Having tweeted Americans should "arm themselves to defend rights" so as to "end any politician or lobbyist" who are "collaborators", Brian O'Shea says its a typo (?). 'Stalkers' lost their minds" by imagining any openness to violence in literal call to arms against collaborators
I am left unclear as to how the priority given to procuring guns (as well as to using cash) would help in what is now (thankfully) an entirely non-violent advocacy of how to defend rights and save the free world from any politician or any lobbyist identified as a "collaborator"
He tweeted that on Jan 6th, the day a Stop the Steal march on the capital went from protest to violent insurrection, with some taking weapons. If he may have been tweeting earlier that afternoon, it should help demonstrate why incendiary rhetoric is dangerous in heightened times.
'I never thought I'd be the one to say this' appears to be about the taking up of weapons to defend rights. That would seem to be an odd and unnecessary prelude to 'use your vote' or 'write letters' or 'donate to campaigns and candidates' wouldn't it?

2 days after that insurrection, O'Shea continued to tweet about how nobody could be say unless both the Chinese Communist Party and its "collaborators" are "eliminated"

We should champion human rights & challenge the Chinese dictatorship. This language is OTT and dangerous
This is his on reflection reworking of his tweet.

The nature of the armed actions with which "Americans need to arm themselves to defend rights" against the "many collaborators on left and right" does retain a considerable ambiguity, despite careers being added in "end careers"
He has specifically identified some major broadcasters - ABC and CNN - as "collaborators", who he believes need to be eliminated
If intended to be merely rhetorical, good to make two further changes
* ditch the explicit call to "arm themselves" (weapons)
* make robust points in less incendiary language. (Eg "oppose""defeat" "remove", rather than "end" and "eliminate")."Allies" not "collaborators" (treason)
These seem to me reasonable calls to make on everybody, reflecting on the events of 6th Jan, to avoid incendiary political rhetoric.

(US context differs given context of 2nd amendment. But calls to *use arms to secure political ends* are the problem of legitimising violence)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sunder Katwala

Sunder Katwala Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sundersays

13 Jan
This is certainly arguable. (A lot of people argue it).

Different types of claim - principled/ethical ones, and consequential ones (about impact of various courses of action or inaction). It would be interesting to look seriously at what we might predict about the latter.
Mostly people say "this is right - and it will work" or "this feels wrong - and it won't work" which means those two debates get conflated.

Though there are contexts when there is an explicit sense of, for example, a Peace versus Justice trade-off (eg after civil wars).
The most plausible intuition against impeachment is "just 13 days" & also that the current heightened atmosphere could do with defusing.

But that might make a good case for a slower impeachment (or other process). Indictment in office, and trial beyond it.
Read 7 tweets
13 Jan
A tweeter called magalawbrian who claims to be an associate of Powell and Wood sees Trump using the Jan 20th inauguration as a Stop the Steal sting operation, using Space Force. (A revival of the "SCIF" conspiracy theory, where Trump exposes the plot in Scooby Doo style). ImageImageImage
It would be interesting to see polling on support for fraud claims (35%) and/or Jan 6th insurrection (which has been 10-20%) segmented by
- have or have not heard/seen claims that Trump has a plan
- believe Trump can emerge President by Jan 20th (or eg March 5th).
Read 5 tweets
12 Jan
How do we solve a problem like Maajid Nawaz, given what now appears to have become a journey to re-radicalisation?

Your advice please - on how some dangers may be averted.

I've been chronicling this but want to step back, by late Jan. So a few ideas on how others might help.
"Don't feed the trolls" is often good advice. There are limits to how much anyone can worry about online misinformation.

I see these 3 reasons why Mr Nawaz is a different case to AN Other tweeters

They may suggest some 'horses for courses' approaches to who could address what. Image
In November, I thought this was a knockabout online politics debate: was saying Trump could win the Presidency, after Nov 4th, just clutching at straws?

The content in last 3 days & since Jan 5th has been much worse. Hitting a dangerous new low today
Read 26 tweets
12 Jan
How to foment radicalisation online.

"Watch Mike Pompeo" is the code to Anerican Patriots

It is about creating a heightened sense of excitement about a major event to change the outcome.

Similar method to the Jan 6th march Image
The clearly now re-radicalised Maajid Nawaz is on message, tweeting "every 30 minutes"

This is what all the QAnon and pro-Trump networks have been asked to do.

We really must see @LBC & @QuilliamOrg finally stage some intervention after 2 months of increasing reradicalisation Image
Few of the contributors to the China conspiracy letter have any Covid Covid credentials. Most have championed the Trump fraud claims. The glossy video suggest the letter's timing may be coordinated rather than coincidental Image
Read 24 tweets
12 Jan
As the director of @QuilliamOrg @MaajidNawaz should today disassociate from this toxicly anti-Muslim coauthor of his China's Covid Conspiracy open letter to the FBI and MI5. Could @davidtoube & others please apply their principles to this v clear case?
It is a small group of 10 people who coauthored or consigned the letter Image
This is Sabhlok, one of the group of 10 with Nawaz (director of Quilliam) and Dolan (of KBF). He has a full house of strange and cranky views and no boundaries against overt anti-Muslim prejudice
Read 5 tweets
12 Jan
Another good & well argued piece about the need for vigilance about the corrosive danger of political and other conspiracy theories.
It's good to see pro-Leave voices making this accurate distinction. The conflation of Trump fraud claims and violence/Remain campaigns is mainly childish knockabout politics for clicks that therefore fails to take the foundations of democracy seriously
Its legit to make arguments like: the Leave campaign made promises they couldn't keep. Or second referendum campaign deserved to suffer because democratic case for implementing first vote before rejoin debate.

But have to accept outcomes of process
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!