..... and yes it works. ac_biggrin
Typical Stormfront fuckwittery.
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Quote from: "Harry"
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Does that site have any affect on your life?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Does that site have any affect on your life?
If that site has attitudes that permeate and propegate in society, how could it not?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Does that site have any affect on your life?
If that site has attitudes that permeate and propegate in society, how could it not?
And you think certain
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Does that site have any affect on your life?
If that site has attitudes that permeate and propegate in society, how could it not?
And you think certain
Exactly.
Yes. That said it.
If we could ever get the attitude to disappear we'd have something. A long thread and big whoopty do by adults about their website ... quite frankly has been embarrassing to see
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Johnny Cash despised everything these cunts stand for, yet Don Black and/or his resident IT nerd hijack his voice and his music, and use it as the intro to their video.
What a bunch of turds.
//http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/johnny-cash-family-t-shirt-nazi-facebook-charlottesville-virginia-rally-donald-trump-a7898141.html
Does that site have any affect on your life?
If that site has attitudes that permeate and propAgate in society, how could it not?
And you think certain
The action words are PERMEATE and PROPAGATE. Not having a web presence makes that way more difficult because information can't be quickly and easily disseminated to a wide audience. There would be no space to legitimize these attitudes.
Quote from: "cc"
If we could ever get the attitude to disappear we'd have something. A long thread and big whoopty do by adults about their website ... quite frankly has been embarrassing to see
I know muffin! It's so embarrassing to read threads about shit other than Islam but I am sure IHJ will help you get through it.
:laugh3:
Quote from: "cc"
If we could ever get the attitude to disappear we'd have something. A long thread and big whoopty do by adults about their website ... quite frankly has been embarrassing to see
As pointless as shutting it down.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
RW has trouble thinking that far ahead.
She believes that if something is outlawed/banned/prohibited, it shall cease to exist, and any problem associated with it also.
Worked great for booze, and is working great also for crack, meth, heroin, etc., also.
RW doesn't understand the human nature.
Why the fuck does everyone think they can speak for me and then get it stupidly wrong?
WOW!
:D
Quote from: "RW"
WOW!
:D
Fixed.
Quote from: "RW"
The action words are PERMEATE and PROPAGATE. Not having a web presence makes that way more difficult because information can't be quickly and easily disseminated to a wide audience. There would be no space to legitimize these attitudes.[/quote]
Correct.
An ancient Greek playwright by the name of Aeschylus said "From a Small Seed a Mighty Trunk May Grow". There may be no better example of this than the rise of the Nazis, who had as few as 3,000 members in 1920.
In the words of George Satayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Quote from: "Harry"
They tried to muzzle Hitler. It didn't work.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
RW has trouble thinking that far ahead.
She believes that if something is outlawed/banned/prohibited, it shall cease to exist, and any problem associated with it also.
Worked great for booze, and is working great also for crack, meth, heroin, etc., also.
On this, I agree with you.
An anarchist forum
http://infoshop.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=23&sid=73e02acfa7f3a61e75e9e4f7e1311054
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "Harry"
They tried to muzzle Hitler. It didn't work.
They didn't try to muzzle him. They gave him less than 10 months confinement in Landsberg, where he had access to all the contacts, resources and comforts he could want. He wasn't seriously regarded as a threat.
Just think where a treason conviction would land you today.
Granted, Germany in the 1920s was a mess, and it got worse when Wall St crashed, so there were a lot of distractions. The Nazis weren't the only game in town, either.
The fact is if the Nazis had been stomped on properly at the beginning, many millions of lives would have been saved later.
Hitler gave the Jews time to leave. He allowed Jewish owned businesses to sell.
Many did leave. Other did not.
Understand there was much Jewish hatred in Germany at that time... not just from Hitler.
They were viewed as outsiders that weren't compatible with German morals and ideals, and to be honest, at that time they probably weren't.
Quote from: "Harry"
The fact is if the Nazis had been stomped on properly at the beginning, many millions of lives would have been saved later.
Maybe, but like you said, they weren't the only game in town. Maybe another extremist ideology(communists) would have come to power.
In any case shutting down a white nationalist or anarchist forum won't lead to millions of lives saved.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
You cannot explain sense to these people, Seoul.
They think they understand the human nature, but they do not.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
You cannot explain sense to these people, Seoul.
They think they understand the human nature, but they do not.
I don't know about that, but I disagree with anyone about forcibly silencing extremist chatter.
Is refusing to host hate speech "forcible silencing"?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
They don't work, so they get angry... Welfare doesn't pay much, so they get even more angry...
White Males are now the acceptable "go to" target, with all others being off limits... So, they vent their frustrations at the single entity that they are allowed to vent their anger towards.
This has all been crafted, quite well I may add, by the powers that be.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
You cannot explain sense to these people, Seoul.
They think they understand the human nature, but they do not.
I don't know about that, but I disagree with anyone about forcibly silencing extremist chatter.
Would you hold the same view if it was Islamic extremist chatter?
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
They don't work, so they get angry... Welfare doesn't pay much, so they get even more angry...
White Males are now the acceptable "go to" target, with all others being off limits... So, they vent their frustrations at the single entity that they are allowed to vent their anger towards.
This has all been crafted, quite well I may add, by the powers that be.
Who doesn't work?
Here we go again..."the powers that be". :crazy:
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
And you're OK with that?
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
You cannot explain sense to these people, Seoul.
They think they understand the human nature, but they do not.
I don't know about that, but I disagree with anyone about forcibly silencing extremist chatter.
Would you hold the same view if it was Islamic extremist chatter?
As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?
Well that's right, neither one of them are for freedom of speech, why would we want to follow in their shoes?
Free speech, ignore it, rebut it, yell at it, whatever, but don't use the law to punish it, that's what tyrants do. Punish action.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?
Well that's right, neither one of them are for freedom of speech, why would we want to follow in their shoes?
Free speech, ignore it, rebut it, yell at it, whatever, but don't use the law to punish it, that's what tyrants do. Punish action.
You keep saying this as if there are no consequences for speech, as if speech can't be an action.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.
White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%. Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people. In that same time period Muslim extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many. which is the greater problem? The answer is obvious.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Why take out 9-11? Did those muslims have their fingers crossed when they did it? some other reason?
(BTW even if you take out 9-11 the Muslim extremist number is still higher)
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.
White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%. Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people. In that same time period Muslim extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many. which is the greater problem? The answer is obvious.
Islamists are a lot richer and better organized and growing.
Quote from: "Harry"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in the US. Any other spin is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.
Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?
Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.
Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in the US. Any other spin is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.
Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?
Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.
Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public
They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.
Source fail.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Look, terrorism is a terrible thing. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and their ilk are evil organisations that should be wiped off the face of the earth, and the individuals perpetrating or promoting hate and violence should be taken out of circulation. Clear enough?
The issue I had with wazzzup's post was his selective use of data. He picked a specific time period to include the single greatest atrocity inflicted by Islamic terrorists and used that data to suggest that that scale of murder by a particular group of killers is the norm. It isn't.
I also hold the view that the lives of all innocent victims of violence are equal. Whether the perpetrator is an armed robber, a drive-by shooter, a white supremacist shooting up a church, a right winger blowing up an office building, or an Islamic extremist setting off a bomb, the victim's lives are just as precious and the perpetrators are just as evil.
9/11 was a dreadful thing. About 3,000 people died. It caused a 20% spike in total homicide deaths in that year.
The US has more than 14,500 homicides per year. That's more than 240,000 deaths in the same 17 year period. If you include 9/11, and every Islamic terrorist event that's happened on US soil since, Islamic extremists account for about 1.2% of the total.
However, if you look at total homicides on a year by year basis, or even a rolling three or five year basis, deaths from Islamic extremists account for a much lesser amount – between 0.1% and 0.3% of all homicides in any given period which excludes the on-off 9/11 event.
Given the US's general propensity for homicidal violence, including frequent school shootings and attacks on LEOs, wazzzup's post entirely lacked perspective. Islamic extremism is a major problem, but the US has bigger issues in terms of violent crime.
Quote from: "RW"
Fuck off idiot.
Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:
•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".
•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
•A report which ignores foiled plots.
•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.
•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.
•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.
According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index published by Institute for Economics and Peace, only 2.6 percent of terror related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world's terror related deaths in 2015.
Meanwhile we have progtards regurgitating a total bullshit line from thinkprogress that in the US the far right kills seven times more people than jihadists.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Fuck off idiot.
Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:
•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".
•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
•A report which ignores foiled plots.
•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.
•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.
•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.
The whole point of my post was that all innocent deaths matter, not just those at the hands of Islmic extremists, and I went to some length to illustrate the scale of Islamic terror victims compared to that of your garden-variety US homicides.
Murder is bad, regardless of who does it.
Is that simple enough for you?
Quote from: "Herman"
Correct.
Quote from: "Herman"
Source?
[Edit] Nevermind. Got it. //https://thinkprogress.org/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extremist-than-by-muslim-terrorists-417f3c3461db/
Never heard of them.
Duplicate post.
It probably isn't simple enough. True story.
Quote from: "Herman"
Think Progress based their article on a New York Times report.
//https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html
I've tracked down the source paper for that report, which was produced by Arie Perliger of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point - hardly a progressive organization.
You can download the paper here:
//https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right
I haven't had a chance to read it yet. It sounds interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Fuck off idiot.
Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:
•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".
•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
•A report which ignores foiled plots.
•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.
•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.
•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.
As rude as you are, you have a point..
A check of terror attacks in the USA indicates they must not have been entirely honest about who they assigned blame for attacks..
The Kyle Shaw, Joe Stack and Chris Dorner and the Guardians of Peace incidents for example..
There are others too.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in the US. Any other spin is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.
Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?
Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.
Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public
They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.
They always leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his allegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homophobe. (cause Islamists are never homophobes) :001_rolleyes: So they said that wasn't Islam. They left other ones off too, same reason-- not islam, even when it is Islam. How convenient eh?
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in the US. Any other spin is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.
Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?
Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.
Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public
They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.
THey alwasy leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his aallegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homoh[pohbe. :laugh3: yeah just like every other Islamist. :001_rolleyes: So they said that wasn't Islam. They left other ones off too. How convenient eh?
But when a white guy shoots up say a school, he's just a crazy white guy. How convenient, eh?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.
Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in the US. Any other spin is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.
Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?
Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.
Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public
They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.
They always leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his allegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homophobe :laugh3: yeah just like every other Islamist. :001_rolleyes: So they said that wasn't Islam. They left other ones off too. How convenient eh?
But when a white guy shoots up say a school, he's just a crazy white guy. How convenient, eh?
Who invented this hate crime extremist crime stuff? You lefties invent a category for extremist murders and then you want to act like it shouldn't exist. Lets have it both ways again (and again and again)
Hitler (supposed right winger) killed 6 million jews, so he's more evil than Stalin (left winger) who killed over 20 killion people. And more than Mao (left winger) who killed over 40 million.
have it both ways some more, than have it both ways again.
There is no way to avoid some Americans in America committing crimes. However there IS a way to avoid imported Muslims committing crimes.
Don't import them.
Quote from: "RW"
Yes. Us crazy White guys are gathering a protest, to have him removed from prison.
We couldn't be there when he was sentenced, but maybe we can be there now.
How fucking stupid are you, RW?
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
have it both ways some more, than have it both ways again. Always the same game.
I had a conversation with a Czech guy about this some years ago. He was a Jewish guy who had been rounded up in the Holocaust, and against all odds, survived. He subsequently immigrated to Australia, became a lawyer, and when I knew him he was still practicing. At that time he was well into his eighties. He had a hell of a physical constitution.
We spoke about the exact issue you mention - why, given that Stalin killed far more Jews than Hitler, was Hitler the more reviled?
He said the reason for this was that Germany was considered to be the more civilized and cultured of the two countries. Germany was considered to be in the top tier of European civilization, whilst Russia was considered to be less civilized, and relatively barbaric. Hence, to a WW2-era European, whilst Stalin's purges were part and parcel of the Russian culture (or lack thereof), the German genocide was incomprehensible.
I know many other reasons are cited for this, but he was there at the time, and that was his take on it.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Fuck off idiot.
Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:
•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".
•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
•A report which ignores foiled plots.
•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.
•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.
•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.
•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.
As rude as you are, you have a point..
A check of terror attacks in the USA indicates they must not have been entirely honest about who they assigned blame for attacks..
:rules:
The Kyle Shaw, Joe Stack and Chris Dorner and the Guardians of Peace incidents for example..
There are others too.
Deliberate deception, but what does anyone expect from the likes of TP.
What's TP?
Quote from: "Harry"
Think Progress.
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
have it both ways some more, than have it both ways again. Always the same game.
I had a conversation with a Czech guy about this some years ago. He was a Jewish guy who had been rounded up in the Holocaust, and against all odds, survived. He subsequently immigrated to Australia, became a lawyer, and when I knew him he was still practicing. At that time he was well into his eighties. He had a hell of a physical constitution.
We spoke about the exact issue you mention - why, given that Stalin killed far more Jews than Hitler, was Hitler the more reviled?
He said the reason for this was that Germany was considered to be the more civilized and cultured of the two countries. Germany was considered to be in the top tier of European civilization, whilst Russia was considered to be less civilized, and relatively barbaric. Hence, to a WW2-era European, whilst Stalin's purges were part and parcel of the Russian culture (or lack thereof), the German genocide was incomprehensible.
I know many other reasons are cited for this, but he was there at the time, and that was his take on it.
that is interesteing, and certainly people there at the time are great resources. but when it comes to consensus I believe these are the main reasons--
1. Hitler was the enemy of most of the western world, the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, France etc. Stalin was a horrible man too, but he was allied with these nations.
2. Hitler singled out a group of people to wipe out--this is the "hate crimes" are worse than regular crimes POV and quite naturally this ethnic group has been and still is very vocal about it.
3. the left has gotten great mileage out of Hitler-- Message--"Hitler was on the right ,so beware the right" (this takes many many forms, you can't be against immigration that's Hitler like. Any non leftist politician is "far right" etc). Hitler also takes up all the oxygen in the room--thus there is no attention left for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other leftists leaders who were also horrible mass murderers. Thus the message--no need to beware the left, there is nothing to be afraid of, (but there is, maybe even more.)
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Harry"
Think Progress.
Thanks.
Needless to say, people should not have to jump through hoops and edit files, that they didn't know existed, just to see one of their favorite political websites.
The reason (or excuse) for Networks Solutions taking down Stormfront was a letter from a left-wing activist law firm claiming that Stormfront was advocating hate and violence. The letter repeated a claim from the far-left SPLC that suggested that Stormfront should be blamed for all the murders by Anders Breivik in Norway and several other individuals who may have passed through Stormfront over its 22 year existence.
Stormfront, however, has a policy of not allowing anyone to advocate violence, and this was apparently good enough for Network Solutions for the last 22 years. It's highly dishonest of the SPLC and this left-wing activist law firm to claim that a website that is committed to peaceful political change could have anything to do with murders by certain disgruntled individuals. You might as well blame the Drudge Report or Yahoo News or whatever else is in the browsing history of people, who go off and commit murders.
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper have been stirring up the crazies in the Left with claims that the Trump administration is not legitimate, which no doubt led to the Democrat terrorist James Hodgkinson opening fire on Republicans in Washington, D.C. severely wounding Representative Steve Scalise. Why isn't CNN or MSNBC removed from the Internet or de-platformed by the FCC for their continued inflammatory rhetoric?
Hopefully, this outrageous suppression of Free Speech by liberals in the tech world will not stand up in court. It's not clear if people at Network Solutions panicked at the sight of a letter from a law firm making spurious complaints. If that's the case, then everyone with an Internet business that relies on Network Solutions to keep their website up, should be panicked by the thought that one threatening letter from an activist law firm might get them kicked off the Internet for weeks.
https://prowhiteparty.wordpress.com/2017/09/03/stormfront-partially-back-up/
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So your extended family is/was riddled with k1kes?
Are you a K1ke too?
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So your extended family is/was riddled with k1kes?
Are you a K1ke too?
He claims to be a Christian.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So your extended family is/was riddled with k1kes?
Are you a K1ke too?
He claims to be a Christian.
Sounds fishy to me...
Wtf is becoming of this place?
Holy fuck.
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So your extended family is/was riddled with k1kes?
Are you a K1ke too?
No, my first wife's grandfather wasn't Jewish. He was a political prisoner.
He was a pharmacist in Pomerania, was opposed to the Nazis, got arrested, and was sent to Dachau.
Dachau wasn't officially a death camp. It was a concentration camp. 10's of thousands died there, though.
2nd wife's family aren't Jewish either. They were regular Dutch civilians, starved and mistreated during the occupation.
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..
It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So your extended family is/was riddled with k1kes?
Are you a K1ke too?
No, my first wife's grandfather wasn't Jewish. He was a political prisoner.
He was a pharmacist in Pomerania, was opposed to the Nazis, got arrested, and was sent to Dachau.
Dachau wasn't officially a death camp. It was a concentration camp. 10's of thousands died there, though.
2nd wife's family aren't Jewish either. They were regular Dutch civilians, starved and mistreated during the occupation.
None of them were 'death camps', they were labour camps.
The gas chambers myth is total horeshit and there is no proof whatsoever that anybody was murdered in them.
The ones in existence now were created after the war.....
Sounds as though the people you mention were regarded as enemies of the state or traitors, perhaps even Communists?
@Scouse. You are completely delusional.
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don't have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetuate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a cogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heydey of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don'y have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetrate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a gogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heyday of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
It's like polio...
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don't have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetuate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a cogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heydey of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
The heyday of the KKK was the 60s and before. That was 50 years ago. TODAY antifa is beating everyone they disagree with in the streets, (they're not just beating nazis, its EVERYONE) just a year ago black lives matter was killing cops and beating white people for sport.
The nazis have no one helping them grow (are they growing? do you have evidence they are growing?) - but the whole of the left has been very tepid against antifa and none have condemned BLM (this doesnt include RW she has made herself clear). Can you name a mainstream conservative who has spoken out in support of nazis? No, there is no such thing.
(Again RW has made herself clear.) But What about you Harry, what do you think of antifa and BLM? where do you stand? We know what you think of German nazis, but What do you think of the nearly hundred million murders by leftist communists? Are you a true advocate against extremism, violence and murder or are you just trying to score cheap political points? Please make your views known.
The hey day of the fuckin KKK was in the twenties.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don't have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetuate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a cogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heydey of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
The heyday of the KKK was the 60s and before. That was 50 years ago. TODAY antifa is beating everyone they disagree with in the streets, (they're not just beating nazis, its EVERYONE) just a year ago black lives matter was killing cops and beating white people for sport.
The nazis have no one helping them grow (are they growing? do you have evidence they are growing?) - but the whole of the left has been very tepid against antifa and none have condemned BLM (this doesnt include RW she has made herself clear). Can you name a mainstream conservative who has spoken out in support of nazis? No, there is no such thing.
(Again RW has made herself clear.) But What about you Harry, what do you think of antifa and BLM? where do you stand? We know what you think of German nazis, but What do you think of the nearly hundred million murders by leftist communists? Are you a true advocate against extremism, violence and murder or are you just trying to score cheap political points? Please make your views known.
I haven't got much time, so I'll have to respond with short answers and comments:
1. The KKK were still strong
2. All forms of street violence are bad, and the perpetrators should be locked up.
3. I do not know of a mainstream conservative who has spoken out in support of Nazis. However, power recognizes power. It is inevitable that if the Nazis were permitted to attain a position of influence, support from mainstream politicians would come.
4. I put communists in the same totalitarian camp as the Nazis, and Stalin in the same place as Hitler.
I don't know enough about "Antifa", and I suspect we're going to have a clash of perceptions. It seems to me that Antifa isn't an organization, but a collection of individuals and cells who manage to coordinate themselves via social media to commit violence. To that extent, I condemn them.
It's unfortunate that they have chosen the name "Antifa", which would seem to be an abbreviation of "Anti-Fascist". There are many definitions of what a fascist is, but I'll use this one - "The combination of deep hostility towards liberal democracy with a revolutionary set of ideas to regenerate a nation or a race, suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce. "
Now, using that definition, I'm an anti-fascist, no doubt about it. I would expect most people would be opposed to it, even, possibly, you.
However, if you restrict the definition of "Antifa" to the thugs who are attacking people in the street, then I have no time for them. They should be locked up. Violence against individuals is unjustifiable, and the thugs carrying out the violence discredit those of us on the left and our cause. The editorial board of the Washington post couldn't have said it better in this article:
//https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antifa-groups-only-help-the-hateful-forces-they-claim-to-oppose/2017/08/29/d7c900b4-8cca-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.4c3dc1028831
Quote
Likewise, BLM. Of course black lives matter.
Are we clear now?
I'm sure a load of my posts have been moved/deleted from one of these threads...........
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don't have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetuate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a cogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heydey of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
The heyday of the KKK was the 60s and before. That was 50 years ago. TODAY antifa is beating everyone they disagree with in the streets, (they're not just beating nazis, its EVERYONE) just a year ago black lives matter was killing cops and beating white people for sport.
The nazis have no one helping them grow (are they growing? do you have evidence they are growing?) - but the whole of the left has been very tepid against antifa and none have condemned BLM (this doesnt include RW she has made herself clear). Can you name a mainstream conservative who has spoken out in support of nazis? No, there is no such thing.
(Again RW has made herself clear.) But What about you Harry, what do you think of antifa and BLM? where do you stand? We know what you think of German nazis, but What do you think of the nearly hundred million murders by leftist communists? Are you a true advocate against extremism, violence and murder or are you just trying to score cheap political points? Please make your views known.
Hold up a second here ... when do YOU condemn the KKK, the Alt-Right, the neo-nazis, etc? Why am I not seeing condemnation for that ideology from "your" side?
The left doesn't like Antifa. The left speaks out against them. You just aren't listening. I'm listening but I don't here the same coming from you about white extremists. Why not?
Quote from: "RW"
Hold up a second here ... when do YOU condemn the KKK, the Alt-Right, the neo-nazis, etc? Why am I not seeing condemnation for that ideology from "your" side?
The left doesn't like Antifa. The left speaks out against them. You just aren't listening. I'm listening but I don't here the same coming from you about white extremists. Why not?
Maybe because us 'white extremists' are the real persecuted ones, and have been targeted for extinction.
Survival is our only goal, yet we are somehow regarded as being the bad guys? It's sheer madness.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Harry"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Harry"
My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.
My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.
A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.
Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.
What the fuck does that have to do with your irrational fear of a couple of pick ups full of aging Billy Bobs who reject multicult horse shit.
I don't have an irrational "fear" of Nazis.
Simple logic is that if allowed to prosper and grow, they perpetuate an air of legitimacy, they attract yet more followers, they organize their disparate factions, and they become a cogent force bent on hate, separation, and persecution.
The heydey of the KKK wasn't really that long ago. Do you really want to provide a roadway for a return by that organization, or even something worse?
The heyday of the KKK was the 60s and before. That was 50 years ago. TODAY antifa is beating everyone they disagree with in the streets, (they're not just beating nazis, its EVERYONE) just a year ago black lives matter was killing cops and beating white people for sport.
The nazis have no one helping them grow (are they growing? do you have evidence they are growing?) - but the whole of the left has been very tepid against antifa and none have condemned BLM (this doesnt include RW she has made herself clear). Can you name a mainstream conservative who has spoken out in support of nazis? No, there is no such thing.
(Again RW has made herself clear.) But What about you Harry, what do you think of antifa and BLM? where do you stand? We know what you think of German nazis, but What do you think of the nearly hundred million murders by leftist communists? Are you a true advocate against extremism, violence and murder or are you just trying to score cheap political points? Please make your views known.
Hold up a second here ... when do YOU condemn the KKK, the Alt-Right, the neo-nazis, etc? Why am I not seeing condemnation for that ideology from "your" side?
The left doesn't like Antifa. The left speaks out against them. You just aren't listening. I'm listening but I don't here the same coming from you about white extremists. Why not?
The KKK and neonazis are utter racist trash.
But as I said, there is NO ONE on the mainstream right ANYWHERE who has written anything supporting Neonazis and the KKK. While Some on the mainstream left have condemned antifa, some are still excusing and enabling them. I don't know of anyone on the maintream left who has condemned Black Lives Matter.
So if you're looking for a double standard, that's where you'll find it.
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Quote from: "RW"
Hold up a second here ... when do YOU condemn the KKK, the Alt-Right, the neo-nazis, etc? Why am I not seeing condemnation for that ideology from "your" side?
The left doesn't like Antifa. The left speaks out against them. You just aren't listening. I'm listening but I don't here the same coming from you about white extremists. Why not?
Maybe because us 'white extremists' are the real persecuted ones, and have been targeted for extinction.
Survival is our only goal, yet we are somehow regarded as being the bad guys? It's sheer madness.
Extremism should go extinct and I'm not buying your "we're beat up on" bullshit. I saw footage from the night before Virginia.