Um, losing an average of a few people per year to domestic terrorism in a country of 350 million is generally, and rightly, considered rather a big deal when the terrorists in question are radical Islamist extremists.
I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t also consider it rather a big deal when the terrorists in question are white neo-Nazis.
Note to self: Starving Artist asserts that outrage over domestic terror killings is “politically driven” “rabble-rousing” disproportionate to “actual threat it presents”. Confidently await similar measured response from this quarter the next time some Daesh-wannabe Muslim carries out terror killings on US soil.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
As I said, people can come onto this board and argue in favor of communism and the only result is a discussion as to its merit
[/quote]
Cite? Where is an instance of a self-identified communist supporter on these boards advocating for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and legally enforced racism in the name of communism?
Because let’s not forget, those are things that Nazis and their white-supremacist allies literally, earnestly advocate. The reason that people are, rightly, upset about Nazis is the same that people are, rightly, upset about ISIS/Daesh-style radical Islamist extremism: namely, because both are explicitly terroristic oppressive ideologies.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
What is it you people say about the Islamic terrorist threat in the U.S., that more people are killed by lightening or some such?
[/quote]
Yes. But that’s an argument for not treating all Muslims as though they must be radical-Islamist extremist terrorists (because most of them aren’t). It is not in any way claiming that we shouldn’t oppose and resist the comparatively few who actually are radical-Islamist extremist terrorists.
What this current “nationwide uproar” is about is opposing and resisting the homegrown white Americans who actually are Nazis, who, like the violent Daesh extremists, are seriously advocating for an explicitly terroristic oppressive ideology.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Yeah, and there are lots of robbers and rapists and drug dealers who voted for Hillary. So what? All sorts of cruel and dangerous people vote for every candidate. You know as well as I do that Trump is no more responsible for the Nazis’ behavior than Hillary Clinton is for those who voted for her
[/quote]
Hey, if Clinton were out there in public saying that there were lots of good people joining robbers and rapists in committing robbery and rape sprees, and we have to remember that some of the robbery and rape victims were asking for trouble and there was bad behavior “on many sides”, I’d be loudly condemning her too. That sort of excusing-and-deflecting rhetoric is absolutely an encouragement to evil acts.
Fortunately, Clinton has both sufficient human decency and sufficient political acumen to avoid making such terrible remarks. So, much as it may disappoint you, you can’t really manage to make this about Hillary.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
and on top of that I’d wager quite a bit that the number of cruel and dangerous criminal types in her constituency dwarf the number of white supremacists and Nazis in Trump’s.
[/quote]
:dubious: Hmmm, and you would wager that because… why, exactly? Give us a hint: what does this alleged “cruel and dangerous criminal types” constituency look like? Complexion-wise, say?
(Note, by the way, that a recent poll finds that a whopping 9% of Americans—about 22 million people—consider it acceptable to hold Nazi/white supremacist views. So you may want to rethink your claim that the Nazi/white supremacist Trump supporters are “dwarfed” in number by Clinton supporters who are literally cruel and dangerous criminals. Sheesh, dude, the entire prison population of the US is under 3 million people, and even adding in everybody on probation or parole doesn’t get you up to 10 million.)