Damn brehs another brother killed by Houston police shot 10 times R.I.P Alva Braziel

[3rd Ward Swangin]

In Houston, if you're white, you can shoot at the cops and live to tell about it.

That's everywhere in America.

 

[Box Cutta]

I can't even keep up with these murderous pigs at this point.

 

[Kiyoshi-Dono]

Was listening to 97.9 The Boxx going to work yesterday..
They had the interim head pig in charge talking all this shyt about him being drunk, etc...
Nothing she said matches the tape.
shyt really my makes my stomach turn.
Truly been angry since Saturday.
This shyt weighs on your mind.
All we want is to live, maybe raise a family and enjoy our friends.
Just think how fast someone can lie on you and your whole world changes within seconds.
It's been happening forever and every time I see #alllivesmatter/#bluelivesmatter..
My rage grows infinite..

 

[3rd Ward Swangin]

Was listening to 97.9 The Boxx going to work yesterday..
They had the interim head pig in charge talking all this shyt about him being drunk, etc...
Nothing she said matches the tape.
shyt really my makes my stomach turn.
Truly been angry since Saturday.
This shyt weighs on your mind.
All we want is to live, maybe raise a family and enjoy our friends.
Just think how fast someone can lie on you and your whole world changes within seconds.
It's been happening forever and every time I see #alllivesmatter/#bluelivesmatter..
My rage grows infinite..

Remind of the case in Brooklyn where even the store owner lied for the off duty cop but at least he been stripped of his badge and gun.I think the Officer is black though. I believe Alva was on Water tripping but he stopped immediately and put his hands up.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

nikkas ain't got no slingshots on here. And wouldn't know how to operate em offensively defensively if they did. Grandstanding ass sheep being led to the slaughter.

This.

They think they gonna beat the cops/government . Fool they got the president on they side. You wanna see Obama shut down Chiraq? Let those gangs kill a Buncha cops. That shyt would be cleaned up in a week or less.

I don't know the answer but killing cops ain't it.

Not only are black people gonna lose but it's a reason to justify killing black people on top of the bullshyt reason they already use.

 

[krackdagawd]

Was listening to 97.9 The Boxx going to work yesterday..
They had the interim head pig in charge talking all this shyt about him being drunk, etc...
Nothing she said matches the tape.
shyt really my makes my stomach turn.
Truly been angry since Saturday.
This shyt weighs on your mind.
All we want is to live, maybe raise a family and enjoy our friends.
Just think how fast someone can lie on you and your whole world changes within seconds.
It's been happening forever and every time I see #alllivesmatter/#bluelivesmatter..
My rage grows infinite..

If you have any melanin at all and aren't furious damn near at all times in this country something is wrong with you. At his point im plotting my escape fam. Cacs are racist everywhere but ain't no race soldiers shooting nikkas down left and right in Canada.

 

[lotteryplaya]

They shouldn't have had his ass look directly into the fukking camera.. would made it more believable

Do the Zoolander Blue Steel look while allegedly getting arrested brehs.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The cacs that went to South Africa were from the Netherlands, not Britain

Learn your history, man.

White people from Britain AND the Netherlands lived in South Africa. The descendants of the Dutch ruled a couple minor colonies in the 1880s, but lost both of them to the British in the late 1800s in the "Boer Wars". When Gandhi was successfully using non-violent techniques to get his people rights in South Africa in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he was fighting against the British government, not the Dutch. The system of apartheid against Black people in South Africa was fully realized under the British government, which South Africa did not get independence from until 1961. At that point the ANC had already been fighting against it for 40 years, often violently. Even after independence, while there were many Dutch people in South Africa, there were also a lot of British people and they were continuing the system of apartheid that the British had established. The current White population of South African is split between descendants of the Dutch and descendants of the British something like 60-40.

Violent and non-violent methods need not be mutually exclusive.

"The ballot paper in one hand and the Armalite in the other"

You've cited some distant, incompatible examples, how cant you compare India 70 years ago to the US? How about Britain just 20 years ago...


The Docklands Bomb Executing Peace

The British became complacent and overconfident once the IRA silenced the guns "decommission weapons then we negotiate on a settlement " they said.

IRA grew tired, ended ceasefire and exploded central London...suddenly it became "bring back the ceasefire then we negotiate "


So no, an old school milita trying to overthrow the White House would not work. But nothing spooks a modern Western government more than having their shyt fooked with.

Except that the IRA had been using violence for literally decades. You point to one violent incident (large bomb, two people died) for spurring a negotiation, but don't point out that the IRA had literally thousands of violent incidents before then that had only made their situation worse.

And do you think the IRA won in the end? 30 years of violence, 3,500+ people killed (mostly civilians, and most of the civilians Catholic) and 50,000+ injured, entire generations of Catholic men growing up in prison and entire Catholic communities under martial law for years, massive unemployment and housing problems throughout the warzone, and for what?

* The Queen is STILL in control of Northern Ireland.

* The government is power-sharing, but pro-Britain forces STILL have the majority.

* The IRA disbanded and gave up all their weapons in exchange for some police reforms and the army leaving (which they never would have been there if the IRA hadn't gone the violence route in the first place).

* Northern Ireland is full of social issues due to basically having a lost generation. Every effect you can have of fathers getting killed or imprisoned, families made homeless, social disruption from warfare, you have there. Alcoholism rampant, suicide rates out of control (which studies have connected directly to the regions of violence), broken families extremely common, teenage pregnancy way above the rest of Ireland, unemployment still extremely high. Education and skills are low because so many people had their schooling/careers interrupted for so long.


The Troubles are a textbook example of why violence doesn't work on both sides. The government was oppressive, the Catholics responded with violence, the Protestants and the government ramped up violence in return, and everybody got screwed over. The most violent years were actually the late 1960s and early 1970s, where both sides kept ramping up the violence each year and getting nothing in return. No progress was made until people on both sides simply got tired of dying and killing and began looking for another way out. You read the accounts of IRA foot soldiers, they didn't stop fighting because they thought they got what they wanted, they stopped fighting because they were weary and they didn't feel like the fighting was doing any good. You look at it from the government side, they didn't stop the ultra-violence reactions of the early 1970s because they were afraid of the IRA, they stopped because it was clearly useless. The one bomb you're talking about, a tiny fraction of the total causalities of the war, came decades after the major portion of the violence.




This is why the pro-violence advocates always think they win these arguments:

1) Toss out every example of non-violence, ever, as irrelevant. I casually referred to over a dozen different examples covering over 100 years, with most of them in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but let's just ignore that and say "India 70 years ago" as if that was the only example I gave.

2) Ignore every time violence failed.

3) Point to some tiny instance where violence succeeds, and act like that speaks for everything.


Ignore that the examples of nonviolence succeeding AND of violence failing are both far larger. All you need is one little anecdote to prove what you already believe anyway.

They been doing this shyt all around the world and at home for an eternity, if we try to protect our communities or speak out we get targeted by the public and Feds alike. You can't dehumanise someone that's already dehumanised themselves. blacks been protesting since before civil rights, it hasn't achieved equality yet. Let's not act like black lives aren't worth fighting for.


India tho? Really man India?

When the hell did you get the idea that "protesting" is what nonviolent action is about? Nonviolent action is FAR bigger than that. But people have to be willing to give themselves and actually make sacrifices to make it happen.

MLK's civil rights movement got political access, economic access, education access to a degree that was unprecedented in Black America (though not forgetting the minor bit of light that came in the 1870s). Do you even remember that before the 1960s, nobody Black was voting in the South? It permanently changed the complexion of both of the major parties in American politics. MLK forced LBJ to sign a document that would lose the South for the Democratic Party forever.

The Civil Rights Movement didn't end because nonviolent action stopped working. It ended because people thought they had gotten enough of what they wanted and weren't willing to try hard enough anymore. Too many people in the community aren't willing to do shyt to advance the community, and the people who actually have work ethic are often too focused on making money. A real fight means that you make economic sacrifices, personal sacrifices, and that you have to work HARD. Everyone understands that violence entails this (which is why so few people are willing to be violent either unless it is self-serving), but it's been so long now since there was a meaningful revolution in this country that people have forgotten the nonviolent movements take work too. Standing around with a sign and yelling things ain't mean crap unless it's part of a broader effort.


And why is India not worth mentioning? You think Indians can defeat White government with nonviolence, but the Black community can't?

And there were dozens of other examples, including South Africa and the USA.

 

[DynamoEAR]

Was listening to 97.9 The Boxx going to work yesterday..
They had the interim head pig in charge talking all this shyt about him being drunk, etc...
Nothing she said matches the tape.
shyt really my makes my stomach turn.
Truly been angry since Saturday.
This shyt weighs on your mind.
All we want is to live, maybe raise a family and enjoy our friends.
Just think how fast someone can lie on you and your whole world changes within seconds.
It's been happening forever and every time I see #alllivesmatter/#bluelivesmatter..
My rage grows infinite..

You gonna learn about how these Mexicans around H-Town that are just are racist as cacs. Especially Latino cops. Most haven't said a single thing about what's been happening. One of them posted a "Why is everybody complaining" nowadays post and I hit that delete button with the quickness.

 

[Sage]

Learn your history, man.


And why is India not worth mentioning? You think Indians can defeat White government with nonviolence, but the Black community can't?

And there were dozens of other examples, including South Africa and the USA.

I have seen you before,

The agenda here is to keep the "black" docile and feeble, yes. Take heed now, you facking parasite. The "black" community dictates in which manners to go about this matter. Not you, nor any other pretentious "cac". Be grateful about the fact that I'm not one of the moderator in this site - you would have been banished...

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

The Indians also VASTLY outnumbered the Brits, so Britain really had no option but to give in. It's not comparable to the plight of AA's at all.

 

[Kiyoshi-Dono]

You gonna learn about how these Mexicans around H-Town that are just are racist as cacs. Especially Latino cops. Most haven't said a single thing about what's been happening. One of them posted a "Why is everybody complaining" nowadays post and I hit that delete button with the quickness.

Trust breh..
I know..
That's why I rarely interact with them.

 

[Patrick Kane]

The Indians also VASTLY outnumbered the Brits, so Britain really had no option but to give in. It's not comparable to the plight of AA's at all.

In addition to WWII ending and the British dominance weakening throughout the world, they really couldn't hold on to their colonies anymore. Context matters..

 

[Lord Beasley]

lol dude is dumb as shyt

Nah, just some of the brehs on the board act like we're the only ones getting shot. It would make more sense to post a chart directly compared to the population. But be dumb breh.

 

[IrateMastermind]

Learn your history, man.

White people from Britain AND the Netherlands lived in South Africa. The descendants of the Dutch ruled a couple minor colonies in the 1880s, but lost both of them to the British in the late 1800s in the "Boer Wars". When Gandhi was successfully using non-violent techniques to get his people rights in South Africa in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he was fighting against the British government, not the Dutch. The system of apartheid against Black people in South Africa was fully realized under the British government, which South Africa did not get independence from until 1961. At that point the ANC had already been fighting against it for 40 years, often violently. Even after independence, while there were many Dutch people in South Africa, there were also a lot of British people and they were continuing the system of apartheid that the British had established. The current White population of South African is split between descendants of the Dutch and descendants of the British something like 60-40.






Except that the IRA had been using violence for literally decades. You point to one violent incident (large bomb, two people died) for spurring a negotiation, but don't point out that the IRA had literally thousands of violent incidents before then that had only made their situation worse.

And do you think the IRA won in the end? 30 years of violence, 3,500+ people killed (mostly civilians, and most of the civilians Catholic) and 50,000+ injured, entire generations of Catholic men growing up in prison and entire Catholic communities under martial law for years, massive unemployment and housing problems throughout the warzone, and for what?

* The Queen is STILL in control of Northern Ireland.

* The government is power-sharing, but pro-Britain forces STILL have the majority.

* The IRA disbanded and gave up all their weapons in exchange for some police reforms and the army leaving (which they never would have been there if the IRA hadn't gone the violence route in the first place).

* Northern Ireland is full of social issues due to basically having a lost generation. Every effect you can have of fathers getting killed or imprisoned, families made homeless, social disruption from warfare, you have there. Alcoholism rampant, suicide rates out of control (which studies have connected directly to the regions of violence), broken families extremely common, teenage pregnancy way above the rest of Ireland, unemployment still extremely high. Education and skills are low because so many people had their schooling/careers interrupted for so long.


The Troubles are a textbook example of why violence doesn't work on both sides. The government was oppressive, the Catholics responded with violence, the Protestants and the government ramped up violence in return, and everybody got screwed over. The most violent years were actually the late 1960s and early 1970s, where both sides kept ramping up the violence each year and getting nothing in return. No progress was made until people on both sides simply got tired of dying and killing and began looking for another way out. You read the accounts of IRA foot soldiers, they didn't stop fighting because they thought they got what they wanted, they stopped fighting because they were weary and they didn't feel like the fighting was doing any good. You look at it from the government side, they didn't stop the ultra-violence reactions of the early 1970s because they were afraid of the IRA, they stopped because it was clearly useless. The one bomb you're talking about, a tiny fraction of the total causalities of the war, came decades after the major portion of the violence.




This is why the pro-violence advocates always think they win these arguments:

1) Toss out every example of non-violence, ever, as irrelevant. I casually referred to over a dozen different examples covering over 100 years, with most of them in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but let's just ignore that and say "India 70 years ago" as if that was the only example I gave.

2) Ignore every time violence failed.

3) Point to some tiny instance where violence succeeds, and act like that speaks for everything.


Ignore that the examples of nonviolence succeeding AND of violence failing are both far larger. All you need is one little anecdote to prove what you already believe anyway.






When the hell did you get the idea that "protesting" is what nonviolent action is about? Nonviolent action is FAR bigger than that. But people have to be willing to give themselves and actually make sacrifices to make it happen.

MLK's civil rights movement got political access, economic access, education access to a degree that was unprecedented in Black America (though not forgetting the minor bit of light that came in the 1870s). Do you even remember that before the 1960s, nobody Black was voting in the South? It permanently changed the complexion of both of the major parties in American politics. MLK forced LBJ to sign a document that would lose the South for the Democratic Party forever.

The Civil Rights Movement didn't end because nonviolent action stopped working. It ended because people thought they had gotten enough of what they wanted and weren't willing to try hard enough anymore. Too many people in the community aren't willing to do shyt to advance the community, and the people who actually have work ethic are often too focused on making money. A real fight means that you make economic sacrifices, personal sacrifices, and that you have to work HARD. Everyone understands that violence entails this (which is why so few people are willing to be violent either unless it is self-serving), but it's been so long now since there was a meaningful revolution in this country that people have forgotten the nonviolent movements take work too. Standing around with a sign and yelling things ain't mean crap unless it's part of a broader effort.


And why is India not worth mentioning? You think Indians can defeat White government with nonviolence, but the Black community can't?

And there were dozens of other examples, including South Africa and the USA.

You came to the wrong site if you think evidence, logic and facts are going to add value to a debate.