408
Omar Warns Trump Aims to Provoke Enough Agitation in Minnesota So He Can Declare 'Martial Law'
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
408 points (98.8% liked)
News
35749 readers
3046 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you read my comment as somehow promoting violence or even romanticizing it in some way.
There are things I agree with in your comment and things I disagree with. But I don't think it's meaningful to discuss that because you seem to have taken my comment in the wrong way from the very start.
I am was not describing what I want to happen, or what works in bringing about radical change (though history tells us that is almost always through some form of violenct resistance). I was simply explaining what happens when a society subject to state violence is backed into a corner. It was almost a plea to not bring our society to that inevitable stage. Something that "protest peacefully" leaders with zero action are contributing to.
I think maybe you should reread my comment with that perspective. Then maybe you'd have a more meaningful response.
I think you may also have a better grasp on it if, instead, you widened your scope a bit more. You seem to be stuck in a very short timeframe of historical reference in which you're comparing to. You should widen your scope to include the rise of major fascist powers. Limiting yourself to comparing events within your lifetime or even recent American history is definitely limiting your ability to apply historical materialist understanding of what is going on. Though, I do think you are thinking correctly, you are not really able to describe or grasp what is going on fully.
There is no point in telling people to "arm themselves in their homes". When, inevitably, after 100s of armed people are killed in their homes the remaining armed people will realize that, they are stronger together. And waiting for the state violence to come to their door is just puting them at a disadvantage for no reason other than some vague notion of a moral society and state that, clearly, no longer exists.
When will YOU ask yourself: Why am I advocating for people to defend themselves, but only after it reaches them personally while they are alone in their home?
Because that time WILL come for you. It just hasn't yet. But for many people that have experienced the state violence first hand. It already has. And those that live through it aren't going to fight back alone in their home. They are going to get organized.
You're puting an arbitrary restriction on resistance to state violence that does nothing but help to make that state violence easier to carry out.
Arbitrary restriction? I'm not restricting anything. Everyone reading this is free to do whatever they want. For now, anyway.
What is this tremendous power I have to stop you from going out and antagonizing ICE yourself?
Again, name any violent protest in recent history that has done anything but made matters worse. Even Minneapolis and Portland, the two American cities with the greatest violence in 2020-2023 have learned that violence doesn't work. That's why they're not going that route this time.
When will YOU ask yourself why you have to put words that I did not say in my mouth for you to have a rebuttal? Why are you making vague claims to historical precedent without ever being specific? Why are you widening the scope of what I actually said to cover ideas and positions I did not state and do not actually possess?
I said exactly what I meant to say and I stopped there. Again, you and anyone else are free to go out and harass ICE yourself if you think that's so wise, but you are dead wrong to incite others to do it for you, or to even suggest that it is a winning strategy when if it were you'd be able to cite at least one recent example of that.
You have nothing, or you'd have brought it already. And you can't, because it just doesn't exist. For myself, I linked to the actual court decisions where non-violent protests ARE working, TODAY.
You're not arguing in good faith. I said what I have to say. Good night.
You spent the entire first comment explaining how "it's not time yet" and then ended with and advocated for not fighting back.
First, we're discussing what you are advocating for mate. No one with a brain thinks that you individually have power. You're playing dumb to avoid standing on your original point.
Second, if you think people are going out and antagonizing ICE, you are hopeless. The fact that you even use that word makes it clear you don't take seriously (or don't understand) the degree of state violence that is being done. There is no antagonizing an invasion of what are essentially SS troops.
Not sure why you're trying to ignore the entire thesis and conclusion of your own comment.
I think it's pretty clear I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm literally just quoting you mate. You're the one backing down with "people can do what they want".
The difference between our comments is this:
YOU are ADVOCATING for something. You are telling people to not be violent in response to state violence. "It's not time yet". Here, look at this hyperfocused example of Portland. Ignoring all of the violent resistance that occured in Portland at that time.
YOU are telling people to only resort to self defense on an individual basis if they are attacked inside their homes.
I AM explaining why what is happening will inevitably lead to individual acts of violence if no action is taken by the state government in response to the federal governments violence.
I AM saying (not advocating because I would never ever call for it because that's I'm sure against the rules here) that organizing that individual violence into what essentially an armed resistance is a much more effective form of resistance.
You, clearly haven't experienced that violence first hand. It's why you keep telling people to go protest peacefully. If you went to a protest, you'd realize that is not something that is even possible now in Minnesota. You're standing on the sidelines telling the quarterback what to do, when you've never even touched a football.
Go to Minnesota. Take a pepper bomb to the face. Then tell me how long you'll keep going back and being "peaceful" as they add 1000 more troops today.