This is great!
So, there's this superior snowflake who complains he can't peacefully protest in favour of the Endlösung and ethnic cleansing of the US. He proclaims how law-abiding he is while hiding from the police and trying to negotiate terms of surrender. Then he tells us he's not a violent person but is armed and ready to use his gun before things begin to get out of hand. All this while he is trying to fight back tears (transbullies are really mean, you guys) and making sure his pants match the color of his ideological shirt.
Totally made my day.
I have a final solution for his problems: just tell the cops you're too supreme to be arrested. After watching this video they'll surely agree and refrain from withholding your personal freedom and our unintended internet comedy.
Quick, superior snowflake, fly away before the Jew melts you to drink your tears!

NOBODY is saying anybody is heroes. I haven't read or saw any reports saying they were heroes, save for Fox who says that the media was. Just that people were counter protesting those sort of people the whole word fought a war to defeat.

What is happening is that Trump refuses to say just how fucking evil Nazis and the KKK are. He wouldn't do this if it was a Muslim who ran people over, nor would you. He, Fox, and all those on the right would all be saying how it proves how evil Islam is. By that standard, the fact they don't see how evil Nazis are, proves how evil Christianity is, if God won't convict you that Nazis are one of the greatest evils that ever existed... that anyone who isn't a fucking Nazi themselves, wouldn't call out the absolute shit that is a Nazi or KKK is, is reprehensible. I'm sure most Christians would take offense to such a statement, for such blanket blame of a few bad Nazis proving how evil Christianity is, but don't think twice blaming a terrorist act by a Muslim on the religion itself.

We got Republicans trying to push through laws that protect drivers who hurt or kill people who are peacefully protesting. As if the first amendment doesn't matter. Now, to be fair, most of those probably wouldn't protect the asshole who killed that lady down there, as he clearly had intent to hurt and kill.

Let's repeat the main point, there are no mainstream media saying any group is a hero. People may have called out the one lady as heroic, though it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for a White Supremacist asshole who killed her because she was protesting against White Supremacist like him. But NOBODY in the mainstream media is saying any groups are heroes. All we have is Fox saying as such, and trying to give fucking Nazis a pass for not being some of the most evil people ever. There's no fucking blame on both sides. The fact that we have such a blatantly racist President, with a White Supremacist in Bannon, has emboldened such hate groups, they are gloating how he wouldn't put them down, and then how he rolled back what he said Monday. They love that he's so clearly on their side of pure hate.

He wouldn't have waited days to condemn the violence if it was Muslims at the center. He'd have said something right away, talking about the dangers of radical Islam. He wouldn't have waited to get the facts, as he's proven time and time again. Nor would have the far right media machine like Fox.

Fuck anyone who would stand with the Nazis and the KKK. Fuck anyone who'd defend their hate.

The fact that the Republicans who could do anything about this asshole only have harsh words and won't start a hearing on conduct unbecoming a President, the fact that he's made us the laughing stock of the world, just shows how low the party and its supporters have gone.

Except, oops, there was no gun, and there was no threat, just a peaceful protester getting the shit beaten out of him by the crowd.
That said, had there been an actual threat, his just standing there dumbfounded would have given them plenty of time to steady, aim, and fire. Maybe next time.

The rozzers arrested a single (!) person during those clashes that saw 34 cops injured. One person. One. They arrested some 200 folks during a peaceful protest against open pit coal mining in Garzweiler last week.

But wait, it gets better. The only person they arrested in Heidenau was... this journalist/photographer.

The apparent unnecessary death of an individual, regardless of whether he was innocent or had committed a crime at some point prior is obviously wrong. The story however, should be about the larger issue:

1) Lack of police trust, presumption of culpability rather than belief that it was an accident.

2) Racially non-representative nature of the police force in the city relative to the populace that it is tasked with protecting.

3) Tone deafness of the city leadership in response to what is a public outcry, instead focussing on the criminal riot element that choose to take advantage of it.

4) Overt militarisation of the police force and overt use of military hardware in the face of largely peaceful protests.

Like every other case like this, the most likely outcome is the individual story will get disputed but the larger issues will be ignored. In fact, if anything, the riot will give credibility to the camp that wants to militarise the police.

Ugark first doubts the wisdom of bringing children to a peaceful protest inferring safety concerns maybe, and then show Mr. 'nice cop', 'for the children' cop, 'being taped and covered by media ' cop, with some lead-in to whatever clap-trap so predictable as to nauseate follows. No doubt, it's the 'bad cop' version of what cops are NOT supposed to be like. Fuck you.

All cops are felons, therefore.....What? They get a pass and the common-folk don't? Fuck you Cenk, and your alternative diatribe circle-jerk.

Sorry Timmy, they're are less 'good' cops than Lot and his old lady could find in the twin cities before they turned that bitch into salt!

And given the choice between moral and legal I'd like to think I'll never hesitate in choosing moral every time.

Your argument about nation's blood stained hands making any moral argument hypocritical I think goes to far. Your plenty right it's hypocritical for any nation state to declare "that was wrong and must be punished" when in virtually any given case every nation has likely got as bad and worse written throughout it's history. I object when you go further and then throw out the declaration "that was wrong and must punished" as not merely hypocritical to have been said, but acting as if the statement is then made false.

In the end the facts seem to clearly indicate that Assad used chemical weapons(with Russian made rockets) against his own people to hold onto his dictatorship. Personally, I believe that those of us who still listen to conscience are beholden to side against Assad. We needn't embrace any and all enemies of Assad, but at the least we should show solidarity with the moderates who started things off through peaceful protests. If America comes in and notes the exact same things, the hypocrisy of that DOES NOT make any of those facts less true.

Can you honestly tell me you deeply and truly believe it is in the best interests of the Syrian people for America and the rest of the world for that matter, to continue on the path of doing nothing but talk? You seem to have been around enough to appreciate that the UN will NEVER under any circumstances authorize force against Assad. Demanding we wait for UN approval is identical to demanding we do nothing to aid the Syrian people fighting Assad's forces which I just can't agree with.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

@enoch,

I think were we differ is the context from which we are looking at the conflict. You state a desire to see a political solution. Virtually every human on the planet would share that desire. You state a fear and desire to avoid military conflict, once again virtually all of us are agreed with you.

The trouble is I look at Syria, and the political solution was approached the most honestly, and productively while the opposition was mounting peaceful protests across the country. That effort towards a political resolution was ended alas by Assad's soldiers with military action. Pretty much exactly like his Father had before him. This time though it didn't end with a quick massacre pacifying the opposition but instead has escalated and progressed into the ongoing civil war.

From that context, I hear your call for a political resolution, and I feel it is at best wishful thinking and at worst cynical front to prevent any foreign protection of Assad's citizens from his armed forces. I hear your fears of military actions and the consequences they bring, but I see an existing and ongoing civil war already, and one which has in all probability seen the deployment of chemical weapons on civilian targets.

I can understand the fear of making things worse by getting involved, but just how many war crimes are you comfortable watching occur with NO reaction by the global community but talk? If we want to consider the expected actions of any world leader, from Obama through Putin through Assad, we can rest assured they will act in their own and/or their nations self interests. In Obama's case, he has an empowered public that can make his life difficult if he ignores them. That is not the position Assad is in. If Assad believes that chemical weapons will help him gain the edge in his conflict it is guaranteed he will use them. I deem it highly probable this recent attack was a test of what the world is willing to do in response, and if he doesn't think anyone will step up I fully expect him to continue.

People should actively revolt against pigs

if there ever is a civil war or a revolution it won't be against the government or a race war or some other bullshit, it will be people finally having enough of this god complex law enforcement and the people will turn against them. Start lining pigs up and executing or tasing their ass in public and making them squeal like the pigs they are in mass across the country will be only way to change things

peaceful protest does nothing but get people beat by police in riot gear

Sorry, but Ching is right. There is no need to talk about this in terms of civil war, especially since that isn't even close to what this was showing.

A crowd, in particular because of its size, has its own weaknesses. It is naive to assume that large numbers mean that the police can not control or influence a protest. In fact, that is exactly what riot police train for: leveraging their small numbers and sophisticated weaponry against unprepared and untrained masses in order to achieve their objective. A successful protest and/or revolutionary group must know how to counteract the intimidation and violence of security services and their weaponry.

This is not 1920s India or 1960s USA. Pure nonviolent resistance does not spark moral outrage or wider, sustained support among the public nor does it create shame within the police and army that attack these movements. This is the 21st century, the neoliberal project is much more entrenched and will fight harder to hold on to that power. As I've learned from experience, it is ineffective and irresponsible to participate in peaceful protests and movements without considering the reaction of the state and preparing for it through training and equipment.

Perhaps you've gone out on a march once or sat in a park hearing some people talking about big ideas, but until you spend days, weeks and months actively resisting the powers that be, you don't really understand what happens in the streets.

Yes, there are many, many examples of responsible gun ownership. Nobody is questioning that, and I count many good friends as examples.

The problem is that our society does not just accept guns, it is obsessed with guns, it looks at guns with hungry eyes and it latches tenaciously to the false sense of security given by unbridled ownership. It wants guns in more variety, with more capabilities and in larger quantities than any sane citizen could ever use.

And this has effects.

These excesses find use in Mexico. These excesses find use in gang warfare, school shootings, domestic disputes, armed robberies and at least on a more personally felt level, these excesses reflect a value system of fear, mistrust and isolation that I detest.

Give me one example of a high capacity magazine being both necessary and properly used in self defense. I want you to give me an example of one person unloading more than ten rounds against aggressors, and doing so in a situation that legally warrants it and was necessitated by circumstance (freaking out and shooting rounds indiscriminately does not count).

Give me one example of government over-reach being suppressed primarily by personal firearms. I'll even let you look around the world and as far back as the early 20th century for examples - I think you'll find that armed internal conflicts tend to sway with the military's whims or with external support.

For each instance of high capacity magazine use, I will give you ten instances of mass shootings made possible in part by their existence.

For each instance of successful armed civic insubordination, I will give you a hundred examples of change being accomplished with nothing more than a pen, a voice or a peaceful protest.

The problem here is that though gun owners are frequently responsible on an individual basis, their overall view on the utility of these tools in our society is completely out of line with the reality of a modern world. This is what gun control should be about: diluting these fantasies.

Everyone who cares must eventually reject evil. What troubles me is all the harm you'll cause in your years of denial. If you want to see a cop under a lot of pressure just watch what happens when I get my hands on them.

Yeah, Trevor Brown is pretty cool.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Just because I condemn riot police ripping into peaceful protesters does not mean I adhere to the "fuck the cops/fascist police state" mentality. Moreover, it's useful to remember that the cops themselves are under a lot of pressure: http://videosift.com/video/Secret-Recording-of-NYPD-Stop-and-Frisk

edit: completely unrelated, but I just had to say that I love your new avatar pic

Just because I condemn riot police ripping into peaceful protesters does not mean I adhere to the "fuck the cops/fascist police state" mentality. Moreover, it's useful to remember that the cops themselves are under a lot of pressure: http://videosift.com/video/Secret-Recording-of-NYPD-Stop-and-Frisk

edit: completely unrelated, but I just had to say that I love your new avatar pic
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
Your ignorance/paranoia speaks for itself.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Fuck everything about this. I usually am very pro- law enforcement but this isn't law enforcement, this is totalitarian oppression. And yes, it is mostly "the rich"'s fault. It's the fault of those who gamble with the funds and resources of whole populations and then get reimbursed when they lose their bets by robbing said populations blind. Spain is doing what the Rethuglicans in the US are doing and want to do even further: raise taxes on the poor and middle class and cut the most vital social spending (education and health) so they can pay debts caused by criminal banking shenanigans and fill their thieving pockets. Keep the people poor, hungry and uneducated so you can have an easily manipulated mass to generate riches for a tiny elite, who have the government solidly in their pocket. It's the middle ages all over again.

THIS. I'm sick of this partisan horseshit. This isn't about Red vs. Blue. This is about America becoming the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. We torture, we assassinate, we hold people indefinitely without trial or even bringing charges. We we spy on our own people, curtail free speech by having free speech zones, and send in the police to break up peaceful protests. We're the bad guys now. It's shameful and I'm against any person and any party who supports such actions.

>> ^NobleOne:

I am just going to leave this right here.
http://videosift.com/video/Wake-the-F-ck-Up-A-Rebuttal