It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I was in Charlottesville. Trump was wrong about violence on the left

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
Both sides went there looking for trouble and they both got what they wanted.



The Left knew this rally was going to happen.

They went looking for trouble thats the difference.

You could say that both sides were involved in the trouble but it was the left who sought it out.




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: rickymouse

Are those videos of two sides equally fighting each other - or one side instigating and the other merely defending?


That I cannot tell. Both sides were hammering on each other though. Often the one who instigates the fight is not the one who throws the first punch. I know people who fire up people and get them arguing, they enjoy doing that and watching the fight progress. Usually they go off to the side after they start getting people riled up.

I cannot tell from the video who instigated this, but I can tell you one thing for sure, there would have not been any violence if nobody was there protesting their function. The people protesting these kind of marches actually throw fuel on the fire, Chaos loves people to challenge them so they get publicity for their followers.

Two wrongs never make a right. Both sides were guilty of making this protest violent. The guy who ran his car into those people should get the death sentence and if they can find who riled him up to make him do that, that person should go to prison for a long time.
edit on 17-8-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: neo96

Oh, so what you're actually saying is people shouldn't have the right to freedom of speech if you do not agree with the topic?


Guess what ?

Even NAZIS have that RIGHT to speech and assembly.


I never said they didn't. They DO NOT, however, have the right to instigate violence and then blame those they instigated it on.


Which one had the permit ?


The same people who had it cancelled shortly afterwards.


Them evil nazis wasn't it ?


Yep. And when they showed they were there for violence the permit was cancelled.


The Anti's didn't.

Therefore they were the instigators.


Nope. By the time the violence started the permit had been rescinded. It was rescinded because they proved they were there to instigate violence.

Why do you keep defending Nazi's and KKK?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Can't you counterprotest without getting emotional and striking first........the Civil Rights Era Leaders managed to get big crowds to do just that? Do I need to post video of that or is that a gimmee?

Just in case....proof

link
edit on 17-8-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Kryties

That wasn't my question.

Is a stranger's anecdotal evidence more credible than a cops?


In this case, where we need first-hand video, it is irrelevant.

Im curious as to why people keep claiming there is tonnes of videos out there proving the Left started the violence and yet none of those same people have bothered to post the evidence. If it is so easy to find, it shouldn't be hard right?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm trying to determine why people would suggest that the Left shouldn't have defended themselves against violence.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Ah, so we can ignore all the video footage then. Riiiight.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I would suggest everyone watch this if you haven't already:




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: neo96

Oh, so what you're actually saying is people shouldn't have the right to freedom of speech if you do not agree with the topic?


Guess what ?

Even NAZIS have that RIGHT to speech and assembly.


I never said they didn't. They DO NOT, however, have the right to instigate violence and then blame those they instigated it on.


Who was instigating violence here?

The group calmly walking away, or the group swinging ball bats following them and taunting them?



They look so peaceful, don't they.
edit on 17-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Ah, so we can ignore all the video footage then. Riiiight.


For the 9th time so far POST THE EVIDENCE IF YOU HAVE IT.

People keep claiming there is all this evidence and yet nobody posts it.

POST YOUR EVIDENCE.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

So in other words, you won't take a cops anecdotal story because there is no first hand evidence, but you'll take a stranger's first hand anecdotal without any evidence.

Because confirmation bias feels good?

You don't see the hypocrisy?

Sorry, this is an empty and pathetic attempt.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: neo96

Oh, so what you're actually saying is people shouldn't have the right to freedom of speech if you do not agree with the topic?


Guess what ?

Even NAZIS have that RIGHT to speech and assembly.


I never said they didn't. They DO NOT, however, have the right to instigate violence and then blame those they instigated it on.


Which one had the permit ?

Them evil nazis wasn't it ?

The Anti's didn't.

Therefore they were the instigators.


I was wondering if either group had a permit, obviously the group that didn`t have a permit to peaceably and legally assemble are at fault.without a permit they were just a mob intent on depriving others of their right to free speech,this is why the government has deemed it necessary to issue permits to assemble, to prevent situations like this from happening.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Why do you keep defending Nazi's and KKK?


Didn't know I was.

I thought I was a believer of Voltaire.



That's set in stone in the Bill of Rights.

Like any rational,civilized,intelligent evolved person would do.

Instead of running around trying to act like the Inglorious Bastards.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96
they both had permits...
the judge pointed that out when he made the decision to the the unite the right remain where it was...
there were conditions placed on those permits, agreements...
those agreements were not kept.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Who was instigating violence here?

The group calmly walking away, or the group swinging ball bats following them and taunting them?

They look so peaceful, don't they.


All I can see are a bunch of white supremacists and Nazis armed to the teeth with bats, helmets, shields etc etc instigating violence.


edit on 17/8/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Kryties

So in other words, you won't take a cops anecdotal story because there is no first hand evidence,


But.....but.....

9 people have so far claimed they have "first hand evidence" and yet nobody has posted it.

Why is that?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Why don't YOU post some non anecdotal evidence?

Why is that?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Grambler

Who was instigating violence here?

The group calmly walking away, or the group swinging ball bats following them and taunting them?

They look so peaceful, don't they.


All I can see are a bunch of white supremacists and Nazis armed to the teeth with bats, helmets, shields etc etc instigating violence.



And there you have it.

So according to you, it would have been ok to attack any of these people walking because the mere fact they are naazis (I would bet many of them would disagree) and had weapons shows they were instigating violence.

Does everyone see the mindset of these people?

This poster is exactly the kind that would have been beating people there that were not being violent and feeling totally justified in doing it.


edit on 17-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The two groups triggered one another...

...Didn't realize Charlottesville VA got that much snow in the summertime...



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: neo96
they both had permits...
the judge pointed that out when he made the decision to the the unite the right remain where it was...
there were conditions placed on those permits, agreements...
those agreements were not kept.


I didn't know this. Thankyou for that information mate.




top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join