| > attack and invasion Aren't all protests? I don't remember many protests that didn't involve closing down roads, burning things down and whatnot. Protests that don't do things like that are usually so irrelevant they don't get Wikipedia articles written about them. > The reason why it isn't called a coup is be cause they failed. It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt would be the military seizing power by force. You know, the people with guns and tanks. A successful coup would be the military trying and succeeding. There's simply no way you can claim a bunch of people, many of them elderly, equipped with bibles and flags, amounts to a coup attempt. > And it's not the ministry of truth but multiple independent sources in and outside Brazil. None of which have the power to censor anything. As it should be. > At a certain point something is obviously fake. If it's so obviously fake, then you don't need any censorship either. The fakeness will be self-evident. |
Most protests are peaceful and even the violent one rarely invade government buildings. Whole different level.
>It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt would be the military seizing power by force. You know, the people with guns and tanks. A successful coup would be the military trying and succeeding.
It doesn't have to be the military. Most coups are by the military but it's not a necessity
>There's simply no way you can claim a bunch of people, many of them elderly, equipped with bibles and flags, amounts to a coup attempt.
No, but for a bunch of people who throw pickaxes and hammers at the police I can.
>None of which have the power to censor anything. As it should be.
That's the road to tyranny. Lies spread faster than the truth.
>If it's so obviously fake, then you don't need any censorship either. The fakeness will be self-evident.
Sadly some people fall for obvious fakes. Just look at all the flat earthers.