Charlottesville Virginia :Car Plows Into Anti-Fascist Protesters

voice of the damned wrote:

Hmm. The actual government of Afghanistan, versus a bunch of guys styling themselves as the heirs of previous southern governments(or, more accurately, I think, stlying themselves as the heirs of a Reconstruction-era guerrila group trying to force the Union army out of their states). 

There's really nothing I could say about this comparison that wouldn't sound like an insult, so I guess I'll just bow out now. 

Oh so now the Taliban, according to you is the legitamit government? But but but back in comment 142 you claimed they were a rebel group???? So which is it? Do you often mispeak like this? Or only when it's convenient?

Conservative Party: cut ties with White Supremacists

The world is in shock after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned violent, ending with a terrorist attack that killed one anti-racist protester, and injured almost 20 others. [1]

In the United States, far-right websites like Breitbart have helped to fan the flames of white supremacy and far-right extremism. 

But here in Canada, we have our own version of Breitbart. It’s called Rebel Media, and they are bringing the same ugly ideas home to Canada. They’ve published tirades against Jews, organized anti-Islam rallies, and warned of “white genocide” in Canada. [2-3] And on the day of the attack in Charlottesville, one of their own contributors was on the ground, livestreaming her rationalizations for the actions of the white supremacists. [4] 

And what’s even more disturbing is that Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer has close ties to this far-right website. He hired a Rebel Media Director, Hamish Marshall, to manage his campaign for party leader. And after Scheer won the leadership, he gave the white supremacist website a one-on-one interview. [5] 

The support of Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer could give Rebel Media political legitimacy to bring their dangerous ideas into the mainstream -- and regardless of our political ideology, we all have an obligation to challenge white supremacy whenever it rears its ugly head. 

We are calling on Scheer and others in the Conservative party to cut ties with Rebel Media. 

Already other conservatives have been speaking out against Rebel Media, including United Conservative Party leadership candidate Doug Schweitzer, MP Michael Chong, and even co-founder of Rebel Media Brian Lilley.[6-7] Now it’s time for Andrew Scheer to join them.

Will you sign the petition calling on Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer to denounce Rebel Media and immediately cut all ties with the hateful site?

Timebandit wrote:

Nothing at all, unless you're inside WWTT's fevered imagination.

Here's another poster that feels that she is entitled to insult the intelligence and self worth of another poster! Ya I guess my opinion means shit for nothing because according to you, I must be suffering from a disease to be making a comment here on babble! That's real hi and mighty of you oh superior one! You must be a real powerful person of such great wisdom, how can I ever repay you of great one? So let me ask you something, how long have you felt that you're entitled to belitle people? How long have you been insulting people to try and make them feel that they have no value to contribute in society?

WWWTT wrote:

josh wrote:

What the hell does the KKK's formation in 1865 have to do with the Taliban government in 2001.

After NATO invaded Afghanistan the Taliban government became rebells. After the southern states lost the civil war, members of the southern states military formed the KKK.

Both groups are armed. Both groups use violence. Both groups have agendas. Both groups are racist towards others.

Now here's some differences. Taliban kills invading forces and other Afghanistanis who oppose. KKK kill who oppose. Oh wait that's a similarity  because the KKK views non whites and the US federal government as invaders! Sorry my bad!

And one was formed over 150 yeas ago, and withered away until being revived in the 1920s.  One of its strongest states was Indiana, a Union state.  It became not only an anti-black, but anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic organization.  And it never formed a government as the Taliban did in the last 20 years.  But they both roamed the earth.  So there's that.  So you can include the dinosaurs in your comparison.

josh wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

josh wrote:

What the hell does the KKK's formation in 1865 have to do with the Taliban government in 2001.

After NATO invaded Afghanistan the Taliban government became rebells. After the southern states lost the civil war, members of the southern states military formed the KKK.

Both groups are armed. Both groups use violence. Both groups have agendas. Both groups are racist towards others.

Now here's some differences. Taliban kills invading forces and other Afghanistanis who oppose. KKK kill who oppose. Oh wait that's a similarity  because the KKK views non whites and the US federal government as invaders! Sorry my bad!

And one was formed over 150 yeas ago, and withered away until being revived in the 1920s.  One of its strongest states was Indiana, a Union state.  It became not only an anti-black, but anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic organization.  And it never formed a government as the Taliban did in the last 20 years.  But they both roamed the earth.  So there's that.  So you can include the dinosaurs in your comparison.

Tee hee.

From above:

 But they both roamed the earth.  So there's that.  So you can include the dinosaurs in your comparison.

​I too found this 'on point' as they say. I will add there is a real difference between the various neo-Nazi groups and the Taliban. The Taliban are Muslims, and whatever else you may thing of Islam, it is not racist. Islam, like it's close relation Christianity, accepts worshippers from any race, creed, or colour.

NDPP wrote:

The Political and Social Roots of Fascist Violence in the US

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/15/pers-a15.html

"...Pro-forma denunciations of the violence in Charlottesville are devoid of any serious examination of the underlying social and political conditions out of which it arose. But the 'Evil Trump' interpretation of history explains nothing..."

​The writer of this article, either consciously or unconsciously, echoes the old Stalinist line of the 'social fascists'.

​Stalin was wrong then, and this writer is wrong now. The first wrong cost the world millions of lives. One would have thought the Stalinists would have learned, but apparently not.

josh wrote:

Trump back to blaming both sides.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-rejects-white-supremacy-crit...

What a disgusting pig.

I was comparing him to Mussolini. I think it's reached the point where I'm not breaking Godwin's Law when I call this cretin President Hitler. It's no longer hyperbole. He's a White Supremist AKA Nazi.

Godwin apparently agrees.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/15/creator-godwins-law-ok-call-c...

Trump was truly breathtaking today.  The difference in his demeanour when defending "the good people" among the Nazis and calling out "fake news" versus yesterday's denunciation of racism and bigotry says all one could possibly need to know.

josh wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

josh wrote:

What the hell does the KKK's formation in 1865 have to do with the Taliban government in 2001.

After NATO invaded Afghanistan the Taliban government became rebells. After the southern states lost the civil war, members of the southern states military formed the KKK.

Both groups are armed. Both groups use violence. Both groups have agendas. Both groups are racist towards others.

Now here's some differences. Taliban kills invading forces and other Afghanistanis who oppose. KKK kill who oppose. Oh wait that's a similarity  because the KKK views non whites and the US federal government as invaders! Sorry my bad!

And one was formed over 150 yeas ago, and withered away until being revived in the 1920s.  One of its strongest states was Indiana, a Union state.  It became not only an anti-black, but anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic organization.  And it never formed a government as the Taliban did in the last 20 years.  But they both roamed the earth.  So there's that.  So you can include the dinosaurs in your comparison.

Ya actually this isn't a match game. What I'm asking, is why can't the white racist momevent in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) be negotiated with? Negotiating with enemies is a reasonable peaceful approach, despite the violence caused by enemies. Also, this will always be a logical approach. But for some reason I do not see any such approach. Unless I'm missing something?

Rev Pesky wrote:

From above:

 But they both roamed the earth.  So there's that.  So you can include the dinosaurs in your comparison.

​I too found this 'on point' as they say. I will add there is a real difference between the various neo-Nazi groups and the Taliban. The Taliban are Muslims, and whatever else you may thing of Islam, it is not racist. Islam, like it's close relation Christianity, accepts worshippers from any race, creed, or colour.

Yes actually it was a couple other posters that wanted me to make some comparisons. There are some obvious onesI made. But that was never the point. The point was to try negotiations. Or if any have been done? The comparison line is a strawman to divert away from actually trying to have some kind of peaceful discussion approach.

Here's my take on what you're missing:

Negotiation is a logical approach, not "always", but when its results are better than war. So, for instance, NDPers in Canada don't negotiate a unified coalition government with Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer, because the alternative - defeating them in an election - is far better.

Nobody has even begun to make a case about the advantage of negotiating with these neo-Nazis, who want to murder or, at minimum, expel tens of millions of Americans. What compromise would they be likely to accept? A few states of their own to run as an all-white empire, in exchange for halting all future race crimes in the rest of them? Is there a Unified Shithead Command with the authority to make such a treaty?

No, it seems to me that the call for "negotiation" is a call for a nationwide return to segregation, abolition of policies that benefit minorities, and so forth, in exchange for the forlorn hope that such a gesture of "goodwill" would lead to peaceful coexistence with the KKK. The United States tried that, informally but no less seriously, for a century, from Rutherford B. Hayes until Lyndon Johnson put an end to it. It didn't work out so well. And despite their presence in and around the White House, white supremacists are currently far less numerous and entrenched in America than they were for the vast majority of the 20th century.

They're losing. They know it. That's why they're killing people. The driver of this car was arrested (by local police, not even the FBI), and will be prosecuted. He hasn't taken to the mountains with an army of millions, offering to stop genocide if only they're left alone. So the answer to "why not negotiate?" is "There's absolutely no reason to, and doing so would make things immeasurably worse."

voice of the damned wrote:

josh wrote:

What the hell does the KKK's formation in 1865 have to do with the Taliban government in 2001.

WWWTT compared negotiating with the far right(which the left opposes) with negotiating with the Taliban(which Jack Layton, at least, supported).

I said that the comparison is bad because the Taliban was an actual government of a country Canada was occupying, whereas the current American far-right has no such status.

WWWTT then replied that the KKK actually see themselves as the heirs to some unnamed southern state governments.

I then rejoined that the KKK today is just a bunch of guys STYLING THEMSELVES as the heirs to the 1860s/70s guerrila group, and that's where you came in, I think.  

No actually you thought the Taliban was a rebel group at first. Until I told you you are wrong!

Either way it doesn't matter. Violence is violence! So why not negotiate for a peacefull resolution?

So tell me Voice of the Damned, why can't the west negotiate? Forget about the Taliban forget about all the other strawmen that you and other posters added, just ask this simple question. 

cco wrote:

Here's my take on what you're missing:

Negotiation is a logical approach, not "always", but when its results are better than war. So, for instance, NDPers in Canada don't negotiate a unified coalition government with Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer, because the alternative - defeating them in an election - is far better.

Nobody has even begun to make a case about the advantage of negotiating with these neo-Nazis, who want to murder or, at minimum, expel tens of millions of Americans. What compromise would they be likely to accept? A few states of their own to run as an all-white empire, in exchange for halting all future race crimes in the rest of them? Is there a Unified Shithead Command with the authority to make such a treaty?

No, it seems to me that the call for "negotiation" is a call for a nationwide return to segregation, abolition of policies that benefit minorities, and so forth, in exchange for the forlorn hope that such a gesture of "goodwill" would lead to peaceful coexistence with the KKK. The United States tried that, informally but no less seriously, for a century, from Rutherford B. Hayes until Lyndon Johnson put an end to it. It didn't work out so well. And despite their presence in and around the White House, white supremacists are currently far less numerous and entrenched in America than they were for the vast majority of the 20th century.

They're losing. They know it. That's why they're killing people. The driver of this car was arrested (by local police, not even the FBI), and will be prosecuted. He hasn't taken to the mountains with an army of millions, offering to stop genocide if only they're left alone. So the answer to "why not negotiate?" is "There's absolutely no reason to, and doing so would make things immeasurably worse."

Yes I believe it would be correct to assume that durring the civil war,  towards the end and afterwards there must have been negotiations going on between the north and the south states. And as we all know those racist views that were in practice as laws across the country were and may even still be there.

But why not restart new negotiations?

If not then to just educate everyone where the white supremists actually stand? Maybe it can be a real eye opener for everyone even the white nationals? Maybe this can in some way be like hitting a pause button and or a reset button?

It's just a thought I'm throwing out there so that there can actually be a possibility that some good will come out of the sad lives that were recently lost.

Lol...cowards

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/watch-panicked-white-supremacist-renounc...

NDPP wrote:

Hillary Clinton

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/896463243366903808

"My heart is in Charlottesville today and with everyone made to feel unsafe in their country."

Wow those are choice words used by Clinton! She could have said anything really, but chose to play the
'trust us, we will do everything needed to help you feel safe' card (lockdowns, police state etc...).
 

Quote:

But the US has a lot of people that voted for Trump! What if Trump gets re elected?

It's not clear to me how either would change anything I said.

WWWTT wrote:

pookie wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

josh wrote:

What the hell does the KKK's formation in 1865 have to do with the Taliban government in 2001.

WWWTT compared negotiating with the far right(which the left opposes) with negotiating with the Taliban(which Jack Layton, at least, supported).

I said that the comparison is bad because the Taliban was an actual government of a country Canada was occupying, whereas the current American far-right has no such status.

WWWTT then replied that the KKK actually see themselves as the heirs to some unnamed southern state governments.

I then rejoined that the KKK today is just a bunch of guys STYLING THEMSELVES as the heirs to the 1860s/70s guerrila group, and that's where you came in, I think.  

Such a lazy comparison.  Designed solely to provoke.  I admire your ability to engage, VOTD.

“Laziness Is a Trait in Blacks,” 1991 Book Quotes Trump as Saying

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about...

Hey pookie, maby you should try to choose your words a little better hey? Using similar language as Donald Trump hey pookie! Ouch pookie! Hey, but if you're interested, I've got more for you to!

-giggle-

Thanks Magoo... I think I was successful in blocking the fuckin' asshole.

End of distraction. I hope.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From WWWTT:

The point was to try negotiations.

​ I know Magoo has already commented on this, but  it​'s so funny it deserves more comment...

​What are you negotiating? Partial racism? Partial fascism? Only kill half the Jews? Not the final solution but the semi-final solution. Use a colorimeter to test the brownness of people and allow a bit more brown before discrimination starts?

You know, when people show up in town with, according to local officials, better armaments than the state police, I think the time for negotiating is past. The comparison with the Taliban is ridiculous. Or, if you really want to have it that way, the calls for negotiating with the Taliban were calls to the invading army. That is, those heavily armed right wing elements, if they wanted to negotiate something, would have arrived in town with briefcases, not assault rifles. They could have attended a town meeting and put their case for keeping the statue of Robert E. Lee in the park.

 But that isn't what they wanted to do. What they wanted to do was to intimidate by a show of force. This was not Kristallnacht, but the intent and the underlying agenda were exactly the same. There was nothing to negotiate there, and nothing to negotiate here. This was a group of heavily armed thugs attempting to overthrow a decision made by an elected government body. There is no 'moral equivalence',  and no negotiating. 

You find trying to find an end to violence to be funny? Ok so you don't think there's no room for negotiation dialogue or anything as such? The people who identify as white supremacist are not to be negotiated with. Haven't heard any suggestion yet about how to soften their perspective to be more inclusive. Maybe I missed it?  Oh and by the way, it's 2017, when you enter into negotiations, you don't turn the clock back 80 years to the 1930's and start from there!

WWWTT wrote:

@JKR

I care less what Trump does because it's a waste of time. But now if the corporate media shows me a picture of what they want me to believe, am I supposed to accept it right away? So I'm the racist now for questioning the corporate media? Sounds like you don't like to move outside your comfort zone

It sounds to me like you think Trump's racism is just a reflection America, so criticizing Trump for being a racist is unimportant and redundant. I disagree with this outlook because I think America is made up of mostly good people who do not deserve an incredibly horrible leader like Trump. I think it is not a waste of time to criticize Trump as I think he is the current personification of America's ills I think he is a reflection of America's dark side, what Carl Jung described as the "shadow." Most importantly I think it is currently impossible to critique America's and the world's ills without criticizing the current president of the U.S. who embodies almost all of the world's current ills. To go easy on Trump belies any attempt to deal with the world's current situation.

alan smithee wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

lol

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/896820870898786304

Very good question. Unfortunately,there is no plausible answer.

LOL ya that's what I said when I opened that link you provided and found that this guy is a former war pig that helped the US imperial killing machine impose it's corporate will on foreign nations!

Would you fuck off? I'm serious. I told you I'm done with you. Move on. I'll let others entertain interacting with you.You fuckin' prick.

WOW You got a real mouth on you hey buddy! 

What's the matter, I poked too many holes in that war pigs link that you were so proud of?

Did you think I forgot about you?Oh no no my friend,  I'm saving the best for you, here's one just for you alan smithee! Just for you!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/09/trump_s_swearing_si...

OK...that's it. I've been here a long time. I don't think you have. Let me tell you something,in all my time here I've flagged a post ONCE and I've never contacted the mods but I've had it with you. You keep provoking,you're going to really get me mad and I'm going to get banned from here for telling you what I really think.

I'm flagging you. And now I'm going to ask you once again, Please FUCK OFF. Stop replying to my posts. I can't block you,but I could get you suspended and gawd willing I will.

Could someone please let me know how to contact the mods? This new layout at Babble makes it impossible to block people anymore,impossible to flag comments and impossible to contact the mods. If anyone can help me out,I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

oh so you been here a LONGER time than me so now you believe you're entitled to more than I hey???? Tell you what, you keep insulting me, using foul language towards me, and I keep getting in your face!
But On the other hand if you apologize to me, then you can make a fresh start and we can all get along. Either way I'm not going to be intimidated by an internet tough guy!

JKR wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

@JKR

I care less what Trump does because it's a waste of time. But now if the corporate media shows me a picture of what they want me to believe, am I supposed to accept it right away? So I'm the racist now for questioning the corporate media? Sounds like you don't like to move outside your comfort zone

It sounds to me like you think Trump's racism is just a reflection America, so criticizing Trump for being a racist is unimportant and redundant. I disagree with this outlook because I think America is made up of mostly good people who do not deserve an incredibly horrible leader like Trump. I think it is not a waste of time to criticize Trump as I think he is the current personification of America's ills I think he is a reflection of America's dark side, what Carl Jung described as the "shadow." Most importantly I think it is currently impossible to critique America's and the world's ills without criticizing the current president of the U.S. who embodies almost all of the world's current ills. To go easy on Trump belies any attempt to deal with the world's current situation.

No I never said that Trump was a reflection of the US. Just a waste of time because calling him out won't solve the core issues that create racism. Such as expensive schooling lack of free medical emphasis on military opposed to social development etc etc. In fact the corporate media attack on Trump is probably just a diversion away from the real causes, only a few I mentioned. Address these core causes

JKR wrote:

 

WOW!?

Maybe the left in America should negotiate with the likes of Darryl Duke?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Duke