting the heat turned up on them is jolly good news.

Thanks for making me feel slightly less miserable Canada.

 

[CaitSeith]

You can't pick and choose.

I can't; but lawmakers can, do and have done constantly. Do you have a problem about it? Go tell them, not me.

 

[Houseman]

I can't; but lawmakers can, do and have done constantly. Do you have a problem about it? Go tell them, not me.

Are we talking about lawmakers, or "people"?

Because you said: "After so many people mislabeled BLM and antifa as terrorist organizations for so long time, claiming you're worried about mislabeling is actually insulting."

This was a statement referencing people, not lawmakers.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Got it.

Like I said before, Qanon, proud boys, or whatever the fuck they call themselves are Nazis.

It was a communist who set the fire, Brawl. Politicians never waste a good crisis.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Good on Canada.

 

[BrawlMan]

It was a communist who set the fire, Brawl. Politicians never waste a good crisis.

I know, and the Proud Boys were trying to start one. Several of them with bombs included.

 

[ObsidianJones]

*snips*

1.) People? The majority of the Proud Boys. The people in question.

2.) Anyone can be a terrorist. Even a President. If he truly attempted to incite a Coup D'Etat, I don't feel any reason not to call him a terrorist and the people who followed a terrorist... a terrorist.

And they thought they were following the word of the President? That has been thrown out since Nuremberg.

Throughout the legal history of this defense, three different approaches have been developed: the respondeat superior doctrine, the absolute liability doctrine, and the conditional liability doctrine.

According to the respondeat superior doctrine, only the superior is accountable for the commission of the crime and not the subordinate who could successfully invoke a defense of superior orders because of a general duty to obey the orders of superiors.

In the second approach, the absolute liability doctrine, superior orders are no defense; superior orders can only be considered in mitigation of punishment. The rationale of this doctrine is that the obligation to obey superior orders is generally limited to lawful orders only.

According to the third approach, the conditional liability doctrine, acting on superior orders does not relieve the subordinate of criminal responsibility unless he or she did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the order was unlawful.

The first approach, the respondeat superior doctrine, can be found in the 1914 editions of the British Manual of Military Law and the United States Rules of Land Warfare. At Nuremberg this doctrine was rejected since—reductio ad absurdum—it would lead to the result that the only person who could be held criminally liable for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime would be Hitler himself.

Instead, in the statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal the absolute liability doctrine was adopted. The absolute liability doctrine can also be found in the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The codification of the superior orders defense in Article 33(1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based on the conditional liability doctrine. It provides that acting on superior orders does not relieve a person from criminal responsibility unless that person was under a legal obligation to obey, he or she did not know the order to be unlawful, and the order was not manifestly unlawful. Paragraph 2 of Article 33 excludes, however, the possibility of invoking the defense of superior orders when the acts ordered constitute genocide or crimes against humanity; in that case a rule of absolute liability applies.

So, yes. I agree with you. They clearly thought they were following the President's Instructions. The President's clearly illegal and ill-thought out instructions. The President's clearly vile instructions that if Obama and/or Biden (or God forbid Hliiary) issued to Antifa, these Proud Boys et al. would be frothing to get on the firing squad to execute those followers of the Presidents' orders that they would deem terrorists.

3.) They allowed themselves to get swayed because they didn't want to believe what actually occurred. Recount after Recount occurred, and it wasn't enough. It was never going to be enough to anyone who didn't want to believe. Because if that was the case? The first recount would have been enough.

And like you're alluding to, who started the mass migration to Alternative Fact Land? Donald Trump.


Again, not directed to you, Generals, but in all honesty with how people are trying to excuse the Republicans of their actions, you would think the base is filled with simpletons. That is patiently false. I know plenty of smart, hard-working, caring Republicans who simply believe in more money in their pocket, hard work, and limited government. They didn't lose their sense because Orange Man Says Reality Now. And honestly, I don't believe Proud Boys et al. did either. I think they were just looking for an excuse to usurp power. And people allow this by pretending that it's Reasonable to believe Adults were bamboozled to see a Reality that has no standing in the actual fact.

"I allowed myself to believe in a lie because it was more pleasant than to think I have lost therefore my actions can't be counted" is not a legal defense.

Lastly, I'm super confused. Your interpretations do not affect Litigation. Parties connected to Congress does. They call their actions Terroristic in nature. Are you claiming you interpret the law better than the Think Tanks of Congress? I mean, that's The American Congress and Canada as a whole. What do you know that these scholars do not?

 

[Kae]

So they should also label anarchists as being part of a terrorist group by this logic.

They do though, that was the basis of the USA's intervention on the Mexican Revolutionary war of 1910.