# The U.S. (intentional?) blind spot to domestic terrorists



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*DHS Crushed This Analyst for Warning About Far-Right Terror*



> 15 years studying domestic terrorist groups — particularly white supremacists and neo-Nazis — as a government counterterrorism analyst, the last six of them at the Department of Homeland Security. There, he even homebrewed his own database on far-right extremist groups on an Oracle platform, allowing his analysts to compile and sift reporting in the media and other law-enforcement agencies on radical and potentially violent groups.
> 
> But Johnson’s career took an unexpected turn in 2009, when an analysis he wrote on the rise of “Right-Wing Extremism” (.pdf) sparked a political controversy. Under pressure from conservatives, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repudiated Johnson’s paper — an especially bitter pill for him to swallow now that Wade Michael Page, a suspected white supremacist, killed at least six people at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. For Johnson, the shooting was a reminder that the government’s counterterrorism efforts are almost exclusively focused on al-Qaida, even as non-Islamist groups threaten Americans domestically.





> Conservative writers feared that the DHS was demonizing — even, potentially, criminalizing — mainstream right-wing speech. “It’s no small coincidence that [Secretary Janet] Napolitano’s agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests,” pundit Michelle Malkin speculated in the Washington Times. Others objected that Johnson’s report unfairly stigmatized veterans.





> DHS responded by cutting “the number of personnel studying domestic terrorism unrelated to Islam, canceled numerous state and local law enforcement briefings, and held up dissemination of nearly a dozen reports on extremist groups,” the Washington Post reported in June 2009.
> 
> According to Johnson, his former team now consists of a single analyst tasked with tracking all domestic non-Islamic extremism. His database has been shuttered.


(Wired - Danger Room)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's because domestic terrorists are known as "criminals."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

especially if they're white.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That's because domestic terrorists are known as "criminals."


Of course they are (particularly by Fox News). Makes it easier to separate "us" from "them", since some of "us" are just criminals, not like them darn terrrsts over "there".

From the article:



> ...since Johnson released his ill-fated report, the Wichita, Kansas, abortion doctor George Tiller was assassinated; a security guard was killed when a gunman with neo-Nazi ties went on a shooting spree at the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the FBI arrested members of a Florida neo-Nazi outfit tied to drug dealing and motorcycle gangs; a man was charged with attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction at a Spokane, Washington march commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday; and several mosques around the country have been vandalized or attacked — including a Missouri mosque that burned to the ground on Monday, which had been attacked before.
> 
> As Salon recounts, the FBI has been warning for years that far-right racialist organizations might be interested in suicide terrorism. Peter Bergen, a longtime chronicler of al-Qaida, wrote on Tuesday that far-right domestic terrorism rivals and might eclipse the threat of homegrown jihadism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember that paper. It looked like a page out of the Democrat National Committee. Essentially, one had to beware of anyone who opposed Democrat talking points on the military, gun control, etc. It also tried to demonize people returning from military service. No wonder the guy's career took a dumper.

Look at the flip side with Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood known to be in contact with religious extremists prior to the massacre. Terrorism? Nope--the Defense Department is trying to bill it as "workplace violence."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Then you would agree with the folks over at Fox, hm?

*Fox News Analyst: Sikh Temple Massacre "Not Domestic Terrorism"*



> Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is insisting that it was "not domestic terrorism" for a white supremacist to shoot seven people dead at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, but a Muslim U.S. Army major killing 13 coworkers at Ft. Hood was.





> ppears to have been a disgruntled nut job who hated Muslims, didn't know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims and thought by killing the Sikhs he was somehow going to eliminate the Muslim population. It is an absurd, tortured way of thinking but it is not an act of domestic terrorism."
> 
> He continued: "On the other hand, the Ft. Hood shooter [Nidal Malik Hasan] who killed military in the place where they worked while damning and condemning the behavior of the government -- the employer of the people that he killed -- the government refuses to call that an act of domestic terrorism."
> 
> "While hailing Allah," Fox News co-host Brian Kilmeade noted.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Do keep in mind that without an occasional domestic terrorist fling, the sheeple might begin to question having to go through a strip search every time they board a plane. Might begin to question why every eMail and every phone conversation is stored in Big Brother's Multi Billion Dollar Data Base. Might question why all those tax dollars are going to organizations with Nazi-esque names like Homeland Security. Might question $Trillions$ being spent to support the slaughter of Millions of Middle East civilians.

Gasp! They might even demand that real terrorist organizations such as the IRS be shut down entirely.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I would argue that if it isn't an act of violence directed towards "the state" in principle by terrorizing and killing civilians it is not an act of terrorism. 

For example the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh *was* an act of domestic terrorism because it was perpetrated against the state. The racist killing of Sikhs or blacks or orientals or any other identifiable minority is a hate crime it is not terrorism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Then you would agree with the folks over at Fox, hm?


Yes.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> I would argue that if it isn't an act of violence directed towards "the state" in principle by terrorizing and killing civilians it is not an act of terrorism.


_*The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”*_

(Federal Bureau of Investigation)​


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> _*The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”*_
> 
> (Federal Bureau of Investigation)​


ter·ror·ism
   [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. 

It is a matter of semantics as is illustrated in the first line of the Wikipedia entry:



> Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.


Despite the FBI's definition, terrorism historically has *always* had a political motivation associated with the use of the term.

So is the killing of blacks by the Ku Klux Klan a crime or an act of terrorism and does it really matter that much as any act of terrorism is always a crime.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> _*The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”*_
> 
> (Federal Bureau of Investigation)​


It is interesting that for some time, many threw around the word 'terrorism' so lavishly. Now, they are suddenly keenly interested in the strict definition.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Basically, I think the confusion is that we like to title our different crimes so that we can categorize them to apply the law of the country. Terrorism is just a category of crimes. 

Although, I'm not sure what categories Homeland Security uses.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Not sure why it matters whether it's called domestic terrorism or not?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Domestic Terrorism is the exclusive domain of the IRS although recently they have announced their intent to expand operations on a world wide scale.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Domestic Terrorism is the exclusive domain of the IRS although recently they have announced their intent to expand operations on a world wide scale.


You do an injustice to all actual victims of terrorism by claiming the IRS to be terrorists and equating your situation to theirs... Fill out your forms and stop your belly aching. 

Until you have suffered from real terrorism you just sound like a spoiled child... Get over it. 

Such hyperbolic statements are just so much clap trap I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Domestic Terrorism is the exclusive domain of the IRS although recently they have announced their intent to expand operations on a world wide scale.


Boy you can't even tongue in cheek around here without getting crapped on.

see quoted definition. Be sure to read that lest you receive another serious rebuke.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Boy you can't even tongue in cheek around here without getting crapped on.
> 
> see quoted definition. Be sure to read that lest you receive another serious rebuke.


Did read it, hence the comment about the IRS.

35,000 suicides in the US every year. If only 1% of those individuals reached that total state of hopelessness due to actions of the IRS, then clearly the IRS is responsible for more US terrorist deaths than all other organizations combined. I would suggest that 1% guess is probably much less than half of the real number but lacking any statistics, I am trying to be extremely conservative here. To me being driven to suicide is in some ways worse than outright murder, as the suicide path probably involved years of helplessness and terror prior to the actual death. The other thing about an IRS suicide is that therapy or drugs cannot eliminate the cause.

FWIW I do find it fascinating and a little sad that some people can look at particular actions, which if perpetrated by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China would earn instant and total condemnation. Somehow though, if the USA, Canada, Israel or... does the same thing it is perfectly OK. Evil is evil and needs to be labeled as such, not forgiven because it is our guys doing the dirty work.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Did read it, hence the comment about the IRS.
> 
> 35,000 suicides in the US every year. If only 1% of those individuals reached that total state of hopelessness due to actions of the IRS, then clearly the IRS is responsible for more US terrorist deaths than all other organizations combined. I would suggest that 1% guess is probably much less than half of the real number but lacking any statistics, I am trying to be extremely conservative here. To me being driven to suicide is in some ways worse than outright murder, as the suicide path probably involved years of helplessness and terror prior to the actual death. The other thing about an IRS suicide is that therapy or drugs cannot eliminate the cause.
> 
> FWIW I do find it fascinating and a little sad that some people can look at particular actions, which if perpetrated by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China would earn instant and total condemnation. Somehow though, if the USA, Canada, Israel or... does the same thing it is perfectly OK. Evil is evil and needs to be labeled as such, not forgiven because it is our guys doing the dirty work.


Again more hyperbolic clap trap... *no one* makes someone kill themselves, that is an individual's decision, whatever their circumstances. Comparing the IRS to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China where human rights were systematically denied and millions murdered for any resistance against the state or for just being of the "wrong" ethnic origin is just more hyperbole and rubbish.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Homegrown Radicals More Deadly Than Jihadis in U.S.*










In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

* * *​
Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period.

If such numbers are new to the public, they are familiar to police officers. A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University.

“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,”

* * *​
Some killings by non-Muslims that most experts would categorize as terrorism have drawn only fleeting news media coverage, never jelling in the public memory. But to revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why.

In 2012, a neo-Nazi named Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and opened fire, killing six people and seriously wounding three others. Mr. Page, who died at the scene, was a member of a white supremacist group called the Northern Hammerskins.

In another case, in June 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller, a married couple with radical antigovernment and neo-Nazi views, entered a Las Vegas pizza restaurant and fatally shot two police officers who were eating lunch. On the bodies, they left a swastika, a flag inscribed with the slogan “Don’t tread on me” and a note saying, “This is the start of the revolution.” Then they killed a third person in a nearby Walmart.​
(NYTimes)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I started to look at that list, but saw how facetious it was. It isn't a "terror attack" when you rob a bank and kill someone, even if you hold oddball views. Neither is it a terror attack when you're mentally ill and kill police officers.

In the case of an avowed Nazi killing members of a Sikh temple--absolutely.

The article fumbles by making a good point badly--both numbers are rather small in the grand scheme of things. Either the US is doing a good job of foiling attacks of this nature or there are few attacks planned.



CubaMark said:


> *Homegrown Radicals More Deadly Than Jihadis in U.S.*


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I think this is a salient point:



> “If there’s one lesson we seem to have forgotten 20 years after Oklahoma City, it’s that *extremist violence* comes in all shapes and sizes,” said Dr. Horgan, the University of Massachusetts scholar. “And very often it comes from someplace you’re least suspecting.”


And a very good ending to the column IMO.

The word *terrorist *seems to present a semantic roadblock for many people. Perhaps *extremist violence* is a more apt description of who we are talking about and lead to greater semantic clarity when seemingly (for some) comparing apples to oranges.

Apparently, for some a terrorist look like this:










and this:










and then there will be great disagreement among many, many people.

But maybe if we just called them *violent extremists* we could agree.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*See any mention of the word "terrorist" in this story? Nope? Well, after all, he's just a good ol' (white, Christian) Mississippi boy....*

*Mississippi Flag Supporter Marshall Leonard Accused of Bombing Walmart*








A man outraged by attempts to get rid of the Mississippi state flag carried out an extremely short-lived terror campaign in Tupelo, police say. Marshall Leonard, 61, was arrested after a bomb was thrown into a Walmart in the Mississippi city at around 1:30am on Sunday, Tupelo's Daily Journal reports. Police say he got out of his vehicle and told an employee to run before he lit a package and threw it into an entrance, where it went off.

* * *​
Leonard—who flew a 4-foot Mississippi flag from his Mazda—was known for his support of the flag and was apparently outraged by Walmart's decision to stop selling it because it contains a Confederate emblem.​







(Newser)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nut.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Once again, CM, the point of your post eludes me.

1. Are you saying that fanatical Islamists are not the only ones throwing bombs?
2. Are you saying that the removal of the confederate emblem from the state flag is a bad move & he was justified in bombing the store?
3. Something else?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Once again, CM, the point of your post eludes me.
> 
> 1. Are you saying that fanatical Islamists are not the only ones throwing bombs?
> 2. Are you saying that the removal of the confederate emblem from the state flag is a bad move & he was justified in bombing the store?
> 3. Something else?


Well Post 9/11 fanatical Islamists are responsible for 35 out of 135,000 US homicides. You can see why I think trading all of ones civil rights for protection from Muslim terrorists is about the worst trade on record! 

BTW in Canada we have had just one such death and that one appears far more likely to have been either a deranged lone gunman or an outright false flag.

The bums telling us to be afraid of Terrorists, are the biggest threat to our future.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*FBI Foils Va. "Race War" Plot to Bomb Black Churches*








The FBI says two white supremacists in Virginia tried to buy weapons from an undercover agent so they could carry out mass shootings and bombings at black churches and synagogues. 

Authorities say Robert C. Doyle, 34, and Ronald B. Chaney III, 33—whom Buzzfeed identifies as belonging to a white supremacist version of the pagan religion Asatru—were first put under surveillance in September when Doyle hosted a meeting to discuss the scheme as well as killing an Ok gun store owner in Oklahoma. 

Doyle then ordered two firearms, a silencer, and explosives from an undercover agent on Oct. 25, the FBI says. A criminal complaint notes Chaney questioned whether the deal was a "Fed operation ... (to) infiltrate ... our (expletive) people," but he went through with a plan to pay for the weapons on Sunday, reports ABC News. He and Doyle were then arrested.​
(Newser)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It is described in the media as a terror campaign--why post it in this topic when the "blindness" does not exist.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It is described in the media as a terror campaign--why post it in this topic when the "blindness" does not exist.


Well, I guess I could start yet another thread about domestic terror groups... and risk being harangued by those who would not appreciate it...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Right-Wing "Crusaders" Militia Group Plotted Terror Attack On Muslim Immigrants, FBI Charges*









(Photo via WATP)​
Three Kansas men who were allegedly part of a domestic terrorist group called “the Crusaders” were arrested by the FBI on Friday, charged with plotting to carry out an attack on Muslims living in the state.

The men are identified as Patrick Stein, Gavin Wright and Curtis Allen, and are all in their late 40s. They belonged to a group that espoused “sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs,” according to an FBI agent’s affidavit, and allegedly plotted to attack Muslim immigrants, focusing on an apartment complex in Garden City, Kansas.

According to the Department of Justice, the trio allegedly stockpiled firearms, ammunition and explosive materials, and discussed parking four vehicles filled with explosives at the four corners of the apartment complex in order to set off a massive explosion. 

The attack, which the men allegedly said would “wake people up,” was planned for Nov. 9, one day after the presidential election, according to the DOJ. 

The FBI had been investigating Stein, Wright and Allen since February and documented their violent rhetoric, excerpts of which appear uncensored below. 

Stein allegedly said that “the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim” and that he would “enjoy” shooting Muslims’ heads. “When we go on operations, there’s no leaving anyone behind, even if it’s a one-year-old, I’m serious. I guarantee, if I go on a mission, those little ****ers are going bye-bye,” he said, according to the FBI.

* * *​
Stein also allegedly referred to the group’s targets, Somali immigrants, as “cockroaches,” discussed dipping bullets in pig’s blood before using them, and “yelled at Somali women dressed in traditional garb, calling them ‘****ing ******* bitches.’”

All three men’s Facebook pages contain links to articles on conspiracy websites, many of which are anti-Muslim in nature. In May, Allen shared an article about a Dutch politician who purportedly called for a ban on Islam and the closing of all mosques. “Wow someone finally decided too [sic] open there [sic] eyes and pay attention to this cult!!!!” Allen commented. Also in May, Stein shared an article from a website called Militia News about the “Muslim conquest of America.”

* * *​
Mosques in the U.S. have suffered vandalism, arson and other types of destruction 78 times in 2015, according to a report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. That’s a nearly 400 percent jump from 2014.

Another report from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, documented 260 hate crimes targeting Muslims in 2015 ― a nearly 80 percent rise from the year before, and the highest annual number of such crimes since 2001.

The Huffington Post has also tracked nearly 290 acts of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination and political speech in the U.S.​(HuffPo)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Gee. Sounds like this guy could have used a "safe space".*
*
College machete attacker felt bullied for being conservative*

A conservative former college student walked into a coffee shop located on the Kentucky campus armed with a machete wounding two women and asking patrons whether they were Republicans or Democrats, according to witnesses.

Neither victim had life-threatening injuries, though one, a freshman at Transylvania University, was taken to the hospital after the Friday morning attack, according to police in Lexington.

The assailant was later identified as Mitchell Adkins, a 19-year-old originally from Cincinnati who reportedly barged into Jazzman's Cafe around 9 a.m., banging a weapon on the table and shouting "the day of reckoning has come."

“He asked the first girl if she was a Democrat or Republican. She said Republican. He said okay, then asked some other girl,”...

* * *​
Witnesses told WLEX that Adkins was Buzzfeed contributor MAdkins19, who wrote a long diatribe two years ago saying he was discriminated against for being conservative.

"It's amazing to me that when I listen to someone's political opinion and then give my own, I'm the one who's lashed out at for being a 'racist' or 'bigot', some even go as far as saying 'bane of society' or 'fascist Nazi,'" he wrote.

He said that he dropped out of the school, and "the constant bullying and lack of friends drove me to an overdose, a trip to the hospital and two trips to a mental hospital. The constant thought of knowing I'd never fit in was too much for me to bear."

A Facebook page for Adkins shows repeated criticism of Democrats and support for President Trump, though none of his recent posts advocated any sort of violence.
(NYDailyNews)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Machete terror!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Donald Trump Just Blamed The White Supremacist Hunger Games on ‘Many Sides.’ Here’s What He Meant*










As white supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Va., to form neo-Nazi, Confederate Voltron, President ****boy McToupee decided to weigh in on the terrorist act in Charlottesville from a lawn chair where his bloated, dollop-shaped golf-body chilled on his New Jersey vacation.

He thought it necessary to comment on what is being called the largest gathering of white supremacists in American history (I don’t think they count Republican National Conventions). In his statement, he did not mention neo-Nazis. He said nothing about white supremacists. He did not bring up the Ku Klux Klan. He did not even utter the word “white.” Instead, the leader of the free world; the man elected to fight terrorism of all kinds said:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. Many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump. Not Barack Obama. It’s been going on for a long, long time.

You should pause and reflect on this statement for a minute. This is the same guy who screamed at Barack Obama for eight years, begging him to say the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” This is the man who promised us that keeping out the Muslims and immigrants would eliminate the threat of terrorism. This is the man who 62 million people thought would unite the country after Barack Obama somehow reinvented racism.

** * *​*When Donald Trump talks about the hate on both sides, he means white America—which holds every economic, social and political advantage in this country and has been metaphorically and literally slitting the throats of blacks, Hispanics and non-Christians for the entire existence of America.

And he’s talking about the people who’ve been getting their throats slit. Because they hate, too. They hate getting their windpipes slashed open. They are bigoted against the neck-slicers. Have you heard how loud they scream at the Black Lives Matter rallies just because their sons and daughters are dying? How dare those ungrateful bastards talk **** about white people? I know they have no power and they have done absolutely nothing to inflict harm on white people, but who do they think has to mop up all that throatblood from the nice, white marble floors?

(The Root)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's a bizarre rant, CM--full of straw men. Did you post it because you agreed with it or thought it ridiculous?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I certainly agree with the sentiment. Let's try this one... although I expect you'll pass these off as RINOs, since apparently nothing can tarnish your starry-eyed gaze upon The Buffoon-in-Chief....

*Republicans slam Trump for failing to condemn 'Nazi ideas' after white supremacists clash with anti-fascists in Virginia*








White nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the 'alt-right' with body armor and combat weapons evacuate comrades who were pepper sprayed after the 
'Unite the Right' rally was delcared a unlawful gathering by Virginia State Police. Militia members marched through the city earlier in the day, armed with assault rifles.​
Donald Trump has condemned the "egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" during clashes between white supremacists and anti-fascist protesters in Virginia.

In a speech, the US President did not specifically condemn the far-right groups who gathered in Charlottesville — including some carrying assault rifles and wearing paramilitary-style clothing — to protest about plans to remove a statue to Confederate General Robert E Lee.

Instead he appeared to apportion blame to all those involved in the fighting.

This sparked outrage among some leading Republicans with Senator Orrin Hatch writing that his brother "didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home".

One person was killed when a car drove into a crowd of anti-fascists and more than 40 people were hurt as a result of that incident and fighting elsewhere in the town.

“We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides,” Mr Trump said.

“It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time.

** * *​*
A Republican senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner, tweeted "Mr President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism." 

Another Republican, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, wrote: "Nothing patriotic about Nazis, the KKK or White Supremacists. It's the direct opposite of what America seeks to be." 

(Independent)​


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The "many sides" of injustice in Charlottesville riot*










This is it, then.

We can officially drop the pretence of equality after violent protests by white supremacists, “heritage” groups, neo-Nazis, KKK members and armed white terrorists slammed that charade this weekend.

Their deadly brand of racism was effectively endorsed by the United States president when he failed to call out supremacists, anti-Semites, xenophobes and homophobes and instead rebuked the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.”

On many sides. Which sides would those be, Mr. President, when there were just two: white supremacy — and equality.










(Metro)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your complaint smacks of some sort of progressive public confessional. Unless he names individual groups he colludes with them? All of the groups involved have been involved in previous violence.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Your complaint smacks of some sort of progressive public confessional. Unless he names individual groups he colludes with them? All of the groups involved have been involved in previous violence.


So you disagree with the Trump's position on Obama, then (as noted in the first article, above)?:

_This is the same guy who screamed at Barack Obama for eight years, begging him to say the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”_​
Interesting little dance you're doing....

XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

These are two groups known for potential of violence clashing with each other. Did you want him to list all of them, including AntiFa?



CubaMark said:


> So you disagree with the Trump's position on Obama, then (as noted in the first article, above)?:
> 
> _This is the same guy who screamed at Barack Obama for eight years, begging him to say the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”_​
> Interesting little dance you're doing....
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> These are two groups known for potential of violence clashing with each other. Did you want him to list all of them, including AntiFa?


Example of a list that could fit in a concise speech most people would agree with: white supremacists, antifa, neo-nazis, and marxists.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> These are two groups known for potential of violence clashing with each other. Did you want him to list all of them, including AntiFa?


what happened the yesterday was very tragic - but in the end the liberals will avoid at all cost the antagonizing they did which led to the tragic ending.. 
by the way i don't condone any violence what so ever - but when you have two extremes from both parties it is not going to end well..

as for Trumps addressing the issue..the liberals will always find fault.. unlike Obama always blaming the cops and supporting violence - the liberals forget that.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> These are two groups known for potential of violence clashing with each other. Did you want him to list all of them, including AntiFa?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Stop dancing and answer my question.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Did you want him to list all of them, including AntiFa?


What's this "all of them"?

This event was a "Unite the Right" rally organized by white supremacist Jason Kessler.

The woman murdered and others injured were attacked with a car by "Hitler-worshipping" white nationalist asshole James Alex Fields Jr.

Do you not feel that the racists who provoked the incident, and the specific white nationalist who committed murder, might deserve specific denunciation by the President?

The general consensus appears to be, and I would agree with it, that Trump purposefully avoids calling out these purveyors of hate because *gasp* they are his 'base'.

The antifa bunch are confronting racism, fascism, hatred. Perhaps they are too much for polite society. But polite society is gone: with the rise of Trump, the white supremacists, anti-immigrant, anti-peace, anti-anything good in society jerks seem to feel they have carte blanche to raise hell, attack folks just for the colour of their skin or their nationality, etc. 

That it becomes violent is a result of the interaction of these two opposite and volatile groups. This doesn't condone antifa's actions, but one can understand their origins. The white supremacist groups are the aggressors, the provokers, and their actions are based not on a desire to end hatred, but to spread it.

When it comes to hatred, racism, discrimination, on which side do you fall, MacFury? 'Cause your criticisms to date are painting a pretty rotten picture.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That would not be my description of "antifa." They are a progressive hate group.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The last time people were being browbeaten into choosing either fascism or marxism, some nations fell for the false dichotomy. Other nations overwhelmingly chose neither. 

The same happens on an individual level.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yup. I don't support either hate group. No good guys. Only perps and victims of perps.



Beej said:


> The last time people were being browbeaten into choosing either fascism or marxism, some nations fell for the false dichotomy. Other nations overwhelmingly chose neither.
> 
> The same happens on an individual level.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> the white supremacists, anti-immigrant, anti-peace, anti-anything good in society jerks


I will give you an assist on why your opinion is not adopted.

Anything good in society includes democracy, free speech, and capitalism. Without wasting time on gotcha points related to unfettered examples of these items, or pointing out the weaknesses in your list of how to define rotten, do you see where decent people have valid questions?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For those who would prefer this explained in terms of Star Wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Atemz3_P8&feature=youtu.be


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> ....do you see where decent people have valid questions?


Are you saying that the hate groups present in Charlotteville have "decent people" among them? What are the 'valid questions' of said hate groups?

This should be interesting....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Are you saying that the hate groups present in Charlotteville have "decent people" among them? What are the 'valid questions' of said hate groups?
> 
> This should be interesting....


I'm saying antifa is also a hate group, as are the white supremacists. You, however, seem to think they are fighting the good fight, albeit with tactics you do not endorse. They are also attacking what is good in our countries. Some of the good things you left off your list. 

Feel free to speak up for a hate group in one paragraph, then try to browbeat someone for maybe thinking "rotten" things in your eyes because they are insufficiently fervent in denouncing another hate group. 

I choose neither group.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I'm saying antifa is also a hate group, as are the white supremacists.


I believe this is the root of your misconception. "antifa" is not a hate group. It does not spread hate. It attacks the purveyors of hate, and does not advocate discrimination based on race, skin colour, nationality, etc. I don't understand anarchists, which have apparently a strong presence within the global Anti-Fa movement. But I think you'd find it hard to fit them into an accepted definition of a "hate group".

These "white nationalist" groups (at least those who attempt to be 'acceptable') mask their racism with the excuse that they're being 'pushed out' by immigrants: "the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland" (Independent) and label it a legitimate cause. This is nonsense. It is founded in ideals of separation: us vs them. white vs black. These are people who are unable to see humanity; they see tribes. We are a human race, and should be coming together to build common ideals to advance our society. But folks who fear "polluting the bloodlines" are basing violent action upon those fears.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

antifa is a hate group against non-progressives.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Anti-fa hates anyone who disagrees with them and are not even open to discussion. Burning books, flags, firebombing events to stop free speech. They certainly do not come across as a peace and love protest group and really sound like fascists themselves. If you do not fall in line you are the problem and must be destroyed!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> antifa is a hate group against non-progressives.


So neo-nazis are, in your view, peaceable, just, misunderstood, non-progressives?

We're talking about the Charlotteville incident here, to be clear, not a broad unspecific discussion of left & right.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> Anti-fa hates anyone who disagrees with them and are not even open to discussion. Burning books, flags, firebombing events to stop free speech. They certainly do not come across as a peace and love protest group and really sound like fascists themselves. If you do not fall in line you are the problem and must be destroyed!


Again, I don't agree with the tactics. But they are not _by definition_ purveyors of hate.

*And here we go again with the deflection.Rather than address Trump's continued unwillingness to identify those who should be publicly identified as racists, bigots, spreaders of hate, groups that must be denounced, the usual suspects here in ehMac go off on tangents to avoid discussing Trump's abhorrent behaviour as President.*_ (edited to finish the thought)_

Free speech is one thing. But we're now in the theatre, and these jerks are screaming "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs, to create baseless fear and panic. They are dangerous to society as a whole.... far more dangerous than any islamic jihadist has been to date.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Again, I don't agree with the tactics. But they are not _by definition_ purveyors of hate.
> 
> And here we go again with the deflection. Rather than address Trump's continued unwillingness to identify those who should be publicly identified as racists, bigots, spreaders of hate. Groups that must be denounced.
> 
> Free speech is one thing. But we're now in the theatre, and these jerks are screaming "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs, to create baseless fear and panic. They are dangerous to society as a whole.... far more dangerous than any islamic jihadist has been to date.


Their actions speak louder then their words.

And as for free speech, Trump said what he wanted to say
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides" taken from CNN. 
Maybe he should start with apologizing for hurt feelings because some people did not hear what they wanted to hear. You can never win, he will never say exactly what you or others want to hear.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> .....Trump said what he wanted to say
> "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides" taken from CNN.
> Maybe he should start with apologizing for hurt feelings because some people did not hear what they wanted to hear. You can never win, he will never say exactly what you or others want to hear.


I am not alone in condemning Trump's parsing of words. Many Republicans have condemned his lack of identifying these despicable groups:

_Powerful figures in the Republican Party say the president squandered that opportunity with a Saturday statement that condemned violence and bigotry in broad terms but blamed tensions on “many sides.” The statement made no mention of the white nationalist groups that perpetrated the fatal gathering.

“These groups seem to believe they have a friend in Donald Trump in the White House. … I would urge the president to dissuade these groups that he’s their friend,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.”_​
By spreading the blame, he diminishes the seriousness of the existence of these racist groups.

This is by no means "hurt feelings". It's entirely a matter of what the President should do in the face of domestic terrorism.

I don't expect Trump to do any more than he did. His and his family's ties to the far-right, racist movements are a matter of record.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It doesn't matter if some Republicans disagree with Trump. Antifa is a hate group prone to violence. They spread hatred of those who are not part of their brand of progressivism. This hatred of "otherness' perfectly fits the definition of a hate group.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I am not alone in condemning Trump's parsing of words. Many Republicans have condemned his lack of identifying these despicable groups:
> 
> _Powerful figures in the Republican Party say the president squandered that opportunity with a Saturday statement that condemned violence and bigotry in broad terms but blamed tensions on “many sides.” The statement made no mention of the white nationalist groups that perpetrated the fatal gathering.
> 
> ...



You really think people think it is less serious because of this? If so you really do not think much of people and their ability to reason and understand what they are seeing. 

What do you want done? Him to say "it was the KKK and they are bad" Sure, everyone but the KKK believes that and would have no issue, but what does it do? Can you stop the KKK? No, freedom of speech goes both ways, while it sucks it is necessary to guard freedom for everyone. The only way to stop them is when they commit a crime. Nothing changes, the actions are no less because he did not specifically name the group. If this was some Black Lives Matter members causing some mayhem and violence there would not be a single thing said if Trump did not mention BLM as the problem, in fact if he did he would get roasted for it. 

As for Trumps father, how far back do you want to go to judge people? Do you have an ancestor who did some unsavoury things, should we now hold you up to that? Guilt by association now, sounds fun! Should we start rounding people up and condemning them based on the actions of others in their family?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> You really think people think it is less serious because of this? If so you really do not think much of people and their ability to reason and understand what they are seeing.
> 
> What do you want done? Him to say "it was the KKK and they are bad" Sure, everyone but the KKK believes that and would have no issue, but what does it do? Can you stop the KKK? No, freedom of speech goes both ways, while it sucks it is necessary to guard freedom for everyone. The only way to stop them is when they commit a crime. Nothing changes, the actions are no less because he did not specifically name the group. If this was some Black Lives Matter members causing some mayhem and violence there would not be a single thing said if Trump did not mention BLM as the problem, in fact if he did he would get roasted for it.
> 
> As for Trumps father, how back do you want to go to judge people? Do you have an ancestor who did some unsavoury things, should we now hold you up to that? Guilt by association now, sounds fun! Should we start rounding people up and condemning them based on the actions of others in their family?


This. In spades. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well said. CM's avatar celebrates a killer who headed up Cuba's infamous firing squads, but he doesn't worry about guilt by association with such hatred because Che Guevera is a "safe" leftist figure.




wonderings said:


> You really think people think it is less serious because of this? If so you really do not think much of people and their ability to reason and understand what they are seeing.
> 
> What do you want done? Him to say "it was the KKK and they are bad" Sure, everyone but the KKK believes that and would have no issue, but what does it do? Can you stop the KKK? No, freedom of speech goes both ways, while it sucks it is necessary to guard freedom for everyone. The only way to stop them is when they commit a crime. Nothing changes, the actions are no less because he did not specifically name the group. If this was some Black Lives Matter members causing some mayhem and violence there would not be a single thing said if Trump did not mention BLM as the problem, in fact if he did he would get roasted for it.
> 
> As for Trumps father, how back do you want to go to judge people? Do you have an ancestor who did some unsavoury things, should we now hold you up to that? Guilt by association now, sounds fun! Should we start rounding people up and condemning them based on the actions of others in their family?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> ...The only way to stop them is when they commit a crime. Nothing changes, the actions are no less because he did not specifically name the group. If this was some Black Lives Matter members causing some mayhem and violence there would not be a single thing said if Trump did not mention BLM as the problem, in fact if he did he would get roasted for it.


If we applied that sentiment uniformly, then, should the Right not be condemned for labelling all muslims as jihadist extremists? Only once they commit a crime, should they be labelled as criminals, murderers, etc.? Interesting how the labelling standard changes with skin colour, religious creed, national origin, citizenship status.... 

Trump also has no problem with naming who thinks are bad guys: it's only when the racist Right is involved that he goes broad, and incorporates the "many sides" concept. Not specifically calling out the racists is a tacit endorsement of them.



wonderings said:


> As for Trumps father, how far back do you want to go to judge people? Do you have an ancestor who did some unsavoury things, should we now hold you up to that? Guilt by association now, sounds fun! Should we start rounding people up and condemning them based on the actions of others in their family?


Trump's father is hardly an "ancestor". He's he man that shaped Donald's views on the world, one would expect. Trump's racist leanings are no secret (*emphasis mine*):

_Formal accusations of racial bias in Fred Trump's residential real estate business eventually materialized in 1973, *around the time that his son Donald was taking over management of the company. *In a lawsuit filed that year, the US Department of Justice alleged that Trump Management Corporation had violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by *systematically denying people rentals "because of race and color*." Fred Trump, testifying as company president, said he was "unfamiliar" with the Fair Housing Act, and that he hadn't changed his business practices after the federal law went into effect.

In 1975, the Trumps made a deal with the government to resolve the suit without an admission of guilt. According to a New York Times story from June 11, 1975, the Trump Management Corporation "*promised not to discriminate against blacks*, Puerto Ricans and other minorities." But *in 1978, the Justice Department filed another discrimination suit against the company, alleging that the Trumps weren't complying with the original terms of the 1975 settlement*.

A 1979 story in The Village Voice chronicled the rise of Trump's real estate empire, including *allegations of racial discrimination at properties managed by Trump.* According to the Voice, when there were vacancies in a Trump housing block, rental *applications were secretly marked with the applicant's race, and doormen were coached to discourage black people from renting;* at times, Trump rental agents were allegedly told simply not to rent to black people. In 1983, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal looked at two "Trump Village" residential properties, and found that they were 95 percent white.

In subsequent years, as *Donald Trump* morphed into a grandstanding tabloid celebrity, he *developed a reputation for agitating the public about racially-charged issues*. In 1989, he faced national criticism over full-page ads he took out in New York newspapers, warning of "roving bands of wild criminals" and calling for the return of the death penalty in a veiled reference to the Central Park Five. More recently, in the lead-up to the last presidential race, *he reignited right-wing conspiracies over Barack Obama's birthplace, *sending a team of investigators to Hawaii to uncover the president's true origins._
(Vice)​
Any reasonable person is going to look at Trump's personal, family and business history, his public pronouncements, and his apparent inability to identify racist perpetrators of acts of hate as pretty significant indicators that the man is quite basically, a racist.

I remember awhile back in the American Political thread as MacFury posted a photo of Trump holding a rainbow flag of evidence of his love for LGBT folks. Given his attempt to bar transgender soldiers from military service (despite all evidence pointing to no significant impact on readiness or capability), that also points to a man who has his prejudices.

Where is the evidence that shows Trump to be a person unencumbered by hate and bigotry? No-one here has presented anything in opposition as yet.

Where's the pudding?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Well said. CM's avatar celebrates a killer who headed up Cuba's infamous firing squads, but he doesn't worry about guilt by association with such hatred because Che Guevera is a "safe" leftist figure.


I have neither the time nor energy to go linking the many discussions MacNutt and I had surrounding Cuba, Guevara the trials of Batista's henchmen and the capital punishment verdicts meted out at the public trials. All Revolutions are bloody, and you'd find few Cubans on the island who would disagree that the vast majority of those executed got what they deserved (if you disagree, then you might want to read up on the pre-Revolutionary life of Cuba).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There you go--they got what they deserved. Simple as that. Now let's get back to the important work of defending antifa hate groups.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> ... antifa hate groups.


*Hate Group*
An organization whose goals and activities are primarily or substantially based on a shared antipathy towards people of one or more other different races, religions, ethnicities/nationalities/national origins, genders, and/or sexual identities. The mere presence of bigoted members in a group or organization is typically not enough to qualify it as a hate group; the group itself must have some hate-based orientation/purpose.
(Anti-Defamation League)​
*Defining a Hate Crime* 
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
(FBI)​


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Jeez, it's like pulling teeth with this guy....*

*Why Trump had to be badgered to condemn neo-Nazis*

Two days after a woman was killed in Charlottesville amid clashes between white nationalists and counterprotesters, President Trump on Aug. 14 condemned racist groups such as the KKK, saying racism “has no place in America.” (Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

After two days, blistering criticism from his own party and tougher anti-white-nationalist statements from the company that makes Tiki torches and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Trump dragged himself to the podium for a statement that specifically condemned white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other racists. He had to begin with some self-congratulations on the economy — because his accomplishments are what he really cares about. He told the country, “To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered.” He finally spit it out by calling racism “evil” and condemning the “KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups.”

He read from a teleprompter.
(Washington Post)​
*and*

*Under pressure, Trump condemns neo-Nazis, supremacists and KKK: ‘Racism is evil'*

President Donald Trump denounced the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis by name Monday and announced that the Justice Department has launched a civil rights investigation into the killing of a counterprotester at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend as he sought to tamp down mounting criticism of his initial response to the violence.

“Anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held accountable,” Trump said in brief remarks to reporters in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, where he returned after a week of vacation in Bedminster, N.J. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”

Trump added: “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as a nation.”

The statement came two days after he failed to specifically condemn the white supremacist rally after a woman was killed and as many as 19 wounded by a driver who reportedly espoused racist and pro-Nazi sentiments and had taken part in the “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville.
(National Post)​


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> If we applied that sentiment uniformly, then, should the Right not be condemned for labelling all muslims as jihadist extremists? Only once they commit a crime, should they be labelled as criminals, murderers, etc.? Interesting how the labelling standard changes with skin colour, religious creed, national origin, citizenship status....
> 
> Trump also has no problem with naming who thinks are bad guys: it's only when the racist Right is involved that he goes broad, and incorporates the "many sides" concept. Not specifically calling out the racists is a tacit endorsement of them.
> 
> ...


Can you please provide some evidence of Trump or anyone in political power that has stated that ALL Muslims are Jihadists extremists?

The countries the travel ban was to be imposed on were countries with issues and the USA wanted to reassess their policies when dealing with immigrants from these countries, this was never called to be a permanent ban. If I am wrong please provide some facts, but it is as far as I know it. Policies can be changed and should be changed as the need arises. 

It is nice to know we can only look back to the father for judging someone. I mean how could anyone turn out different then their parents so makes sense to judge a child for the actions of his parents. Might clog up the prison system though when we start judging 2 people for a crime committed by one person. No reasonable person is not going to judge a person by the action of their parents and place that on the child. Judge Trump for Trumps actions, trying to tie a connection to him being a racist because his dad was (I have no idea if he was or was not) is silly and ultimately unprovable. People think it is racist to want to deport illegal immigrants, I guess I am a racist then. The bar for being labeled a racist is very low these days. You can simple disagree with BLM and you are a racist. You disagree with Anti-Fa? You are a racist, homophobe and every other evil intolerant thing they can think to label you with.

As for the current events, it hardly seems like anything is being downplayed or being dealt with lightly. It is pretty humorous how people are getting worked over the lack of a few words. I would be more concerned with actions being taken rather then pleasing a segment of the population who get rattled whenever ever they hear something they do not like. 

Taken from CNN.com
"You can be sure this Department of Justice in this administration is going to take the most vigorous action to protect the right of people like Heather Heyer, to protest against racism and bigotry," Sessions said on NBC's "Today" show. "We're going to protect the right to assemble and march. And we're going to prosecute anybody, to the full extent of the law, that violates their ability to do so." 
"There's no bigger case right now that we're working on," Sessions said on CBS. "Every resource that's needed will be dedicated to it. We're going to study what happened in Charlottesville."
"We'll have our top people in Charlottesville," he added.
Sessions vows 'vigorous' action in wake of Charlottesville tragedy - CNNPolitics

So what we have here is a terrible event, and a system that is now working to bring justice and bring the full measure of the law again the criminals who broke it. Just another sign of institutional racism at work.

I have no real thoughts on the the trans issue with the military. I think if there is any concerns though for active service members in combat, no matter how small, that it should be changed for the best and safest course for military men and women. I am not a staunch Trump supporter, I do think he is being attacked more so than any other President has before, partially his own fault he really should have just kept his mouth/fingers shut and just done his job. I do think people today are ultra sensitive, hence the need for safe places, micro aggression and all the other buzz words for people who cannot handle reality or someone who has an opinion that differs from them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do you think one specially selected definition pulled your ass out of the fire? Nope.

Queen's University says:



> Hate groups are organizations which: spread lies intended to incite hatred toward certain groups of people; advocate violence against certain groups on the basis of sexual orientation, race, colour, religion etc.; claim that their identity (racial, religious etc.) is 'superior' to that of other people; do not value the human rights of other people.





CubaMark said:


> *Hate Group*
> An organization whose goals and activities are primarily or substantially based on a shared antipathy towards people of one or more other different races, religions, ethnicities/nationalities/national origins, genders, and/or sexual identities. The mere presence of bigoted members in a group or organization is typically not enough to qualify it as a hate group; the group itself must have some hate-based orientation/purpose.
> (Anti-Defamation League)​
> *Defining a Hate Crime*
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Unbelieveable, CM, to see your hatred and bigotry against groups right of centre on parade like this. It's an ugly spectacle.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> It does not spread hate.


Yes it does. Specifically, hatred towards the right wing, to which they apply every -ist in order to justify their violence and drum up recruits. In other words, smearing people with certain beliefs and opinions to gin up anger and hatred, and following through with violence against that group. Their reasoning is getting so flimsy, I wouldn't be surprised if they started attacking reporters or bystanders for looking wrong.

What you described sounds closer to a PR pitch than reality, but maybe it was true in the past, or in Europe, or both.

Charlottesville wasn't the white hats versus the black hats. It was opposing hate groups and I don't know how many people who were tricked into thinking otherwise who got caught up in the disaster.

Why the police did not keep them separated is anybody's guess. Truly reckless. I find the white supremacists more repugnant, but that does not mean I will pretend their opponents are something other than a hate group.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> We are a human race, and should be coming together to build common ideals to advance our society.


This is where a couple of those three good things you missed come into play. We are individuals and will always have our differences. Sometimes quite stark, and long-lasting (see ehmac, for example); sometimes eternal and bitter. The social good is that we will battle over those differences using words and, politically, through votes. Not vigilante physical attacks on people who are using words.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej makes a good point. One is as bad as the other. More concern for portions of the left becoming 'hate groups' of the right, even unwittingly, is warranted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm also amazed to see the same people who bridled at those who wanted Obama to name "Islamic terrorists" demanding that Trump name the KKK. It's not as though Obama ever capitulated.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_There is no more reactionary, hate-filled and outright loony Republican (certainly not a RINO) than Ros-Lehtinen. Even she sees the error of Trump's position:_

*'No moral equivalence': Both parties denounce Trump's Charlottesville comments*

Republican and Democratic lawmakers are reacting to U.S. President Donald Trump's latest comments on the violence over the weekend in Charlottesville, Va.

The president said he believes "there's blame on both sides" for what transpired.

Senior and longtime members of Trump's Republican Party disagreed with the president's statement.

Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Twitter that "bigotry is counter to all this country stands for," while Arizona Sen. John McCain said, "There's no moral equivalency between racists and Americans standing up to defy hate and bigotry."

Republican members of Congress and the Senate also weighed in, with Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas saying "no one, especially POTUS, should ever tolerate" white supremacy, bigotry and racism.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida tweeted: "Blaming 'both sides' for #Charlottesville?! No."

** * **​
Democratic leadership warned Trump's comments could embolden white nationalists.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said, "When David Duke and white supremacists cheer your remarks, you're doing it very, very wrong."

(CBC)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Trump was right on the money regarding the hate on both sides and the fact that some Republicans choose to kowtow to the press takes nothing away from that. I'm glad he had the guts to open some real dialogue instead of the phony talk that passes for discussion of issues.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Trump was right on the money regarding the hate on both sides and the fact that some Republicans choose to kowtow to the press takes nothing away from that. I'm glad he had the guts to open some real dialogue instead of the phony talk that passes for discussion of issues.


I agree. This was not a simple 1 way fight. As abhorrent and awful as the KKK and White Nationals are, and not to downplay their actions at all, both sides as far as I know, were going back and forth egging each other on. 

It does not excuse these kind of actions/reactions at all, but rarely does one side just show up and start with a full frontal attack. When dealing with KKK and their like, you almost need to just step back and let them get it over with and exersize their free speech as quickly as possible to get it over with. You are dealing with mentally deficient people here and you just never know how these morons are going to react. The mass majority of the country and world are against them, I really doubt they are converting anyone with their words and rallies and I really doubt anyone is converting them through rallies and protests... unfortunately.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, it takes two to tango and Trump was right in calling both sides at fault. Frankly I was surprised he got it right, he is usually wrong. End of story.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Trump was also right that some of the protesters on the left were simply concerned about the hate groups on the right and wanted to protest their event. Likewise, some people who attended the rally were simply there as a show of support for historic monuments, not the KKK.



wonderings said:


> I agree. This was not a simple 1 way fight. As abhorrent and awful as the KKK and White Nationals are, and not to downplay their actions at all, both sides as far as I know, were going back and forth egging each other on.
> 
> It does not excuse these kind of actions/reactions at all, but rarely does one side just show up and start with a full frontal attack. When dealing with KKK and their like, you almost need to just step back and let them get it over with and exersize their free speech as quickly as possible to get it over with. You are dealing with mentally deficient people here and you just never know how these morons are going to react. The mass majority of the country and world are against them, I really doubt they are converting anyone with their words and rallies and I really doubt anyone is converting them through rallies and protests... unfortunately.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

SINC said:


> Yep, it takes two to tango and Trump was right in calling both sides at fault. Frankly I was surprised he got it right, he is usually wrong. End of story.



+1 !!!

I have to agree with those comments. And quite surprised as well and how he handled some "_reporters_". And I use the term very loosely!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Funny how an average American black girl gets it and others have no clue, including the main stream media.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Funny how an average American black girl gets it and others have no clue, including the main stream media.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. Makes relevant points.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Onion on antifa.

Antifa Organizers Announce Plans To Disrupt Neo-Nazi Rally Or Whatever Else Going On That Day - The Onion - America's Finest News Source



> At press time, black-clad Antifa demonstrators screaming “Fascists, go home!” had swarmed a Scandinavian street festival.


Satire that is not far from the truth.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Beej said:


> The Onion on antifa.
> 
> Antifa Organizers Announce Plans To Disrupt Neo-Nazi Rally Or Whatever Else Going On That Day - The Onion - America's Finest News Source
> 
> Satire that is not far from the truth.


No one from the antifa side has bothered to explain how a group claiming to be anti-fascist can support suppression of free speech. I believe suppression of free speech and fascism goose step together in locked synchronization.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> No one from the antifa side has bothered to explain how a group claiming to be anti-fascist can support suppression of free speech. I believe suppression of free speech and fascism goose step together in locked synchronization.


I saw a youtube video of some guy handing out flyers supporting Antifa. Not your typical antifa looking guy, clean cut, respectable looking. The reasoning he used is it is ok to stop fascists from speaking, that is not suppressing free speech, it is stop fascism. 

I do not agree, and it is a dangerous line. Whenever you disagree with something and label it fascism or whatever you want to label it you now feel justified in trying to silence them by any means.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If I created a group called Anticom and decided I should suppress the speech of communists and stop them by any means, Antifa would attack Anticom.



wonderings said:


> I saw a youtube video of some guy handing out flyers supporting Antifa. Not your typical antifa looking guy, clean cut, respectable looking. The reasoning he used is it is ok to stop fascists from speaking, that is not suppressing free speech, it is stop fascism.
> 
> I do not agree, and it is a dangerous line. Whenever you disagree with something and label it fascism or whatever you want to label it you now feel justified in trying to silence them by any means.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

wonderings said:


> I saw a youtube video of some guy handing out flyers supporting Antifa. Not your typical antifa looking guy, clean cut, respectable looking. The reasoning he used is it is ok to stop fascists from speaking, that is not suppressing free speech, it is stop fascism.
> 
> I do not agree, and it is a dangerous line. Whenever you disagree with something and label it fascism or whatever you want to label it you now feel justified in trying to silence them by any means.


Once legislation is in place to suppress one groups free speech, the tyrants also have the tool they need to suppress other groups, for example the antifa types.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> I believe suppression of free speech and fascism goose step together in locked synchronization.


Marxism also ends up against free speech. It's not a coincidence there are significant challenges to free speech on university campuses. Places with virtually no fascists, but many marxists.

The two groups deserve each other, but both have the same rights as the rest of us, whether or not they believe such rights are a good idea. Belligerent idiots are people too.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The (intentional?) blind spot to domestic terrorists is being revealed. It's antifa.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...osal-for-america-s-fascists-and-anti-fascists

Go Home Antifa, and Take Your White Privilege With You. Category: Extra from The Berkeley Daily Planet

Berkeley's Antifa Takeover Shows There Is Evil On Both Sides

Or a video discussing the matter in more conversational language.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-4B3d2m-x0[/ame]


I'm only a bit optimistic. Some of the "reveal" still seems to miss the mark. At least there is a better understanding of the blind spot and the "two sides" than a few months ago.

Next up, hopefully, is realizing which one is the bigger problem from a public safety perspective, and how they pick their targets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good post, beej.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Good post, beej.


Thanks. I take from this that all of my other posts are not good (assuming intention is the new 40!). beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It was notable among your other good posts!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Rex Murphy's comments about anti-fascists are despicable*

“False equivalency” or “moral equivalency” is a well-known propaganda technique used by Nazi Germany, its appeasers, and now by the Trump’s administration and its supporters. This tactic was on full display in Donald Trump’s response to the events in Charlottesville. 

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country,” said Trump, casually dismissing the neo-Nazi terrorist murder of Heather Heyer as well as the injury of nineteen other anti-racist demonstrators.

By refusing to condemn white nationalists marching with torches (an obvious symbol when placed in the historical context of Charlottesville), Trump was securing a place for Nazis in America’s political discourse. Rex Murphy is doing the same thing with his spluttering about the violence of anti-fascists.

Of course there is no equivalency between fascists and anti-fascists. The only thing they have in common is that they are willing, in some circumstances, to use violence. If we were to follow Murphy’s logic, we would have to conclude that anyone who is not a pacifist is a fascist. His equivocations demonize those who seek to defend themselves from violent, racist thugs.

Rex Murphy begins by mocking the idea that fascism is a threat in North America. In his view, there is no risk of fascism developing in the U.S. or Canada because he sees these groups as a small fringe. The reader is therefore led to conclude that there is no reason for anti-fascists to mobilize.

What Murphy doesn’t seem to see from his protected and privileged position as a rich white male media celebrity, is that fascists are dangerous even as a fringe with small numbers.

He seems to miss that this small fringe is represented in the White House. He also seems oblivious to the fact that, only two years ago, Donald Trump himself was on the fringes of politics. And yet today here is as the president. It’s lost on Murphy that journalists, political pundits, and politicians said similar things about the Nazis in the 1920s. 

Whether or not the rise of fascism is possible or likely in North America today, there is ample reason to fight fascists now.
(Ricochet)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Digest it for us, CM--what are we poor, deluded fools to do in response to Murphy's column?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No argument. 'Cause with Bill's Wife not ever going to be POTUS, all these Prog wankers still living in their parents' basements need something to do with their time...



CubaMark said:


> Whether or not the rise of fascism is possible or likely in North America today, there is ample reason to fight fascists now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CM's dreadful linked article by a postal worker (way to go on improving your sources, CM!) tries to make all sorts of failed connections. Again, the cognitive dissonance created by Trump's victory forces all of these prog wankers to enter a fantasy zone where Russians and Fascists snatched away their deserved victory--not their issues or candidate.



FeXL said:


> No argument. 'Cause with Bill's Wife not ever going to be POTUS, all these Prog wankers still living in their parents' basements need something to do with their time...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> CM's dreadful linked article by a postal worker (way to go on improving your sources, CM!) tries to make all sorts of failed connections.


Now don't you be dissin' his sources, MF. Postal workers, MJ, Snopes, _et al_, all have an iron-clad, platinum plated, Prog approved provenance. Saluuute... :clap:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I like to think that I'm pretty well read with the news of the day up there in Canada / the USA.

But I hadn't heard about *Michael Christopher Estes*. Anyone else? (without searching)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> I like to think that I'm pretty well read with the news of the day up there in Canada / the USA.
> 
> But I hadn't heard about *Michael Christopher Estes*. Anyone else? (without searching)


The incident itself was known to me the day it happened, but no information was given as to who the suspect was or that they had captured anyone.

I distinctly recall seeing the story on the evening TV news on a number of stations in Canada, but since the bomb was diffused it was not given much play.

And yes, I had to search the name to be able to write this. 

My bet is that federal authorities did not want much released to avoid any panic about terrorism on US soil and deep sixed the details. Apparently bomb found, diffused and no problem was the official version preferred.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I've had my head down with a book project (deadline today! going through coffee like Homer goes through donuts!), so perhaps I missed what coverage there was.

One report, citing the booking record, indicated that Estes is native american... it will be interesting to see what the motivation is.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Glad to see the Darwin Effect acting more rapidly than usual in this case...._

*Bomb-making suspect had white supremacist literature*









[*Photo: A nice, wholesome, white Christian boy... just misunderstood, is all*]​
Unsealed court records in connection with a bomb making suspect in Beaver Dam show investigators found potential, homemade bombs, and white supremacist literature in the suspect's apartment after a March explosion in the unit.

The explosion killed suspect Benjamin Morrow, and damaged his unit and other parts of his Beaver Dam apartment complex. Authorities said removing materials from the blast scene was too dangerous, so a controlled detonation, and later a controlled burn were used to destroy the potentially explosive material.

Unsealed Dodge County court search warrant records show state justice department division of criminal investigation agent Kevin Heimerl found thirteen medium sized jars of potentially "...finished TATP explosive material" in the apartment refrigerator. Experts say TATP is often seen used in homemade explosives and has been found in bombings worldwide. Heimerl said containers labeled TATP were found in Morrow's apartment garage.

In the unsealed court records, Heimerl described the scene in the apartment as a "homemade explosive laboratory," with instructions found on the manufacture of homemade explosives.

Search warrant records also show Morrow may have had interest in white supremacy.

"Within his bedroom, literature has been found concerning white supremacy groups," Heimerl stated in justifying search efforts of Morrow's lap top computer and electronic devices.

"Yes, he did have white supremacy material," Beaver Dam Police Detectives Lieutenant Terrence Gebhardt tells 27 News. 

(WKOW)​
*RELATED:*

Man Who Reportedly Blew Himself Up Making Massive Bomb Found With White Supremacist Literature

Haven't seen this yet in any of the mainstream news sources as of 1130am MST Friday....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When there are no real victims, you don't get immediate media coverage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice to see one of these kooks finally get what they deserve by their own hand.


----------

