Veteran protests: Is this just trolling?

So, looking at the thread about the veteran protests, there’s this one tiny but incredibly loud group of users who just... I don't know, they show up day after day, month after month, just posting the exact same stuff. Like, "What's next for the occupation now that this failed?" or "When is the police going to clear them out?" and things like that. And look, people tolerate them—that's fine. But when you try to respond to those really nasty claims—and yeah, they *are* nasty, because these people constantly label 100% disabled veterans as nothing more than scammers looking for a handout from the federal budget—well, if you reply to that, whether you're polite or not, it gets labeled as trolling.

Nobody has actually addressed this from the perspective of the banned section, though. I’m still honestly just asking if someone could please read why I got a warning and actually look at the "explanations" given by whoever is handing out the sanctions. It's not even about the warnings themselves—I don't care if they're deserved or not, really—it's just... I wonder why, at least on a thread like this, moderation can't be left to people who weren't even in diapers back when those veterans were losing limbs, only to have these modern-day "intellectuals" call them nothing but bureaucrats today.

Why did nobody bother responding to the PM when Frank went through the trouble of pulling the entire cascade of posts together just to point out the blatant trolling? Trolling is essentially the deconstruction of any meaningful debate; it’s nothing more than an attempt to incite conflict. And as Frank demonstrated quite clearly, that is exactly what was happening here.
As for the examples you've laid out, there's a certain inconsistency at play. On one hand, you seem to want to equate the protesters on the Potomac with the veteran community—even though we are actually dealing with a small, albeit vocal, group (which, if we follow your own logic regarding how you categorize those who disagree with you, could be explained quite precisely). Yet, in your very next sentence, you feel entitled to dismiss their arguments as "sick," regardless of whether they are well-founded or not. That simply isn't how discourse works.