> the FBI's campaign of ... murder of black leaders
Source?
Source?
It was a common part of the COINTELPRO playbook [2].
> The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homes—often with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws—which resulted directly in the police killing many members of the Black Panther Party, most notably Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[15][69][73] Before the death of Hampton, long-term infiltrator, William O'Neal, shared floor plans of his apartment with the COINTELPRO team. He then gave Hampton a dose of secobarbital that rendered Hampton unconscious during the raid on his home.[46]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
try saying "where can I read more about this topic" if you are interested in the topic, instead of "source?"
since "source?" has come to mean an adversarial relationship even if you aren't trying to discredit the person that had not left a source yet. it commonly appears where someone's worldview is not the same and is not willing to accept new information whether a source was provided later or not.
for now "source?" means "I'm not interested in what you have to say and will waste your time"
and "where can I read more about this topic" means "please provide canonical sources so I can learn more", ironically
It's an ecosystem problem. You can't fix it by telling individuals to change. For my part, I don't answer these questions until someone has done some research of their own.
Very polite, but also much more ambiguous. Instead getting a reference backing up the claims, you could get a reading list recommendation on black-white relations in the US.
here you just made up a word and I dont know what it means, what does it mean to you?
That behavior is Wikilawyering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
This tactic of course starts with the demand for sources; a very large amount of the statements in Wikipedia articles do not come with sources (which doesn’t mean the do or don’t exist) so it’s easy to sway the tone of the articles by selectively demanding sources for, and subsequently removing the parts that don’t fit your point of view.
> From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound (0.5 kg) bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[1]) made of FBI-supplied Tovex, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[5]
Do you have a source?
While taking responsibility, he always claimed he wasn't part of planning the specifics. FWIW I'm skeptical.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/10/when-i...
Although "black democrat" seems more relevant to some people than others and I'm not exactly sure why.
Does it mean that because black and democrat people do it too that its "more justified" because all combinations of people in power find reasons to use force against us residents including disportionately against the black ones, or that because they do it too its not a problem worth paying attention to because state violence perpetuated by non-black people could therefore not be a prejudiced, or something else? if it was a general issue with the state apparatus the race/ethnicity/political affiliation of the perpetrator would not be useful or relevant at all.
I've never really understood which point people thought they were making (assuming you were making one at all, it just looks like the similar points made in other discussion forums. like "look black people are killing each other so why spend any energy on this other issue I don't want you to spend energy on!")
The question is cause and effect. Terrible things happen for a variety of reasons - sometimes because leaders want terrible things and sometimes because leaders want good things but are fools - I won't try to list every possible reason.
The notion here is that a black mayor probably didn't want bad things to happen to blacks, so this specific incident probably was caused more by mistakes than malice on his part. Further, blacks and whites probably makes mistakes at similar rates. So, some incidents with white mayors may have also been caused my mistakes, not malice, we've now agreed there's a baseline level of mistake making.
The point is, intent matters. If Joe Biden passed the 94 crime bill because he hates blacks, that's different that Joe Biden passing the 94 crime bill because he thought it would do good, and turning out to be incorrect.
Fwiw, I've never understood how anybody could not get the point here. It's obvious, just incomplete and kinda hand wavy.
> It's obvious, just incomplete and kinda hand wavy.
So with it being incomplete and hand wavy you can’t see how anyone would assume any of my points either?
I’m going to wait for the person I initially replied to, to clarify
“Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers and neutralize them…”
I think I heard a shot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wauzrPn0cfg
Part 6 of the "Evidence of Revision" documentary goes into a great amount of detail about the problems with the official narrative of MLK's assassination: https://archive.org/details/EvidenceOfRevision_201610/Eviden...