Donald Trump

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The murder was the story though.

Chat about antifa distracts from that in a pure whataboutism move.

I don't think Donal Trump should have said what he said but he was factually correct. That was the point I was making.

It's irrelevant though, right?

And, tbh, I don't think he was factually correct in that instance.

And the moral equivalency of the two is also very dubious. Which you, alongside Trump, are currently doing.

I've been pretty clear above that I don't think Trump should have said what he said so I'm making not moral equivalency on that occasion and antifa were mixed amongst the other protestors.
Perhaps I just value the truth? Antifa were in Charlottesville. That's not a controversial statement. The question is whether you think violence is ever acceptable to further your political aims? Now antifa support and commit violence but haven't murdered anyone yet. Eventually they will. Antifa and white supremacists are as bad as each other. And antifa turn up to events by people like Ben Shapiro (a Jew) so they don't merely protest white supremacy.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

And antifa turn up to events by people like Ben Shapiro (a Jew) so they don't merely protest white supremacy.

I think there's a clue in the name 'antifa' = anti fascist. Ben Shapiro is a right-wing hardliner - his religion is irrelevant to that - as is his skin colour.

Ben6899

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And antifa turn up to events by people like Ben Shapiro (a Jew) so they don't merely protest white supremacy.

I think there's a clue in the name 'antifa' = anti fascist. Ben Shapiro is a right-wing hardliner - his religion is irrelevant to that - as is his skin colour.

Given that fascists in the USA are also white supremacists the fact Ben Shapiro is a Jew (and white by the way though not the right kind of white for white supremacists) is entirely relevant. Furthermore, if they want to protest fascism, they're barking up the wrong tree protesting a conservative who believes in the constitution and small government.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And antifa turn up to events by people like Ben Shapiro (a Jew) so they don't merely protest white supremacy.

I think there's a clue in the name 'antifa' = anti fascist. Ben Shapiro is a right-wing hardliner - his religion is irrelevant to that - as is his skin colour.

Given that fascists in the USA are also white supremacists the fact Ben Shapiro is a Jew (and white by the way though not the right kind of white for white supremacists) is entirely relevant. Furthermore, if they want to protest fascism, they're barking up the wrong tree protesting a conservative who believes in the constitution and small government.

Indeed - although I suspect they are probably slightly more concerned about his links with Breitbart, his association with the alt-right and his islamophobic views. Apart from that, I'm sure he's a 'very fine person'...

bianchimoon

Ben6899 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

Nah Goo has always been upfront with his views, did me some routes in the new forest once though, so can't be all bad eh

imposter2.0

bianchimoon wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

Nah Goo has always been upfront with his views, did me some routes in the new forest once though, so can't be all bad eh

Did the routes only have right turns..?

bianchimoon

Imposter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

Nah Goo has always been upfront with his views, did me some routes in the new forest once though, so can't be all bad eh

Did the routes only have right turns..?

very good

PhilipPirrip

The problem with talking about facts and truths is whose facts and truths are we referring to. Are CNN always pumping out fake news or Antifa a violent organisation in everything they do because the Dotard and his supporters have 'proof' that's what they are?

There's also the danger of conflating actual accountable truths and data with lies to generate facts and truths that are neither factual nor truthful.

To quote ,"Now antifa support and commit violence but haven't murdered anyone yet. Eventually they will.", and you've referred to them being labelled domestic terrorists whilst white gun owners who commit actual acts of domestic terrorism don't acquire the same label.

Who is it that's labelling Antifa domestic terrosits but not those, predominantly white males, who actually commiting domestic terrorism?

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And antifa turn up to events by people like Ben Shapiro (a Jew) so they don't merely protest white supremacy.

I think there's a clue in the name 'antifa' = anti fascist. Ben Shapiro is a right-wing hardliner - his religion is irrelevant to that - as is his skin colour.

Given that fascists in the USA are also white supremacists the fact Ben Shapiro is a Jew (and white by the way though not the right kind of white for white supremacists) is entirely relevant. Furthermore, if they want to protest fascism, they're barking up the wrong tree protesting a conservative who believes in the constitution and small government.

Indeed - although I suspect they are probably slightly more concerned about his links with Breitbart, his association with the alt-right and his islamophobic views. Apart from that, I'm sure he's a 'fine person'...

Except he left Breitbart a long time ago and regularly criticises it (and the Trump pravda it has become) and Steve Bannon, and the alt right (he is actually one of their main targets). As for his Islamophobic views (I'm presuming you mean anti-Muslim bigotry), you'll have to give me more info on that one as I've never heard any. He says a lot of things I disagree with but you're just making stuff up.

nickice

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The problem with talking about facts and truths is whose facts and truths are we referring to. Are CNN always pumping out fake news or Antifa a violent organisation in everything they do because the Dotard and his supporters have 'proof' that's what they are?

There's also the danger of conflating actual accountable truths and data with lies to generate facts and truths that are neither factual nor truthful.

To quote ,"Now antifa support and commit violence but haven't murdered anyone yet. Eventually they will.", and you've referred to them being labelled domestic terrorists whilst white gun owners who commit actual acts of domestic terrorism don't acquire the same label.

Who is it that's labelling Antifa domestic terrosits but not those, predominantly white males, who actually commiting domestic terrorism?

Because there has to be political motivation behind terrorism otherwise it's not terrorism. It's just mass murder. If mass-killers have clear political aims then they should be labelled terrorists.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Except he left Breitbart a long time ago and regularly criticises it (and the Trump pravda it has become) and Steve Bannon, and the alt right (he is actually one of their main targets). As for his Islamophobic views (I'm presuming you mean anti-Muslim bigotry), you'll have to give me more info on that one as I've never heard any. He says a lot of things I disagree with but you're just making stuff up.

One of the great things about the new alt-right is that I don't need to 'make up' any of this stuff. It's all out there. Having said that, it's quite possible that my idea of an islamophobic comment may be entirely different to yours.

Jez mon

nickice wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The problem with talking about facts and truths is whose facts and truths are we referring to. Are CNN always pumping out fake news or Antifa a violent organisation in everything they do because the Dotard and his supporters have 'proof' that's what they are?

There's also the danger of conflating actual accountable truths and data with lies to generate facts and truths that are neither factual nor truthful.

To quote ,"Now antifa support and commit violence but haven't murdered anyone yet. Eventually they will.", and you've referred to them being labelled domestic terrorists whilst white gun owners who commit actual acts of domestic terrorism don't acquire the same label.

Who is it that's labelling Antifa domestic terrosits but not those, predominantly white males, who actually commiting domestic terrorism?

Because there has to be political motivation behind terrorism otherwise it's not terrorism. It's just mass murder. If mass-killers have clear political aims then they should be labelled terrorists.

Indeed.

Although maybe we should be just as afraid of random killers as random killers with a political motivation. The desperation that people have to label random senseless killings as terrorism, as if that somehow increases the seriousness of the event strikes me as odd.

tangled_metal

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

tangled_metal

BTW that last Vegas shooter did target festival goers. He targeted another festival earlier but never went then with it. You could argue it was terrorism perhaps if you consider it was targeted against a particular group namely festival goers. His motive is unknown. He certainly created terror. And I bet festivals planned straight after had kittens over security after that. I bet it had a change in festival security.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Except he left Breitbart a long time ago and regularly criticises it (and the Trump pravda it has become) and Steve Bannon, and the alt right (he is actually one of their main targets). As for his Islamophobic views (I'm presuming you mean anti-Muslim bigotry), you'll have to give me more info on that one as I've never heard any. He says a lot of things I disagree with but you're just making stuff up.

One of the great things about the new alt-right is that I don't need to 'make up' any of this stuff. It's all out there. Having said that, it's quite possible that my idea of an islamophobic comment may be entirely different to yours.

You made the claims so maybe you should back them up? Show me the evidence of his anti-muslim bigotry.

As for the alt right...

https://forward.com/opinion/386412/anti ... orrifying/

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW that last Vegas shooter did target festival goers. He targeted another festival earlier but never went then with it. You could argue it was terrorism perhaps if you consider it was targeted against a particular group namely festival goers. His motive is unknown. He certainly created terror. And I bet festivals planned straight after had kittens over security after that. I bet it had a change in festival security.

He may have created carnage and fear but that's not terrorism especially as he has no clear motive. If he did have a political aim, he'd have been pretty clear about it.

Stevo_666

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

You really know how to hurt someone's feelings V

bianchimoon

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Except he left Breitbart a long time ago and regularly criticises it (and the Trump pravda it has become) and Steve Bannon, and the alt right (he is actually one of their main targets). As for his Islamophobic views (I'm presuming you mean anti-Muslim bigotry), you'll have to give me more info on that one as I've never heard any. He says a lot of things I disagree with but you're just making stuff up.

One of the great things about the new alt-right is that I don't need to 'make up' any of this stuff. It's all out there. Having said that, it's quite possible that my idea of an islamophobic comment may be entirely different to yours.

You made the claims so maybe you should back them up? Show me the evidence of his anti-muslim bigotry.

As for the alt right...

https://forward.com/opinion/386412/anti ... orrifying/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

he's a bigot

bianchimoon

Shapiro says "143 million muslims are radicalised are you scared yet"

bianchimoon

and i think he was just talking about indonesia!

tangled_metal

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Ben6899

bianchimoon wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

Nah Goo has always been upfront with his views, did me some routes in the new forest once though, so can't be all bad eh

First time he's suggested BF are not Far Right though!

I can also help with New Forest routes, if you're ever in need.

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bloody hell, Goo! Yes, BF are far right without a shadow of a doubt. They may be smaller in number and less organised but that's who they are. Their leading members are mostly ex-BNP or do you not think they count as far right either?

Look. I'm merely trying to seek some clarity and balance here. I'm not saying they're not racist or idiots. But if you and others consider them Far Right. Then what were the Nazis?.

Nazis were the most barbaric, violent and destructive organisation Europe had ever seen, and not only plunged Europe into the world’s deadliest war, but also murdered people in the millions purely because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or just cos they felt like it.

So murderous were they they had to industrialise the killing.

Just because you aren’t that doesn’t mean you’re not totally sh!t.

I understand this. And thank you for your potted history. I had completely forgotten how bad the Nazis were !

But my point which nobody on here has addressed is that the Nazis were and are labelled as Far Right. Therefore I fail to see how idiotic fringe groups like BF or BNP can be given the same label. There is no way any of these would ever gain power, as has been proven in recent years, where their momentum has faltered dramatically and they have reverted to shouting on the sidelines.

BTW. Many on here seem to forget that Uncle Joseph, murdered at least 3 times as many people than Herr Adolf. But because they were his own citizens, it seems to be ok and is forgotten. Politicians and most people just get worked up over the Nazis but not the Communists.

I don't forget that.

I for one have studied and written about Russian Gulags, and spent days and weeks deep underground in archives, looking for 70s translations of gulag bureaucracy papers that were smuggled out.

But just because a group isn't wholey murderous doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar ideological space.

Well that makes 2 of us then. I would imagine that your research has been both interesting and harrowing.

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

nickice

bianchimoon wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Except he left Breitbart a long time ago and regularly criticises it (and the Trump pravda it has become) and Steve Bannon, and the alt right (he is actually one of their main targets). As for his Islamophobic views (I'm presuming you mean anti-Muslim bigotry), you'll have to give me more info on that one as I've never heard any. He says a lot of things I disagree with but you're just making stuff up.

One of the great things about the new alt-right is that I don't need to 'make up' any of this stuff. It's all out there. Having said that, it's quite possible that my idea of an islamophobic comment may be entirely different to yours.

You made the claims so maybe you should back them up? Show me the evidence of his anti-muslim bigotry.

As for the alt right...

https://forward.com/opinion/386412/anti ... orrifying/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

he's a bigot

Nothing about that video makes him a bigot. It's based on widely-reported polling data. The only way that would make him a bigot if is, for example, believing in Sharia law and honour killings DOESN'T make you a radical.

bianchimoon

Ben6899 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As I said how far to the left or right something appears depends on where on the spectrum you stand. If Goo thinks Britain First are not far right but Corbyn is a dangerous extremist that says a lot about where on the spectrum Goo stands. He makes Stevo look like a liberal.

Quite a revealing post by Goo.

Nah Goo has always been upfront with his views, did me some routes in the new forest once though, so can't be all bad eh

First time he's suggested BF are not Far Right though!

I can also help with New Forest routes, if you're ever in need.

cheers Ben

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Again, that quote talks about politics... You seem to want to invent a new meaning of the word terrorism.

nickice

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bloody hell, Goo! Yes, BF are far right without a shadow of a doubt. They may be smaller in number and less organised but that's who they are. Their leading members are mostly ex-BNP or do you not think they count as far right either?

Look. I'm merely trying to seek some clarity and balance here. I'm not saying they're not racist or idiots. But if you and others consider them Far Right. Then what were the Nazis?.

Nazis were the most barbaric, violent and destructive organisation Europe had ever seen, and not only plunged Europe into the world’s deadliest war, but also murdered people in the millions purely because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or just cos they felt like it.

So murderous were they they had to industrialise the killing.

Just because you aren’t that doesn’t mean you’re not totally sh!t.

I understand this. And thank you for your potted history. I had completely forgotten how bad the Nazis were !

But my point which nobody on here has addressed is that the Nazis were and are labelled as Far Right. Therefore I fail to see how idiotic fringe groups like BF or BNP can be given the same label. There is no way any of these would ever gain power, as has been proven in recent years, where their momentum has faltered dramatically and they have reverted to shouting on the sidelines.

BTW. Many on here seem to forget that Uncle Joseph, murdered at least 3 times as many people than Herr Adolf. But because they were his own citizens, it seems to be ok and is forgotten. Politicians and most people just get worked up over the Nazis but not the Communists.

I don't forget that.

I for one have studied and written about Russian Gulags, and spent days and weeks deep underground in archives, looking for 70s translations of gulag bureaucracy papers that were smuggled out.

But just because a group isn't wholey murderous doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar ideological space.

Well that makes 2 of us then. I would imagine that your research has been both interesting and harrowing.

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

I'm pretty sure I have seen that in documentaries and I thought it was widely acknowledged? And like you seem to think, I think communism gets an easy ride. In every country it's been tried in people have been less free and respect for human rights has been minimal.

nickice

Jez mon wrote:

nickice wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The problem with talking about facts and truths is whose facts and truths are we referring to. Are CNN always pumping out fake news or Antifa a violent organisation in everything they do because the Dotard and his supporters have 'proof' that's what they are?

There's also the danger of conflating actual accountable truths and data with lies to generate facts and truths that are neither factual nor truthful.

To quote ,"Now antifa support and commit violence but haven't murdered anyone yet. Eventually they will.", and you've referred to them being labelled domestic terrorists whilst white gun owners who commit actual acts of domestic terrorism don't acquire the same label.

Who is it that's labelling Antifa domestic terrosits but not those, predominantly white males, who actually commiting domestic terrorism?

Because there has to be political motivation behind terrorism otherwise it's not terrorism. It's just mass murder. If mass-killers have clear political aims then they should be labelled terrorists.

Indeed.

Although maybe we should be just as afraid of random killers as random killers with a political motivation. The desperation that people have to label random senseless killings as terrorism, as if that somehow increases the seriousness of the event strikes me as odd.

Agreed though we can probably do something about the political motivation (well no for ISIS I suppose)