This is why I couldn't believe that terrorism was invoked. (for a second, before accepting the unscrupulous cleverness of it)
Terrorism is when a message is sent to the people at large, not what happens between warring protestors. Terrorism is what Theresa May wants to tap internet communications for.
Replying to matt, not sure why his post was flagged (aside from veering off my topic):
>People protesting against Nazis aren't... >That means...
You theorise a lot about the opposing side on this one occasion, that is contrary to what we've seen for a year from american political clashes.
>But anyway... The definition of terrorism is politically motivated violence. Not calling this terrorism, when it's using literally the same method as ISIS has been using in the last years, is starting to make it really hard to believe that all these free speech advocates aren't just trying to hide their sympathies for the skinheads they're defending.
Drunk drivers "use the same method" to kill people. What's really depressing is the fact that lights a bulb in people's head that says terrorism. It means they don't have actual definitions of words in their heads. I'm not a nazi sympathiser at all, thank you. And believe any of those at Charlottesville truly concerned with white heritage and statues failed themselves by association (nevermind carrying torches..).
to me the key difference is terrorism is premeditated. this violence was the act of one individual and is blown out of proportion.
what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible. it gives them an outlet and lets the rest of us know who they are. so while their message may be repugnant they have the right to march.
the ACLU recent preening/posturing/etc is shameful compared to their past actions. far too many groups are piling on declaring how they are against violence which is non declaration. Of course violence cannot be supported.
the real danger is if we force these groups underground that some of their members may act out with much more terrible violence.
> what was not communicated is that only these "alt-right" groups had permission to march and demonstrate and the police were told to not intervene when counter groups who assembled in similar manner without permission were allowed free reign to incite the issue.
It could be because both of those statements are lies. You might need to rethink which outlet you go to for news.
Although one of those outlets happens to be the POTUS, which is unfortunate.
> I am all for letting these "alt-right/left" groups march to their hearts content provided their faces are visible.
You do know what happens once neo-Nazis get photos of your face? People are getting harrassed online, then offline, rounded up, beaten and occasionally murdered. Masking is self-protection.
And yes there IS a difference between lefties and Nazis masking up: Lefties, generally, don't kill. Worst you get as a Nazi is a beating. Nazis do kill (50 or 68 alone due to terrorist attacks since 9/11, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#cite_ref-...).
Source: know a couple "outed" activists, got my face distributed by a local Nazi party leader on Youtube.
Are you seriously parroting Donald Trump right now? The lefties at Charlottesville were peaceful (and in those cases where it did turn violent, the Nazis began with assaulting). Most weren't even Antifa, they were ordinary Charlottesville citizens protesting against Nazis from all over the USA taking their city over!
According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
> According to that, either Muslim or left-wing (anti-white or anti-police) extremists were responsible for all the fatalities in 2016, save one attack for which the motive is unknown.
First off, you're taking liberties in assigning those to left-wing extremism without a basis.
Here's some more data, over a longer period:
Quoting ADL's Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2016 report [1] (focus on domestic terrorism):
Left-wing violence is on the rise. All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016 (Dallas and Baton Rouge attacks on police officers), none of the people killed by the right were (unless the ADL is mysteriously counting the killing of an Imam in NYC by a Hispanic man whose motive is unknown as "right-wing").
That's assuming the ADL's numbers are right and none of the other people the GTD called "anti-police extremists" were left-wing, which appears to be incorrect. [1]
The "rise of the violent left", as The Atlantic called it, is a depressing trend.
Anyway, I have to go and won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Have a great day.
> All of those 8 people killed by the left were in 2016,
8 police officers shot by radical BLM activists. I don't like that kind of action either, but given that PoC are routine walking target circles for police, I certainly get how the two activists were motivated - and there is a difference between taking revenge on murderers versus murdering people just because they're black/jewish/...
And: according to ADL (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-e...), however, Nazis did commit two triple-murders (bringing their tally for 2016 to 6), and it's the first year that Nazis were not the absolute dominator on the murder statistics since over 30 years (9/11 was not domestic terrorism). This one year is nothing to prove a trend turn.
> Anti-government extremists and white supremacists were responsible for only a minority of extremist related deaths in 2016, though they did commit two triple homicides.
Unfortunately they don't identify those incidents. The GTD doesn't list any triple homicides by the right. Let me know if you can find out what they're talking about here.
> They would exist without Nazis. In fact, Charlottesville may be the first time they've actually fought Nazis.
> The first German movement to call itself Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 and held its first rally in Berlin on 10 July 1932, then capital of the Weimar Republic. During the early 1930s amidst rising tensions between Nazis and the communists, Berlin in particular has been the site of regular and often very violent clashes between the two groups.
I was at G20. We did not initiate the violence, it was initiated by the police on Thursday by attacking the peaceful demonstration (which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police).
Source: Witnessed everything from a bridge above the watercannons.
> which had even unmasked in the majority, as ordered by police
Honestly I find such an order repugnant. Anonymity is crucial to free speech, especially when protesting a group as powerful as G20. I'm sure no-one thinks they should be forced to report their political activity to their employer (at least judging from the outcry when the Trump administration requested all those IP addresses), but such an order is effectively exactly that.
> if it were true, every media outlet in America would be reporting it.
LOL as if the mainstream press would care about right-wing violence. As long as it can be swept under the rug or it's only minorities who suffer, they don't care - simply because the majority of customers are white men, and they are not interested if PoC or minorities get hit. Charlottesville only got attention because the terror victim was white, what happened the day before at night or with the PoC nearly beaten to death in a garage was shadowed by the murder.
There are many sources proving my point, when it comes to the facts. For example:
- The number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology has spiked since the beginning of this century, rising from a yearly avarage of 70 attacks in the 1990s to a yearly avarage of more than 300 since 2001. These incidents have grown even more common since President Donald Trump’s election. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
- They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. (per http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...)
These nazis/white supremacists/etc glorify the holocaust, meaning they want to, once again, kill all those they consider inferior: jews/blacks/muslims.
Those protesting against them are the people that think it's not a great idea to kill all the jews/blacks/muslims. Because being anti-Nazi doesn't make you a communist terrorist or whatever.
That really shouldn't be so hard to understand, considering the US once fought a war against those people whose flag is now making a comeback. And I really didn't get the feeling that all those GIs were anarchists and communists.
Additionally, I'd wager that many antifascists would rather not use violence and rather have police take care about that matter.
However, even flying f..ing Nazi swastika flags and thereby create a sphere of threat for minorities (because, what else than "I will kill you when you come here" does a Swastika flag say to a Jew?!) is legal in the US - so in order to create a safe space for minorities of all kinds, Nazis must be driven away. And yes, this includes violence in some occasions (e.g. at Charlottesville, where a gang of white supremacists nearly beat a PoC to death).
If anyone is not fine with Antifa protecting minorities, then by all means lobby your politicians that Nazi symbolism, hate speech and other ways of threatening minorities gets banned. Until this happens, either stand in yourself when you see minorities threatened or at least don't stand in the way of those willing to protect minorities when no one else wants to!
They were violent at the presidential inauguration, the G20 summit, and in attempts to prevent countless people from speaking at colleges. Please don't try to pretend they only fight Nazis.
Snopes does cite the tweet, and does say there were brawls and that some people blame the police for not having intervened enough. Which facts have they missed?
