403
Omar Warns Trump Aims to Provoke Enough Agitation in Minnesota So He Can Declare 'Martial Law' (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

For all your talk of violence you are very non-specific about where and when you believe it will be best used.

Me, I'll be exact. If someone wants to arm up to protect their home, I'm all for it. But violent protests in the streets? No. They're waiting for that.

Name one violent protest in the US in the last ten years that you'd call a success. Doesn't even matter which side: J-6 to Charlottesville; George Floyd to Gaza. The violent ones get shut down and disgust fencesitters who just want to live their lives; the peaceful ones attract converts and prove force.

You may not be conversant with this principle yet, but physical force before its time is a show of fear and rage, not real strength, and they're waiting for it. What do you think Cop City is all about? They've been planning this for years, and you want to run right into their waiting arms.

No. Real strength is having the self-discipline to weigh the moment, and control emotions to get the best outcome.

Arm your homes, but in the streets protest peacefully.

EDITED TO ADD: In the George Floyd protests of 2020-2023, the two cities that had the most violence were Minneapolis and Portland, Oregon. If you think it's a coincidence that these two cities were specifically chosen for govt incursion again, you're naive. Doubly so if you're unaware that it was NON-VIOLENCE that got the National Guard out of Portland in November. From the first paragraph:

While violent protests did occur in June, they quickly abated due to the efforts of civil law enforcement officers. And since that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland ICE facility have been predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence, largely between protesters and counter-protesters. When considering these conditions that persisted for months before the President’s federalization of the National Guard, this Court concludes that even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

https://www.opb.org/pdf/FINDINGS%20OF%20FACT%20AND%20CONCLUSIONS%20OF%20LAW_1762564569662.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    I think you read my comment as somehow promoting violence or even romanticizing it in some way.

    There are things I agree with in your comment and things I disagree with. But I don't think it's meaningful to discuss that because you seem to have taken my comment in the wrong way from the very start.

    I am was not describing what I want to happen, or what works in bringing about radical change (though history tells us that is almost always through some form of violenct resistance). I was simply explaining what happens when a society subject to state violence is backed into a corner. It was almost a plea to not bring our society to that inevitable stage. Something that "protest peacefully" leaders with zero action are contributing to.

    I think maybe you should reread my comment with that perspective. Then maybe you'd have a more meaningful response.

    I think you may also have a better grasp on it if, instead, you widened your scope a bit more. You seem to be stuck in a very short timeframe of historical reference in which you're comparing to. You should widen your scope to include the rise of major fascist powers. Limiting yourself to comparing events within your lifetime or even recent American history is definitely limiting your ability to apply historical materialist understanding of what is going on. Though, I do think you are thinking correctly, you are not really able to describe or grasp what is going on fully.

    There is no point in telling people to "arm themselves in their homes". When, inevitably, after 100s of armed people are killed in their homes the remaining armed people will realize that, they are stronger together. And waiting for the state violence to come to their door is just puting them at a disadvantage for no reason other than some vague notion of a moral society and state that, clearly, no longer exists.

    When will YOU ask yourself: Why am I advocating for people to defend themselves, but only after it reaches them personally while they are alone in their home?

    Because that time WILL come for you. It just hasn't yet. But for many people that have experienced the state violence first hand. It already has. And those that live through it aren't going to fight back alone in their home. They are going to get organized.

    You're puting an arbitrary restriction on resistance to state violence that does nothing but help to make that state violence easier to carry out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Arbitrary restriction? I'm not restricting anything. Everyone reading this is free to do whatever they want. For now, anyway.

    What is this tremendous power I have to stop you from going out and antagonizing ICE yourself?

    Again, name any violent protest in recent history that has done anything but made matters worse. Even Minneapolis and Portland, the two American cities with the greatest violence in 2020-2023 have learned that violence doesn't work. That's why they're not going that route this time.

    When will YOU ask yourself: Why am I advocating for people to defend themselves, but only after it reaches them personally while they are alone in their home?

    When will YOU ask yourself why you have to put words that I did not say in my mouth for you to have a rebuttal? Why are you making vague claims to historical precedent without ever being specific? Why are you widening the scope of what I actually said to cover ideas and positions I did not state and do not actually possess?

    I said exactly what I meant to say and I stopped there. Again, you and anyone else are free to go out and harass ICE yourself if you think that's so wise, but you are dead wrong to incite others to do it for you, or to even suggest that it is a winning strategy when if it were you'd be able to cite at least one recent example of that.

    You have nothing, or you'd have brought it already. And you can't, because it just doesn't exist. For myself, I linked to the actual court decisions where non-violent protests ARE working, TODAY.

    You're not arguing in good faith. I said what I have to say. Good night.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    You spent the entire first comment explaining how "it's not time yet" and then ended with and advocated for not fighting back.

    What is this tremendous power I have to stop you from going out and antagonizing ICE yourself?

    First, we're discussing what you are advocating for mate. No one with a brain thinks that you individually have power. You're playing dumb to avoid standing on your original point.

    Second, if you think people are going out and antagonizing ICE, you are hopeless. The fact that you even use that word makes it clear you don't take seriously (or don't understand) the degree of state violence that is being done. There is no antagonizing an invasion of what are essentially SS troops.

    Arm your homes, but in the streets protest peacefully.

    Not sure why you're trying to ignore the entire thesis and conclusion of your own comment.

    When will YOU ask yourself why you have to put words that I did not say in my mouth

    I think it's pretty clear I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm literally just quoting you mate. You're the one backing down with "people can do what they want".

    The difference between our comments is this:

    YOU are ADVOCATING for something. You are telling people to not be violent in response to state violence. "It's not time yet". Here, look at this hyperfocused example of Portland. Ignoring all of the violent resistance that occured in Portland at that time.

    YOU are telling people to only resort to self defense on an individual basis if they are attacked inside their homes.

    I AM explaining why what is happening will inevitably lead to individual acts of violence if no action is taken by the state government in response to the federal governments violence.

    I AM saying (not advocating because I would never ever call for it because that's I'm sure against the rules here) that organizing that individual violence into what essentially an armed resistance is a much more effective form of resistance.

    You, clearly haven't experienced that violence first hand. It's why you keep telling people to go protest peacefully. If you went to a protest, you'd realize that is not something that is even possible now in Minnesota. You're standing on the sidelines telling the quarterback what to do, when you've never even touched a football.

    Go to Minnesota. Take a pepper bomb to the face. Then tell me how long you'll keep going back and being "peaceful" as they add 1000 more troops today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    I am interested in learning which american peaceful protests have been successful that were not backed by force in the past 10 years?

    Actually what american protests at all have been successful in the past 10 years at actually accomplishing their goals and not settling for 1% of their goals as a "compromise" for the theater?

    Maybe we can extend it to 30 years or 40 years just for fun?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I am interested in learning which american peaceful protests have been successful that were not backed by force in the past 10 years?

    Did I not just link the final order booting the National Guard out of Portland, Oregon? Portland protested, non-violently, for weeks against having the National Guard there. BECAUSE the protests were non-violent, the judge ordered them out.

    It's right in front of you. It's not even something I am claiming, it's literally what the judge said. All you had to do was read the first paragraph, man. I even quoted the text, but you couldn't even be bothered with that.

    Same in Chicago. The National Guard presence was halted by a TRO (temporary restraining order) and then when the govt lost that on appeal, Trump withdrew the NG troops there and redeployed them to New Orleans. Here's the full order:

    https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/46a35c5459e8b073/66434a34-full.pdf

    I know it's killing you to even acknowledge its existence, but the proof is already there. The National Guard is out of both Chicago and Portland BECAUSE of peaceful protests.

    I brought my receipts. You don't have jack shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Do you think that's over? What a dumb take. It's like watching your enemy do a tactical retreat and thinking you've won the war. Portland is literally filled with ICE today. Do you think it worked? Seriously.

    It's the equivalent of saying "all we needed to do was protest and elect FDR". And ignoring all of the workers that armed themselves and took over factory floors by force. You have horse blinders on so you can still believe the lie of a whitewashed and fabricated version of MLK. I'm sure you also don't believe that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers had any positive impact during the civil rights movement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent