Trump says the 'alt-left' bears some responsibility for violence in Charlottesville

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So "the terrorists" in your version don't have the right to assemble and speak?

It's really that clear cut? Innocent Nazis and White Supremacists just protesting a statue?

Come ON Texan.

Did Antifa have a permit?

Did the counter protesters have a permit?

It seems that they did. Several people have complained that the CPD allowed ANTIFA to "leave their area" ... do you have information about that fact?

Also, let's not side-step the issue. What was the instigating cause in all this? Was it a White Supremacist political rally announcing their unification? Or something else?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Did Antifa have a permit?

No one needs a permit to do the right thing.

Only when we want to do something wrong, do we need to seek approval.

Then, we get a special "exemption" for a time, to satisfy the other ideal of "freedom".

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

You wish to continue your pals lie that the usa entered ww2 to fight germany create a separate thread.
Unsourced propaganda posters have no bearing on that discussion. I sourced neutrality laws passed by congress at the time and other information that showed the general public in the usa at the time did not support entering ww2 UNTIL pearl harbor. Your amego lied and got called out. Defend him if you wish just do it elsewhere. I know "Nazimania" is now a thing here, but I think sources are still required. Neither of you have posted any to defend your bs.

Dude. The US declared war on Germany after they declared war on us. You don't seem to be able to parse this fairly simple fact.

What sources have you offered for anything here? See above: moving the goalposts.

As to my responses, I'll speak within T&C wherever and whenever I please. You're so badly mistaken on a ridiculous point that you're not doing anything more than embarrassing yourself.

By all means, keep going.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

When is violence appropriate?

Well thats the million dollar question.

I could say when its legal but that wimpy.

Some people say never, but I disagree with that.

I certainly think its justified for self defense, by which I mean when you are being attacked or it is certain you are about to be.

But beyond that; who knows.

Its simple in the futuure to say there should have been violence against the 1920 nazis to stop that tragedy, but we can only do that because hindsight is 20/20.

But for every example of when thaat would have been good, we have an actual example of people killing sometimes great numbers of people because they were certain is was for the greater good.

Abortion bombers, Bolsheviks, anti government types, and on and on.

Look at Ted Kaczynski. He was convinced technology was the downfall of humanity, was a genius, and was absolutely certain he was doing the greater good.

So I can't really answer your question, but I think its safest to not use it except in cases of self defense from immediate harm.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Grambler
By saying that someone should have stopped the nazis before they got into power, and then comparing that to todays situation, you are convincing people that they would have every right to kill these future nazis to stop a great tragedy.

That, combined with others (not saying you) calling anyone who is sticking up for free speech nazis and nazi defenders, and you now have just created the moral justification for killing a large group of people.

I get what you're saying, but we don't have quite the same equivalency today. In post WWI Germany there were tough times. The NSDAP came out and said "Give us the power, and we can fix all that". Germans said "Nazis...that sounds interesting. What could go wrong?" And subsequently, everything went wrong and the average German was honestly able to say "Whoa! Didn't see that coming!"

Today, if we see some goof turn up saying "Hi! I'm a Nazi! I'm here to make your life better!"...I think we can be forgiven for saying "# You" in the strongest terms required.

I agree we can say it in the strongest terms.

That does not give us the right to initiate violence on them first.

a reply to: Grambler

Indeed. On all counts.

That's the problem in casting our wide net of citing folks at this UTR rally ... we have videos, on-the-scene reports ... but we weren't there ourselves.

Did instigators react to instigators? Did thugs bash thugs?

Do we care? Is ALL of this an overreaction?

What do we all really want in life? To live in peace and prosperity and care for our families?

LOL.

originally posted by: windword

Nazis are bad. Nazis are so bad that Americans got off their sofas and tractors and declared war, joined the Allies and went to war against NAZI GERMANY. We didn't go to war with some Germans, we went to war with NAZI controlled Germany.

We, as Americans, took a moral stand against NAZI doctrine and rhetoric of Aryan (White) Supremacy and won in face of extreme sacrifice and hardship and many people laid down their life so that NAZIAM and Fascism would not take hold in Europe of on American Soil.

NAZI doctrine and goals are anti-American and an enemy to American ideals, which hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

All NAZIs are bad. There are no good NAZIs.

Lol you do not know history that well then. We sided with the Allies not because Nazis were bad, but because Japan Bomb us. We were sitting this one out up to 1941, a big part of that reason was American Bankers were actually for Germany. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked and the despicable actions of Germany towards the Jews was known, that sealed their fate.

I also agree there are no Good Nazis, but our freedoms allow for people to have small minded views like this. It is kind of like book burning, once we start to pick and choose where do we stop. Muslims do not believe all men are equal either, so once again where do we stop? It also seems we have been using a wide fascist brush on many just because their views are not the same. That brush does hit true fascist, but I feel that lately it being used way beyond what a true fascist would be.

a reply to: Gryphon66
None of that happened BEFORE pearl harbor
no pearl harbor=no usa in ww2
en.wikipedia.org...(1941)

7: (December 8, Asian time zones) Japan launches an attack on Pearl Harbor, declares war on the United States and the United Kingdom and invades Thailand and British Malaya and launches aerial attacks against Guam, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Shanghai, Singapore and Wake Island. Canada declares war on Japan. Australia declares war on Japan. : Adolf Hitler signs the German "Night and Fog decree" dictating the elimination of anti-Nazi resistance activities in Western Europe. 8: The United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and New Zealand declare war on Japan. : Japanese forces take the Gilbert Islands (which include Tarawa). Clark Field in the Philippines is bombed, and many American aircraft are destroyed on the ground. : Japanese troops attack Thailand in the Battle of Prachuab Khirikhan. : The Battle of Hong Kong begins : The Malayan Campaign begins. 9: China officially declares war on Japan, although a de facto state of war has existed between the two countries since the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937. China also declares war on Germany and Italy. Australia officially declares war on Japan. 9: Striking miners of the Union Minière at Elizabethville in the Belgian Congo are fired on by Belgian colonial forces during negotiations, killing an estimated 70 people. 10: British battlecruiser HMS Repulse and battleship HMS Prince of Wales are sunk in a Japanese air attack in the South China Sea. 11: Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. The United States reciprocates and declares war on Germany and Italy.

your friend/guy/buddy was attempting to lie about the usa fighting the dirty nazis
the ugly truth is the usa wanted NO part of ww2 until pearl harbor

none of which has ANYTHING to do with vs other than "Nazimania"(which i should trademark)
and even that is suspect as the "nazis" at va are in no way a comparison to real nazis

but hey i look forward to more dishonest gibberish from you and your ilk

a reply to: Xtrozero

We declared war on Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany declared war on us.

Is this a fact or not a fact?

a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL, now you're talking about "alternate histories" ... lol.

I love science fiction.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Indeed. On all counts.

That's the problem in casting our wide net of citing folks at this UTR rally ... we have videos, on-the-scene reports ... but we weren't there ourselves.

Did instigators react to instigators? Did thugs bash thugs?

Do we care? Is ALL of this an overreaction?

What do we all really want in life? To live in peace and prosperity and care for our families?

LOL.

Exactly. And who can we trust for a fare account? Both sides are going to claim the other was responsible. Most media outlets are incredibly biased to one side or another.

And we weren't there.

So all we can do is condemn all of the violence, keep digging for the truth, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And this is a little of our discussion, but I think part of that is asking just what the heck was going on with the police doing things like apparently leading thee two groups together intentionally.

But the whole thing is a disgusting mess.

Yeah there was just some asshole on Fox saying Trump was wrong to say not everyone that was at the protest was a Nazi. His argument was if you were just there to protest the removal of the statue, when you saw Nazi salutes and swastikas you should've left, and if you stayed you're a Nazi or at least a Nazi sympathizer.

So logically this means that everyone who came out to a Black Lives Matter protest where there was any talk of cop-killing is a cop-killer or at least sympathizes with cop-killing.

Stop and think about the extensions you're making.

originally posted by: face23785
Yeah there was just some asshole on Fox saying Trump was wrong to say not everyone that was at the protest was a Nazi. His argument was if you were just there to protest the removal of the statue, when you saw Nazi salutes and swastikas you should've left, and if you stayed you're a Nazi or at least a Nazi sympathizer.

So logically this means that everyone who came out to a Black Lives Matter protest where there was any talk of cop-killing is a cop-killer or at least sympathizes with cop-killing.

Stop and think about the extensions you're making.

Are you writing this to the fellow on Fox?

Are they a member?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL, now you're talking about "alternate histories" ... lol.

I love science fiction.

I post sources
you respond with gibberish

good day

a reply to: Gryphon66

I brought the point here because it's a valid part of the discussion and I'm certain there are members here who believe the same thing, and I thought it prudent to bring a counter-argument. Don't be willfully ignorant, you knew that.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL, now you're talking about "alternate histories" ... lol.

I love science fiction.

I post sources
you respond with gibberish

good day

You haven't posted a single source that contradicts what Windword said, to wit ... Nazis are bad, the US defeated Nazi Germany in World War II and have ALWAYS portrayed that action as a victory over evil, etc. etc.

You seem to be hung upon the trivial point that you think the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war with Germany. All you've done here is try to repeat that point. I've QUOTED the source for the Declaration of War on Germany, and you still don't get it.

Please do stop embarrassing yourself.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Did Antifa have a permit?

No one needs a permit to do the right thing.

Only when we want to do something wrong, do we need to seek approval.

Then, we get a special "exemption" for a time, to satisfy the other ideal of "freedom".

Other than you being wrong by using hyperbole instead of reality, i don't disagree.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Gryphon66

I brought the point here because it's a valid part of the discussion and I'm certain there are members here who believe the same thing, and I thought it prudent to bring a counter-argument. Don't be willfully ignorant, you knew that.

I can read your mind?

Thankfully, that is not correct.

I can only go on what you posted, which was a criticism of what you think someone on Fox said.

Your counter-argument seems to turn on a vague general idea that "guilt by association" is not sufficient evidence of ... something.

You've been arguing that people are only responsible for what they do, and now you're arguing the counter?

Now, as I said, I'm not a mind-reader, but you seem a bit confused.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So "the terrorists" in your version don't have the right to assemble and speak?

It's really that clear cut? Innocent Nazis and White Supremacists just protesting a statue?

Come ON Texan.

Did Antifa have a permit?

Did the counter protesters have a permit?

It seems that they did. Several people have complained that the CPD allowed ANTIFA to "leave their area" ... do you have information about that fact?

Also, let's not side-step the issue. What was the instigating cause in all this? Was it a White Supremacist political rally announcing their unification? Or something else?

If you lay aside the inflammation and focus on the facts, you have a group permitted to exercise their right to assemble. It isn't instigation...its free speech.

TBH, if i have to choose, i'd choose the retards with lots of hate speech over the retards who like to assault people. The idiots with hateful words are unable to instigate me (or any other sane and intelligent person) because they are simply words. The folks swinging bats, on the other hand, would be shot.

There is no excuse for instigating violence. Not even someone saying vile, hateful things. Mostly because it is their right to say those things.

RE: Antifa being permitted...if they left their area, then they are at fault. I do not know if they were permitted or not. But if they were, the city is also at fault for putting fire next to a powder keg and not policing it appropriately.

a reply to: Grambler

I can condemn all of the unprovoked violence, but I can't equivocate the two "sides."

The white-wingers were there to make a political statement of their intentions to unify under President Trump who they apparently believe supports them and their beliefs.

That's dangerous, Grambler; Newton's Third Law.