Leftwing Violence Isn't New

[stxjimmy]

Here's what I ran through ChatGPT:

Is this a true statement: In one 18-month period in the early 1970s, there were 2,500 bombings on American soil—nearly 5 a day?

​

Yes, the statement is largely accurate. Between 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported over 1,800 domestic bombings, averaging nearly five per day. This period was marked by intense domestic unrest, with radical groups such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front, and the Symbionese Liberation Army orchestrating numerous bombings across major U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. These attacks were often politically motivated, targeting symbols of American power and institutions associated with the Vietnam War and civil rights issues Vanity Fair.

The bombings were part of a broader wave of domestic terrorism during the early 1970s, driven by ideological extremism and anti-establishment sentiments. While many of these bombings were intended to avoid casualties, they nonetheless contributed to a climate of fear and instability. The frequency and scale of these attacks were unprecedented in U.S. history, leading to significant law enforcement efforts to combat domestic terrorism.

Therefore, the claim that there were nearly 5 bombings per day during this 18-month period is substantiated by historical records and reflects the heightened level of political violence in the United States during that era.

The 70s worldwide were violent, but if your thesis were correct you’d think you could accurately label the 18 month period.

And during the 1970s the violence inflicted upon S.America was also unprecedented. Death squads roaming the southern countries supported and financed fully by the US.

Bad days all around.

 

[Rightguide]

What you posted wasn’t in question.

What you actually support, versus what you’re compelled to, is a different matter.

I'm not compelled to support anything.

Your decent conservative side, such as it is, says that anyone forcing their way past security at the Capitol to get their hands on elected representatives is, de facto, likely to get shot if said security is doing its job. No exceptions. Plain common sense. Why else would there be armed security in the first place, if not for that. Right?

No member of Congress was in danger of being harmed by those allowed to enter the Capitol building. They were evacuated. The only person shit that day was an unarmed woman.

And obviously, if such a thing were to happen, it’d be some fucking Antifa terrorist, or a BLM headcases, that would have been getting what was coming for their thuggery and stupidity and downright un American behaviour.

I have never supported the attack on the Capitol. I called out the fact that it was allowed to happen in the first place.

If a half cut Democrat DefSec had betrayed a live bombing mission on fucking Twitter you’d have had the gallows out.

The bombing mission was not affected by the leak by the leftwing reporter who was included in the chat. How alarmed were you when the Biden SecDef walked off the job for two weeks?

But here we are, and adherence to the Party line means that old decent conservative self of yours has had to sling their fucking hook, and make way for a more unquestioning useful idiot.

The only useful idiots here are those who worshipped the corrupt Biden Regime and defend its treason to this day.

 

[Bray123]

The 1970's were 50 years ago. For context, 50 years before that was the Depression.

Domestic Terrorism in the 21st Century is entirely Right Wing.

And throwing out lazy phrases like the 'corrupt Biden Regime' fools nobody. Trump is literally the most corrupt (possibly the only corrupt) President in US history. Not even Nixon was corrupt for personal gain, he was a political schemer - with enough morals to resign when caught out.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

More evidence how our Radicalized democrats can become very unhinged. Now, will they believe “the science?”

 

[ll74]

More evidence how our Radicalized democrats can become very unhinged. Now, will they believe “the science?”

The weirdest part of this study is that just saying 47 is being fascistic is now considered "violent rhetoric"

 

[Bray123]

The weirdest part of this study is that just saying 47 is being fascistic is now considered "violent rhetoric"

Yet saying that anyone who doesn't support him is a Communist, is not "violent rhetoric".

Which is because the convicted felon uses that word more than he pastes 'Thank you for your attention in this matter.'

Stephen Miller is posting that there needs to be a purge of left wing terrorist judges, but obviously that is not violent rhetoric.