Die on that hill if you want to. A dumb place to plant your flag, or your red hat, if you ask me – but hey, I voted for Hillary, and thought my felllow Americans were better than this, so what do I know?
The “fa” is for “fascist,” and the source is European, so I say “ann-tee-FAH!”
Let’s say the Neo Nazis got everything they wanted. They gained the political power to enforce their demands. One of those demands is that I get shipped to Israel (at best. I am sure most of them would just want me dead). How would that be enforced? By asking me nice? It is implicit violence. The core of their wants and needs is violence since t requires violence to carry them out. Resisting that has the moral high ground. The question is who is the blame, not whether violence occurred. I submit the answer would be the blame goes to the Neo Nazis every time. Violence is the core of their beliefs.
As far as my second paragraph, the President of United States argued against it so yeah people are.
This is a map of the area in question, the parks involved are Lee/Emancipation (new name) park, McGuffey Park, and Jackson/Justice (new name) park.
Kessler/alt-Right got a permit to have a 400-person rally in Lee/Emancipation Park. That is where the General Lee statue is. The counter-protesters then got permits to have counter-rallies in McGuffey and Jackson/Justice parks.
Once it became apparent how many people there were going to be the city tried to move the Kessler/alt-right rally to a larger park but a judge ruled against it.
I think most of the clashes happened on the streets rather than in parks. From the footage I saw, much was on Market Street when the alt-right was marching to Lee Park in close proximity to the protesters and violence broke out. Market Street goes near/by all 3 parks and was closed to traffic since at least Thu night, the rally was Saturday.
The section of E. Main Street south of it is always closed to traffic and is pedestrian only, that area is a pedestrian mall there called aptly enough, “The Downtown Mall.”
There are 2 streets where cars can cross the Downtown Mall, 2nd Street is a one-way going North and 4th Street is a one-way going South. I don’t know why traffic would have been allowed on either street. 4th Street is where the car hit the people.
I would say this is very shaky ground to stake your claim. How realistic is it that the neo-Nazis get everything they want? Or even a little bit of what they want?
Would inciting and actually instigating violence against an ultra-liberal group be warranted because one might fear that they have a realistic chance of instituting communism in the US? I won’t argue that it’s moral to oppose fascist/Nazis, but I would argue that it’s illegal to instigate violence. It’s easy to see that radicals on all sides are dangerous, but that doesn’t mean laws against assault and murder don’t apply.
He said it wasn’t murder and attempted murder? When? Cite? I seem to recall him saying there was blame on both sides, or all sides.
What Trump said was:
…which is clear as mud. The last sentence is clear, except the rest of the statement seems to weaken it quite a bit. “You can call it whatever you want” means he’s not willing to commit to any label.
Figuring out what Trump actually means is always an ordeal, and largely a Rorshach test dependent on what one believes going in. It is seldom obvious, because he can’t string more than three words together in a coherent fashion. My take is he was saying it doesn’t matter why it was done, or what label you want to put on it (murder, terrorism, etc.), the guy should be convicted. It doesn’t seem to me that he is excusing what the guy did in any way.
Which is the exact opposite of what Quimby seemed to be arguing (at least to me).
The 2005 Toledo Riot shows that it doesn’t even take them both being on site for there to be violence. The wiki story is the best overview I can find with a quick search. The national coverage was limited. I was only aware because I had family in the Toledo area. Approx 15 Nazis had shown up in their staging area at the point where police decided the situation was too volatile and escorted them out of the city.
Then the riot happened. All it took was the protestors thinking the Nazis were there. :smack:
It makes more sense (though still fairly incoherent) if you look at it in context of the question:
And something else that is bullshit is if that driver were Muslim we wouldn’t even be having a discussion as to whether it’s terrorism or who was to blame. Certainly the White House nor media wouldn’t be.
Trying to parse Trump’s nuances is pointless. Some people always think they are running up the score on him by catching him not willing to say this or that in the ‘right’ way. In the election cycle that proved a delusion. OTOH it’s certainly possible that as President enough additional people want to see a kind of clarity, leadership, genuflection to convention to some degree, etc and will get disenchanted with him so next time will be different. I guess that’s for ‘elections’ sub forum debate.
But what Trump said right there while typically turgid and going around in circles, is not particularly outrageous IMO. To some degree the labeling of individual acts of political violence, not actually organized by political groups, as ‘terrorism’, is political signalling, not really about morality. And it depends what signal the audience wants to hear. Some of the US political audience wanted to hear Obama more clearly say that individual acts of apparently (possibly, partly, arguably etc) Islamist violence were ‘terrorism’ more than Obama wanted to. Others were fine with Obama’s reluctance. Different segments feel differently when it’s Trump and right wing violence (Trump’s initial statement about the Congressional ball field shooting didn’t say ‘terrorist’, and he might not have subsequently, I’m not sure, but nobody was pestering him to do so). One factor is tit for tat v. the criticism of Obama I think.
Anyway there’s no absolute rule that you have to say a person apparently aligned with/inspired by extremist group(s) who commits murder on their own* is a terrorist rather than just a murderer. If you admit the obvious, that such a person has done a ‘horrible, inexcusable thing’, you’re covered for basic human decency IMO. And I don’t see how to parse that statement to say Trump’s isn’t strongly condemning the person and act (note: I’m not saying one can’t question Trump’s decency, based on what one feels Trump really believes as opposed to says, or what he’s said about other things, even other aspects of this Charlottesville incident, I’m just talking about this particular statement about the killing).
*AFAIK. It could later come out there’s more to it, but you can’t judge statements now based on what isn’t known now.
Thank you for posting this story.
The far left has gotten away with a lot of disturbing action that sometimes leads to violence. Their excuse they’re “doing it for a just cause” has worn very thin.
There’s no excuse for inciting violence. It doesn’t matter how noble & just you think the cause may be.
Charlottesville would have been a minor story on the back page. “Nazis march in support of statue”. If only the left had staged their counter protest the next day.
Was this your thought when Nidal Malik Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” before shooting people at Fort Hood? You know, the incident that the Obama White House called “workplace violence”, not terrorism. The shoe must feel awfully uncomfortable on the other foot.
Super tough talking Nazi cries like a little baby at the prospect of being arrested.
Same one in the video in this article.
Hasan was a natural born citizen.
The reason it was listed as workplace violence is because the military didn’t have a classification for “terrorist attack”.
Goddamned leftist Nazi protesters! Their blood is on their own hands! How dare they incite violence with their upitity cries of equality.
Blaming both sides seems kinda like blaming both sides of the Warsaw Uprising for using violence.
“A lot,” huh? Do you mean a whole lot, or just a little lot with nothing on it?
Also, the ‘sometimes leads to violence’ covers a lot of ground, given that you’ve stretched it to include merely showing up to protest against people opposed to you who might want to rumble.
So, tell me about the awful scourge of far-left violence in America. So far, we’ve got a riot from 12 years ago, and the presence of at least four armed Antifa in Charlottesville last weekend. That’s not much to extrapolate a pattern from.
Also, there’s more than a hint of a suggestion here that maybe left-wing types are wrong to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Now I personally am an opponent of open carry, but at those places and times where it’s legal, certainly everybody who wants to, gets to partake of that right.
[QUOTE=New York Times]
In Charlottesville, about 20 members of a group called the Redneck Revolt, which describes itself as an anti-racist, anti-capitalist group dedicated to uniting working-class whites and oppressed minorities, carried rifles and formed a security perimeter around the counterprotesters in Justice Park, according to its website and social media.
The group, which admires John Brown, a white abolitionist who led an armed insurrection in 1859, issued a “call to arms” on its website: “To the fascists and all who stand with them, we’ll be seeing you in Virginia.”
The scholar and activist Cornel West told the newscast “Democracy Now!” that anti-fascists saved his life and the lives of other nonviolent clergy members in Charlottesville. “We would have been crushed like cockroaches were it not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists,” he said on the show. “You had police holding back and just allowing fellow citizens to go at each other.”
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Sure, his diction lacks the erudition and clarity needed for some communications professions, e.g. journalism, academia, or statesmanship. But as a carnival barker, enticing rubes to shell out six bits to see the freak show, or to beat up the previous batch of complaining rubes, there’s none more competent than Donald J. Trump.