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.

 

DATA RELEASE: “Unite The Right” Planning Chats Demonstrate Violent Intent

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

They didn't back out because of they thought it was a setup. They backed out because the organizers allowed the Nazis to take over.

And as I've said in a number of posts now, it doesn't matter if the organizers were some super secret Leftist agents (which is ridiculous.) Nazis showed up and got violent. That's the beginning and the end of the story.

Just look at the chat logs. Kessler and Mosely were pretty hands off in the actual planning. The Nazis worked themselves up in to a fervor and they are the ones that planned to commit violence.




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It was Stewart Rhodes himself who made the statement that they didn't go because they checked into the backgrounds of some of the organizers and it looked like a set-up. He also said that Oathkeepers won't be involved n protecting Nazis. It was a very interesting interview. I don't think it is up on the net except by subscription to Caravan but it is well worth a listen to research they've done on this movement.

So the source of funding for this mess of a freak show doesn't make any difference? If a leftist freak actually set it up and then turned it over to the rightist freaks to act out---the leftist freak is absolved of all blame? Nah, that doesn't wash with anyone except freaks. Normal people don't seek out hate rallies, only hateful people seek out such rallies.

ANYONE who preaches violence is a freak. ANYONE who practices violence in pursuit of political goals is a criminal.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

How convenient



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Everything you disagree with is a bad source huh?
I guess the only ligit source is if David Duke had a sit down and explained it to you personally.

Must be nice to pick and choose your reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Jews will not replace us. It was very clear.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Reprehensible, but few of us are supportive of literal nazis or white nationalists on here, although there are some exceptions.

They should be condemned.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


edit on 23-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I agree with you here though, the media is mostly covering up for Antifa. If one goes to Antifa websites, twitter accounts, etc, they glorify and talk about violence too.

Having said that, yes, these white supremacists or violent agitators on the right should be condemned too.

a reply to: TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
No, but that isn't quite accurate. If you mean general liberal protesters, sure. I've been one of them. Antifa itself says they want a violent revolution by any means necessary, an end to free speech, an end to democracy, and an end to the Constitution. You can see for yourself if you go to their docs and webpages. a reply to: Xcalibur254



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Amazing. We get first hand evidence that the UTR group was PLANNING violence ... and what's the takeaway?

Sure, da MEDIA is covering for ANTIFA.

No, the media is not covering for anyone. Articles abound in all mainstream media about the violent nature of individual ANTIFA members.

In Charlottesville, however, according to the RESIDENTS there, ANIFA was protecting them from UTR Nazis.




edit on 23-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


No, but that isn't quite accurate. If you mean general liberal protesters, sure. I've been one of them. Antifa itself says they want a violent revolution by any means necessary, an end to free speech, an end to democracy, and an end to the Constitution. You can see for yourself if you go to their docs and webpages. a reply to: Xcalibur254



Can you quote "ANTIFA" saying that? Because in America, it's at best a disjointed informal group.

But I'd like to see the basis for the claim that they have "SAID" that they want to end free speech, democracy, the Constitution, etc.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, it’s nice of you to hate organizations like the KKK and Nazis who have a history of murder and a doctrine of supremacy and to get power to exterminate minorities

You will NOT find the equivalent doctrine in BLM or Antifa, so for you and Trump to equate the two is reprehensible and absurd.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh those items can't be worn just in case... to protect if someone else is violent?
They have to mean you plan on being violent?
Come on I know you're not dumb.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

There actually is no such thing as alt left but do carry on...



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's symbolic. A Nazi Germany chant they have adopted.


Why are you defending these guys foxy? I'm a bit confused.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Source?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



What were Trump's exact words that has everyone so upset? He was saying there were good people on both sides.


Yes, but there were more that just "two sides". He stated there was violence on both sides, referring to those specifically being violent. Here is what he said:


I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side — you can call them the left, you've just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group, so you can say what you want but that's the way it is.


He then goes on to say this:


You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.


Problem is, the people that were there to peacefully protest the taking-down of the statues were not engaged in the violence. That was the WS's/KKK that got violent on that "side" and so Trump said, in the context of the violence, that there were some good people within the violent "Right" that were good people.

Not sure how you can justify that.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Some people are so obsessed with the liberal conservative conflict they see everything through those glasses.

They cannot for a second see much anything else

Its called obsession—fixation.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Just for an example, some of the organizers I think of the Boston Antifa group who were at the Boston rally have said these things. I don't think you understand, at least some Antifa groups self-identify as a revolutionary anarcho-communist groups. I am actually pretty left myself, left of the Democratic Party, but we should be honest about what at least some of these local groups appear to be.

Also, again, the point is that if we are calling out violent groups, you have to call out the other ones too.

For interest: twitter.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66


edit on 23-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Not everybody who attended this rally was doing it to support white supremacists or nazi's or kkk. That's the trouble I have with all this, it's painting everybody as being the same. The other issue I have is even if the rally organizers were using the removal of these monuments as an opportunity to advance a white supremacist agenda, that's quite different from urging their inner circle, or their membership, to use cars as weapons against counter-protesters. This could lead to a criminal investigation if it's true.

That's not just criminal, it's terrorism, due to: a) the large number of wounded b) the attempt to create fear in counter-protesters c) organized terrorism, as-in it being a group, is very dangerous.

Here's a video of people saying they weren't there for a white supremacist agenda, but to protest the removal of the monuments, and to support the right of both sides to free speech:

Some people will say the above protesters are hiding their white supremacist leanings. For example, Gavin McInnes, leader of the Proud Boys, insists he and his group are not white supremacist, but the Commander of the Maritime Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy disagrees:
en.wikipedia.org - Proud Boys...

The Oath Keepers, like the Proud Boys, are thought by many domestic terrorism experts to be extremist radicals. The people in hte above linked video are probably a members of a similar group. So keep that in mind, regardless how they feel about white supremacy.

EDIT: Another group are the 3 Percenters:
en.wikipedia.org - 3 Percenters...
edit on 8/23/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That twitter account is a known fake, there are so many known fake twitter accounts created by the alt-light/right and their own people are falling for it



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join