He was a man trying to protect his land and livelihood. What's so far-right about that? Wouldn't *every* ideology -- except maybe communalists -- feel the same?
He led a terrorist attack, in a state he didn't live in, on land he had no livelihood in.
Zeus posted...
BlackScythe0 posted...
The administration stated the only way to apply for asylum was through official ports of entry.
The violence happened because they also refused to process any applications at official ports of entry.
I got upset too when I first saw the footage and was in a very "they deserve it" point of view when people were crying about children getting gassed. But then I learned the conflict was intentionally set up by the administration. We have procedures and processes to deal with these situations, instead he halted those procedures and lined up people on the border to try getting some friendly photo ops to help him with his racist message.
You say that now, but we know that you wanted them walked across the border and set up in five-star hotels at taxpayer expense =p