An article entitled “Black Lives Matter is a revolutionary peace movement” has come out on sbs.com. And whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, it seems strange that a group the FBI lists as “engaging in terrorist activities, that have rioted on the streets, beaten people for being white, and has connections to the shooting of police officers can be described as “a peace movement” is purely idiotic.
Do they not remember the five police officers shot in Dallas at a BLM rally? They may argue that it had nothing to do with their movement, but then shouldn't the same logic apply to Charlottesville? I happen to think that the racists in Charlottesville all have some share of responsibility for the tragic murder that took place there, and BLM should accept responsibility in the same way.
In fact, wasn't BLM founded by someone who murdered a cop and is on the most wanted list?
And what of the violent rioting that takes place on an almost weekly basis? The crowds of people beaten for not being the right color?
The article says “In 2012 Trayvon Martin was shot for ‘looking suspicious’. Was he? I thought (as did the courts), that Trayvon Martin was shot in self-defense whilst he was in the process of banging someone's head on the ground?
The writer (who appears to be a member) also says, “For a movement to grow, it must be organic, flowing from the hearts of the people.” So is she saying that BLM DOES NOT receive funds directly from George Soros? Nothing Soros does is “organic” or “from the heart.”
Is there a problem with institutionalized racism? Maybe? No evidence has been shown, but even if there were, this is no excuse for the abhorrent violence being committed by BLM members and supporters.