False equivalence. Try harder.
Discussion
It's a corporate property right? How is that false equivalence Winston?
Because they are two completely different contexts lol You're comparing domestic property damage of a private party to damage of weapons factories during a war where the affected country was destroying other people's property. A war and conflict they started. I'm talking about a domestic issue where domestic inhabitants are violently destroying the property of others protected under the same rules of law. Those are very obviously two completely different scenarios if you take thirty seconds and a few brain cells to think about it.
This clearly isn't going anywhere useful and I've made my position clear enough. Peace
So you are saying destroying corporate property is okay in certain context right?
You wanted a discussion but then you run away?
In a completely different context that has nothing to do with this one. I already admitted that you're putting forward a dishonest and fallacious argument. You've proven nothing else. Again, it's been real. But peace out.
So you are saying it's okay to destroy corporate property in certain context, in a context where the corporation is involved in some nefarious activity.
Now, US corporations are involved in many nefarious/immoral activities and specifically in this instance, in supplying government information on who to "Gestapo-away", or surveiling neighbourhoods with those cars.
People who are targeted by this have every right to destroy such corporation's property, I am sure you agree.
Now that you learned something, maybe go read more about who Winston Churchill really was, so you can avoid the embarrassment stemming from admiring this man...
Peace out.