|
I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them.
On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen.
If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it.
|
On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it.
I could go for Lula first. Baby steps.
|
|
|
On November 22 2019 03:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them. On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen. If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it. There is no quote needed that was the whole reason for the original much larger protests. and then I also already cited where he has now said he would not run again if they allowed him to finish his term, which both people in the original group of protesting do not believe and will not accept. And to neb, it is not that we are not listening, we are not agreeing totally different things. To agree we would have to ignore a bunch of facts that you keep avoiding.
(to add in to what Jimmi just wrote)
Don’t forget that before this was picked by Western media, there were almost three weeks of peaceful protests with a very large participation of middle class urban workers, students, non-MAS left and syndicates and CSOs (some close to MAS). The first reactions of Morales / his government were to make fun of this civic movement, to refuse systematically to call new elections or a run-off, to say protestors were paid by the US etc.
I think the attitude of Morales during these three weeks did a lot of damage, especially on the non-MAS left. Now I don’t think a lot of people would trust his words. Especially since he has been contradicting a lot in the last weeks (saying he would participate and then not).
|
On November 22 2019 03:56 Mo_tx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them. On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen. If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it. There is no quote needed that was the whole reason for the original much larger protests. and then I also already cited where he has now said he would not run again if they allowed him to finish his term, which both people in the original group of protesting do not believe and will not accept. And to neb, it is not that we are not listening, we are not agreeing totally different things. To agree we would have to ignore a bunch of facts that you keep avoiding. (to add in to what Jimmi just wrote) Don’t forget that before this was picked by Western media, there were almost three weeks of peaceful protests with a very large participation of middle class urban workers, students, non-MAS left and syndicates and CSOs (some close to MAS). The first reactions of Morales / his government were to make fun of this civic movement, to refuse systematically to call new elections or a run-off, to say protestors were paid by the US etc. I think the attitude of Morales during these three weeks did a lot of damage, especially on the non-MAS left. Now I don’t think a lot of people would trust his words. Especially since he has been contradicting a lot in the last weeks (saying he would participate and then not).
I was under the impression that he accepted new elections, meeting all of the demands from the OAS, hours after the report of the OAS where the demands were made was released, is my timeline wrong?
|
On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). Pretty sure most reports are that it was the opposition that burned downed several election buildings/ballots and the irregularities in percentages and reporting happen in the US too. The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power.
Well nobody knows the extent of these irregularities/fraud. In addition to server/software breaches and safety protocols, the OEA audit only examined a small sample of the tallys of votes (granted, they examined the ones for which fraud was the most likely, e.g. circonscriptions with 100+% participation or 99%+ votes for Morales), and among those, they found a relatively high percentage of invalid tally votes (more than 30%).
And if you have any source about the interim government denying to investigate further the elections, I would like to see it. Also the voting offices and instances were sacked and burnt almost three weeks after the “coup”. You cannot link these two events.
|
On November 22 2019 03:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 03:56 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them. On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen. If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it. There is no quote needed that was the whole reason for the original much larger protests. and then I also already cited where he has now said he would not run again if they allowed him to finish his term, which both people in the original group of protesting do not believe and will not accept. And to neb, it is not that we are not listening, we are not agreeing totally different things. To agree we would have to ignore a bunch of facts that you keep avoiding. (to add in to what Jimmi just wrote) Don’t forget that before this was picked by Western media, there were almost three weeks of peaceful protests with a very large participation of middle class urban workers, students, non-MAS left and syndicates and CSOs (some close to MAS). The first reactions of Morales / his government were to make fun of this civic movement, to refuse systematically to call new elections or a run-off, to say protestors were paid by the US etc. I think the attitude of Morales during these three weeks did a lot of damage, especially on the non-MAS left. Now I don’t think a lot of people would trust his words. Especially since he has been contradicting a lot in the last weeks (saying he would participate and then not). I was under the impression that he accepted new elections, meeting all of the demands from the OAS, hours after the report of the OAS where the demands were made was released, is my timeline wrong?
You are right, but it was only a couple of hours before his resignation (if I am being correct), and after the situation escalated. (Police defection, violent acts in Potosi). I think that for many protesters it came too late and sounded insincere.
|
On November 22 2019 03:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 03:56 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them. On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen. If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it. There is no quote needed that was the whole reason for the original much larger protests. and then I also already cited where he has now said he would not run again if they allowed him to finish his term, which both people in the original group of protesting do not believe and will not accept. And to neb, it is not that we are not listening, we are not agreeing totally different things. To agree we would have to ignore a bunch of facts that you keep avoiding. (to add in to what Jimmi just wrote) Don’t forget that before this was picked by Western media, there were almost three weeks of peaceful protests with a very large participation of middle class urban workers, students, non-MAS left and syndicates and CSOs (some close to MAS). The first reactions of Morales / his government were to make fun of this civic movement, to refuse systematically to call new elections or a run-off, to say protestors were paid by the US etc. I think the attitude of Morales during these three weeks did a lot of damage, especially on the non-MAS left. Now I don’t think a lot of people would trust his words. Especially since he has been contradicting a lot in the last weeks (saying he would participate and then not). I was under the impression that he accepted new elections, meeting all of the demands from the OAS, hours after the report of the OAS where the demands were made was released, is my timeline wrong?
I am also under this impression.
On November 22 2019 04:00 Mo_tx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). Pretty sure most reports are that it was the opposition that burned downed several election buildings/ballots and the irregularities in percentages and reporting happen in the US too. The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Well nobody knows the extent of these irregularities/fraud. In addition to server/software breaches and safety protocols, the OEA audit only examined a small sample of the tallys of votes (granted, they examined the ones for which fraud was the most likely, e.g. circonscriptions with 100+% participation or 99%+ votes for Morales), and among those, they found a relatively high percentage of invalid tally votes (more than 30%). And if you have any source about the interim government denying to investigate further the elections, I would like to see it. Also the voting offices and instances were sacked and burnt almost three weeks after the “coup”. You cannot link these two events.
There were to be investigations and another election and instead they seized power.
We're in agreement they rejected new internationally observed elections that Morales agreed to though at least right? The reports about the burning of election buildings came out in the following days not weeks later.
![[image loading]](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191022061611-02-bolivia-protests-1021-exlarge-169.jpg)
|
On November 22 2019 04:08 Mo_tx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 03:59 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 03:56 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 03:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:I've not seen a Morales quote against new internationally observed elections so I'd need a citation, but if he supported them when he lost power as you say, then that is confirming it was/is the people who seized power that refused/are refusing them. On November 22 2019 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2019 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2019 02:00 Mo_tx wrote:On November 22 2019 00:34 Nebuchad wrote:
One crucial flaw with Mo_Tx's explanation is that he argues that the CEPR and the OAS report don't necessarily contradict each other when most of the CEPR study is directly about contradicting the OAS study. Michael Brooks (another white youtuber) had two of the people behind the CEPR study on his show and one of them literally said that the pattern of Morales' votes increasing in the end was so consistent with expectations, polls and previous elections that he struggled to think the OAS was honestly concerned about it. To think that the two views can complement each other betrays a misunderstanding of one of the two.
But ok to be honest the CEPR directly contradicts (and targets) ONE of the following conclusion from the OAS report. “ Taking statistical projections into account, it is possible that candidate Morales came in first and candidate Mesa second. However, it is statistically unlikely that Morales obtained the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round.” The CEPR does not provide answers to all the other points mentioned by the OAS report, Jimmi or myself. I don't think anyone believes it was a wholly unquestionable election (that there was conclusively no fraud took place that benefited any particular candidate), as most aren't (kinda spamming US news with how illegitimate and vulnerable ours is). The only people that opposed investigations and another election are the people who seized power. Yes that's definitely consistent with my view, but I think we made that clear to everyone who is willing to listen. If it resulted in them supporting mass protests unseating the US president I might just be able to take it. There is no quote needed that was the whole reason for the original much larger protests. and then I also already cited where he has now said he would not run again if they allowed him to finish his term, which both people in the original group of protesting do not believe and will not accept. And to neb, it is not that we are not listening, we are not agreeing totally different things. To agree we would have to ignore a bunch of facts that you keep avoiding. (to add in to what Jimmi just wrote) Don’t forget that before this was picked by Western media, there were almost three weeks of peaceful protests with a very large participation of middle class urban workers, students, non-MAS left and syndicates and CSOs (some close to MAS). The first reactions of Morales / his government were to make fun of this civic movement, to refuse systematically to call new elections or a run-off, to say protestors were paid by the US etc. I think the attitude of Morales during these three weeks did a lot of damage, especially on the non-MAS left. Now I don’t think a lot of people would trust his words. Especially since he has been contradicting a lot in the last weeks (saying he would participate and then not). I was under the impression that he accepted new elections, meeting all of the demands from the OAS, hours after the report of the OAS where the demands were made was released, is my timeline wrong? No no this is correct, but it was only a couple of hours before his resignation (if I am being correct), and after the situation escalated. (Police defection, violent acts in Potosi). I think that for many protesters it came too late and sounded insincere.
Sure I understand that. These protesters aren't directly behind the coup, except for the overtly racist ones I see no reason to doubt their feelings or their actions.
|
|
|
There's $500 waiting for someone to get the OAS to answer questions on what multiple people have explained as completely reasonable voting patterns in Bolivia
More evidence: in the last three weeks, the OAS has refused to answer questions from journalists, on the record, about their statements or reports since the election.
Maybe they are afraid that a curious reporter would ask questions like these: Is there a difference between the political preferences of people who live in later-reporting areas as compared to earlier ones? Doesn’t this explain how Morales’s lead rose to more than 10% as votes from more pro-Morales areas came in? Did you even look at this question?
Since I am an economist, I believe in incentives: I am offering a $500 reward for the first journalist who can get a substantive answer to these questions from an OAS official, on the record. Even if turns out to be a lie.
www.marketwatch.com
|
You do realise that this is the guy from CEPR, right?
|
On November 22 2019 04:39 Mo_tx wrote:
You do realise that this is the guy from CEPR, right?
Yes?
|
Just to add insult to injury, amnesty international made a statement, and our govt AND THE ARMY denied it.
Yes, we are a country that denies those kinds of reports
What a lovely country
|
I feel insulted by half the country being burnt yesterday, with police just simply not showing up because they can't use firearms to stop flagrant criminals like in any civilized country.
The police seems totally overrun which will either end with civil war (we are starting to see this already) or the military deployed on the streets again, both being a massive scalation of the conflict that I do not want. The army NEVER issues statements, it is a political hint that something is wrong.
International Amnesty is a partisan organization. That said, I'm sure a lot of the stuff they said is accurate but that doesn't mean the police doesn't need to do its job in this critical situation.
"Peaceful spontaneous protests" started in Colombia yesterday, go figure. With chilean experience as a warning, the army, the police and armed civilians were deployed to protect cities it seems. Some subway stations were burnt though, almost as if it was coordinated !
|
On November 22 2019 21:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
I feel insulted by half the country being burnt yesterday, with police just simply not showing up because they can't use firearms to stop flagrant criminals like in any civilized country.
The police seems totally overrun which will either end with civil war (we are starting to see this already) or the military deployed on the streets again, both being a massive scalation of the conflict that I do not want. The army NEVER issues statements, it is a political hint that something is wrong.
International Amnesty is a partisan organization. That said, I'm sure a lot of the stuff they said is accurate but that doesn't mean the police doesn't need to do its job in this critical situation.
"Peaceful spontaneous protests" started in Colombia yesterday, go figure. With chilean experience as a warning, the army, the police and armed civilians were deployed to protect cities it seems. Some subway stations were burnt though, almost as if it was coordinated !
I guess you're in good company.
Half of the country is insulted by your statement.
Though I'm really curious as to how AI is a partizan organisation.
And what agenda they're actively / covertly pursuing that is not officially stated as their goal.
- reclaiming freedom - a world in which everyone knows and can claim their rights
- securing equal rights for all - a world in which human rights and justice are enjoyed without discrimination
- responding to crises - a world in which people are protected during conflict and crises
- ensuring accountability - a world in which human rights abusers are held accountable
- maximising our resources and engagement - we will be a truly global human rights movement of prople defending human rights for all
|
Norway28876 Posts
I mean the statement that amnesty international is a partisan organization implies that one party is clearly more guilty of human rights transgressions.. That is what they care about.
|
On November 22 2019 22:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean the statement that amnesty international is a partisan organization implies that one party is clearly more guilty of human rights transgressions.. That is what they care about.
Their national part belongs to "unidad nacional" which is the group of hard left groups that promotes all this mess.
They are a partisan organization against law and order because they only point out police faults, which obviously happen, and blow them out of proportion. Not a word about the 10 people burnt alive by other looters, or the poor guy stabbed to death for defending his business, etc.
Here are some videos about how pathetic the situation is; cops are not allowed to use any long range weapons to stop lootings and atacks towards them, so they are now simply throwing rocks back.
https://twitter.com/gustavohasbun/status/1197291340574404610?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1197291340574404610&ref_url=https://www.cronicachile.cl/2019/11/22/video-humillante-tras-retiro-de-escopeta-a-balines-carabineros-se-defienden-solo-con-las-piedras-que-les-arrojan-los-manifestantes/?fbclid=IwAR0QzEyQcnFFvXdpWiiZS_HxKruHVNH2qnYuK3EYVK12SI-2GzKT5K2sxUk
https://twitter.com/Elias_Parada_S/status/1197648863877832704?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1197648863877832704&ref_url=https://www.cronicachile.cl/2019/11/22/video-humillante-tras-retiro-de-escopeta-a-balines-carabineros-se-defienden-solo-con-las-piedras-que-les-arrojan-los-manifestantes/?fbclid=IwAR0QzEyQcnFFvXdpWiiZS_HxKruHVNH2qnYuK3EYVK12SI-2GzKT5K2sxUk
https://twitter.com/alvaro_concha/status/1197690529833598976?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1197690529833598976&ref_url=https://www.cronicachile.cl/2019/11/22/video-humillante-tras-retiro-de-escopeta-a-balines-carabineros-se-defienden-solo-con-las-piedras-que-les-arrojan-los-manifestantes/?fbclid=IwAR0QzEyQcnFFvXdpWiiZS_HxKruHVNH2qnYuK3EYVK12SI-2GzKT5K2sxUk
To be perfectly clear I don't want the police to shoot protestors. I want them to be able to shoot criminals in large groups atacking them and/or small groups burning entire buildings down. That's their fucking job, decent people don't have to be locked up in their homes scared to death hoping their working places are not burned.
Multiple police stations have been atacked by mobs and even then they can't shoot back, its ridiculous. The economic damage to the country is huge already, and if the rampant insecurity is not stoped the military will be deployed and we will have to lament a large death count. So far NO ONE has died the last 3 weeks but that could change any day.
Edit: For context, there are 2 THOUSAND injured cops, 500 currently hospitalized.
|
@Gotunk! please stop spreading biased misinformation.
- AI is not a partisan group. Just because you don´t like what someone says or stands for gives you right to define them.They are not against "law" and "order". No, I am not a leftist just because you want me to or because I don´t agree with you. No, I don´t support attacking the police as you implied on your previous post,
- Nobody has ever blown out of proportion police misconduct. Do you understand there are over 200 people with lost eyes because police chose to fire directly to the head instead of firing to the lower parts of the body?
https://ciperchile.cl/2019/11/11/lesiones-oculares-advertencias-ignoradas-durante-20-dias-podrian-ser-clave-en-proceso-penal-contra-pinera/
The main point is the use of force to harm people and not to control. There is enough evidence to support the police has been way above their power and right with several cases of tear gas shots fired to the body, beatings and other examples of malicious actions from the police.
- Decent people are NOT locked in their home. Chile is not under chaos and we are not living under an insecurity hell. Decent people protest and there is a small part of protesters that cause destruction.
-There is no reason to a civil war for the simple reasion there is nobody to go war against. I assume your fantasy of a civil war has the military on one side but they have nobody to fight against. Right wing people (which I assume you are a part of) keeps spreading the false anarchy and chaos theory. They want to create terror to prevent people from participating.
- Chile is not divided with half the people supporting the protests and half the people wanting "law and order". There is a very large mayority of people that protest in a civil and pacific manner. Stop your delusion of good and bad people, there is zero reason for you to insinuate a military intervention would impy to "lament a large deatch count", Stop the not so subtle terror message with statements like "NO ONE has died in the last 3 weeks but that could change any day".
- There have been very few attacks on police stations. Police retain right to use of deadly force in life or death situations and can shoot back. So far there is no account for actual firearm attacks on police from protesters. It is unreal that you call for the police to shoot on people stealing. Even under a mob attack on private property (because lets be honest 95% of what you call criminal attacks in large groups are supermarket lootings), use of deadly force is not justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
