1 Dead and 19 Injured at 'Unite the Right' Rally

[Straight Shooter]

James Alex Fields Jr., a 20-year-old man, was identified as the driver who plowed his car into protesters yesterday during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, per NYT. He was charged with second-degree murder.

He was in the military. "Military records show that Mr. Fields entered the Army on Aug. 18, 2015 ... Less than four months later, on Dec. 11, his period of active duty concluded. It was not immediately clear why he left the military."

He lived with his mother until recently.

Potential ties to Vanguard America, "a group whose manifesto declares that 'a government based in the natural law must not cater to the false notion of equality.' The organization denied any ties to him."

A middle school classmate "suggested that his interest in far-right ideologies dated back years. 'On many occasions there were times he would scream obscenities, whether it be about Hitler or racial slurs.'"

 

[Straight Shooter]

I suggest everyone revisit this thread. Funny how the board conservaturds were singing a different tune there. Typical of the hypocritical right

*Breaking* GOP congressman Steve Scalise shot at baseball game

http://board.freeones.com/showthrea...ngressman-Steve-Scalise-shot-at-baseball-game

 

[sean miguel]

White Nationalist Domestic Terrorism is a far bigger threat in this country than Radical Islam.

You say that after 9/11, the Beltway snipers, the Fort Hood massacre, Boston Marathon bombings, the "Draw Muhammad" shooters in Garland, TX, Chatanooga shootings, San Bernardino, Pulse night club, Ohio State, and all the others in between - like that muslim convert who beheaded his female co-worker in Oklahoma because she refused to convert.

Those white nationalists were armed to the teeth in Charlottesville, but how many people were shot?

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

The rally was given the okay by a Federal judge, the mayor is the one responsible for infringing on their rights to peacefully gather and use free speech.





Tell that to the black 'youths' running around committing crime after crime.

I would hope for that also but I'm calling shame on my own. The fact that some white people still think goose stepping and zeig hailing is OK turns my fucking stomach.

African Americans troubles are not going to be solved by me that has to come from their end and I wish them all the best.

 

[sean miguel]

**** REPOST ******

the edit function on this board is all kinds of fucked up right now.

let's try this again:

I suggest everyone revisit this thread. Funny how the board conservaturds were singing a different tune there. Typical of the hypocritical right

*Breaking* GOP congressman Steve Scalise shot at baseball game

http://board.freeones.com/showthrea...ngressman-Steve-Scalise-shot-at-baseball-game

If you're referring to my contribution to that thread, I think you missed my point.

Yes, if this has been the other way around, the MSM would be having a field day with this.

But there are calls in the media to "rise above it" and for bi-partisansip. That's wonderful. Throw this in the democrats' face and pound away at the fact that this was a democrat domestic terrorist. The democrats would do the same. Never let a crisis go to waste, right?

and right on queue, they prove me right.

And I'm sorry, after the Dallas police shootings, did then President Obama specifically call out Black Lives Matter? Which is what you're criticizing President Trump for not doing in this case in regards to another extremist group.

and you said something about hypocrisy?

 

[xfire]

You say that after 9/11, the Beltway snipers, the Fort Hood massacre, Boston Marathon bombings, the "Draw Muhammad" shooters in Garland, TX, Chatanooga shootings, San Bernardino, Pulse night club, Ohio State, and all the others in between - like that muslim convert who beheaded his female co-worker in Oklahoma because she refused to convert.

Those white nationalists were armed to the teeth in Charlottesville, but how many people were shot?

The Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, all by it's little ol' self is responsible for more murders in the United States than all of the Radical Islamic Terrorists combined. Perhaps you don't think of prison gangs when you think of white nationalists, perfectly understandable if you've never worked for the prison system, but prison gangs are almost exclusively race based and connected to just about every violent crime committed in one way or another.

 

[sean miguel]

The Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, all by it's little ol' self is responsible for more murders in the United States than all of the Radical Islamic Terrorists combined. Perhaps you don't think of prison gangs when you think of white nationalists, perfectly understandable if you've never worked for the prison system, but prison gangs are almost exclusively race based and connected to just about every violent crime committed in one way or another.

So the American public at large has more to fear from a white-supremacist prison gang while riding public transportation, showing up to work, driving through a tunnel or over a bridge, being a member of the military or their family, running a marathon, drawing cartoons, etc., than from an islamist?

 

[xfire]

No, but collectively the general public has more to fear from White Nationalist domestic terrorists than from Radical Islamist terrorists. The chances of being the victim of a violent crime are low to begin with, there were almost 16,000 murders in the United States in 2015, out of a general population of 323 million. That's still 43 murders a day.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

So the American public at large has more to fear from a white-supremacist prison gang while riding public transportation, showing up to work, driving through a tunnel or over a bridge, being a member of the military or their family, running a marathon, drawing cartoons, etc., than from an islamist?

I certainly do.

I go to school with a good amount of Muslims, I know many in my personal life, and I have never had any fear, doubt, or qualm about how they carried themselves or lived their lives. I'm much more afraid of people who are quick to denounce that which they don't understand, don't care to understand, or just view unfamiliarity or change as anathema.


I'm more afraid of those people who are so desperate to cling to a way of life that will never again be the norm that they emulate ideals or movements that are universally abhorred. People who can claim that there's nothing wrong with displaying emblems or symbols of communally understood hatred or bigotry. People that are either yielding to or don't condone these acts, whether they're tiny or grandiose, whether they're a neighbor or a politician. I don't know which group scares me most of all, but all of them do.

All of those happened the other day, and they will continue to happen unless something is done.

I'm fully aware that everything I've listed can and will be directed towards Muslims, but guess what, I'm still not afraid of them. Right now I'll choose, as an American, as a Jew, and most importantly, as a human, to be more afraid of the people who goose-step down a public street, those who proudly display swastikas and chant Nazi slogans, and of those who are posing a more immediate threat to my life and liberty.

What's most important (and this is for both sides) is stop beating your fucking chests about whose turn it is to own the latest tragedy, be abhorred at what's happened, and be abhorred at those who see nothing wrong or do nothing about it.

 

[sean miguel]

I certainly do.

I go to school with a good amount of Muslims, I know many in my personal life, and I have never had any fear, doubt, or qualm about how they carried themselves or lived their lives. I'm much more afraid of people who are quick to denounce that which they don't understand, don't care to understand, or just view unfamiliarity or change as anathema.


I'm more afraid of those people who are so desperate to cling to a way of life that will never again be the norm that they emulate ideals or movements that are universally abhorred. People who can claim that there's nothing wrong with displaying emblems or symbols of communally understood hatred or bigotry. People that are either yielding to or don't condone these acts, whether they're tiny or grandiose, whether they're a neighbor or a politician. I don't know which group scares me most of all, but all of them do.

All of those happened the other day, and they will continue to happen unless something is done.

I'm fully aware that everything I've listed can and will be directed towards Muslims, but guess what, I'm still not afraid of them. Right now I'll choose, as an American, as a Jew, and most importantly, as a human, to be more afraid of the people who goose-step down a public street, those who proudly display swastikas and chant Nazi slogans, and of those who are posing a more immediate threat to my life and liberty.

What's most important (and this is for both sides) is stop beating your fucking chests about whose turn it is to own the latest tragedy, be abhorred at what's happened, and be abhorred at those who see nothing wrong or do nothing about it.

That's great, and I applaud your bleeding heart and good intentions, but I did say "islamists." Are you not making the distinction and lumping them altogether?

 

[ApolloBalboa]

That's great, and I applaud your bleeding heart and good intentions, but I did say "islamists." Are you not making the distinction and lumping them altogether?

I am making the distinction, but I don't think you are, or at least that's not the impression I'm getting. It seems every time an incident with an islamist occurs, you and others are quick to dismiss or criticize the whole as a result of the actions of a few. Even if you haven't with that, you're quick to do it with liberals, as liberals are to do it with conservatives.

My point is, stop doing it. Stop poisoning the entirety because a few members or offshoots go to the extreme. I believe (and I'm sure I could find some sources to back me up if I cared to look for them) that there are moderate islamists who don't preach violence or hatred, but you don't hear about because no attention is directed towards them when there is one that does. You may disagree or say that's naive and that's fine.

However, if you're inclined to do that, and for whatever reason it turns out that this 20-year old was a Nazi sympathizer and a Trump or Republican supporter, by your logic you have no right to cast him out and call him an aberration or unrepresentative of you, BC, or any other conservative. No, according to your logic, because he acts out, the entire group is dangerous. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter what color it is, it's always going to be a duck.

 

[sean miguel]

My point is, stop doing it. Stop poisoning the entirety because a few members or offshoots go to the extreme. I believe (and I'm sure I could find some sources to back me up if I cared to look for them) that there are moderate islamists who don't preach violence or hatred, but you don't hear about because no attention is directed towards them when there is one that does. You may disagree or say that's naive and that's fine.

I think we need to get the term "islamist" straight - an islamist is someone who supports militant islam which would be your "jihadi" or "radical" muslim. By definition, there can be no "moderate" islamist as far as that term is defined in the west. As I've said elsewhere, I don't believe militant applies to all muslims, of course it doesn't, given there's 1.6 billion of them. As you said, those you have come to meet are decent, good people. My issue is with islam as a theology and how it's applied as law throughout the islamic world and that there are those who would like that applied here. And whenever there is a terrorist attack, it's not poisoning the entirety to point out that the perpetrator(s) are muslim. That is just a point of fact and is relevant. Going to pains to avoid mentioning their religion when it's the key component, the driving factor, is naive or worse.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

I think we need to get the term "islamist" straight - an islamist is someone who supports militant islam which would be your "jihadi" or "radical" muslim. By definition, there can be no "moderate" islamist as far as that term is defined in the west. As I've said elsewhere, I don't believe militant applies to all muslims, of course it doesn't, given there's 1.6 billion of them. As you said, those you have come to meet are decent, good people. My issue is with islam as a theology and how it's applied as law throughout the islamic world and that there are those who would like that applied here. And whenever there is a terrorist attack, it's not poisoning the entirety to point out that the perpetrator(s) are muslim. That is just a point of fact and is relevant. Going to pains to avoid mentioning their religion when it's the key component, the driving factor, is naive or worse.

I disagree with that; you may disagree with this, but I believe that this group has been shown to be fairly moderate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Morocco)

http://internationalrelations.org/justice-and-development-party-morocco/

And yes, I did read the whole article, as well as looking for others that might have provided contrasting or dissenting opinions. Notwithstanding their last election, they seem to have remained fairly stable. I didn't come across anything about them that mentioned 'jihad', 'militant', or 'radical', but if you go looking and find something that does feel free to present it5 here and I'll look and reply to it honestly.

What exactly is your problem with their theology? It would be easier to reply to that directly than to go over the whole of Islam's theology with no idea of what you might find troublesome. As to those people who would like it applied here, let them dream. We both know it won't ever happen. I could easily say I take issue with America being founded on secular principles and yet there are people who want to inject their own theology into our government. It seems to me that if you have a beef with the spread of an idea or tenets into unwelcome territories that you should have a beef when any ideology is impressed upon unwilling people.

It may not seem like poisoning the entirety to you (which is good to hear), but there are many others who need no further provocation to discriminate and possibly do worse. Yes it makes sense to bring in factors like religion if it's believed it was integral in motive, but if you hear 'muslim' are you inclined to look at the perpetrator as an exception to or indicative of the whole? People who can't (or won't) tell the difference are just as dangerous.

 

[sean miguel]

I disagree with that; you may disagree with this, but I believe that this group has been shown to be fairly moderate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Morocco)

http://internationalrelations.org/justice-and-development-party-morocco/

And yes, I did read the whole article, as well as looking for others that might have provided contrasting or dissenting opinions. Notwithstanding their last election, they seem to have remained fairly stable. I didn't come across anything about them that mentioned 'jihad', 'militant', or 'radical', but if you go looking and find something that does feel free to present it5 here and I'll look and reply to it honestly.

I think we're stuck on semantics here. Here's a muslim who explains the difference between islamic and islamist:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/muslims-vs.-islamists

What exactly is your problem with their theology? It would be easier to reply to that directly than to go over the whole of Islam's theology with no idea of what you might find troublesome.

core issues:

Other than I reject it's claim that Allah is the one true god and Muhammad is his prophet, there is the issue of the after-life, paradise, salvation. In Islam, as opposed to Christianity, there is no assurance of salvation. Even if a muslim follows the Five Pillars there is no guarantee. Ask any muslim if they know they are going to heaven when they die, and the best they can tell you is "insha'Allah" or "God willing." The one exception is dying as a martyr in jihad. That is the only guarantee that allah will accept you through those pearly gates. So you see where that goes, right?

If I were a muslim, who say, grew up in a life of crime, and was certain that on judgment day the scales would not weigh in my favor and that I would be condemned to hell for eternity, but there was one way out by strapping this vest on. What would I do?

I'll reply to the rest of your post later. I'm kinda ... busy right now.

And thank you for having this discussion with me.

 

[Straight Shooter]

FBI and DHS reported "persistent" white supremacy threat in May
https://www.axios.com/fbi-and-dhs-reported-months-ago-white-supremacys-lethal-threat-2472924837.html

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security warned months ago that white supremacists "were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement," per Foreign Policy, which obtained the intelligence bulletin detailing the warning, entitled, "White Supremacist Extremism Poses Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence."

These kinds of attacks outnumber Islamist incidents by about 2 to 1, per the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

Why it matters: Candidate Trump ran on the idea that "anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country," as he told a rally in Ohio, but critics point out Trump's first statement on the violence in Charlottesville included a condemnation of violence on "many sides," and it took him until Monday to specifically condemn white supremacy.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

I think we're stuck on semantics here. Here's a muslim who explains the difference between islamic and islamist:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/muslims-vs.-islamists



core issues:

Other than I reject it's claim that Allah is the one true god and Muhammad is his prophet, there is the issue of the after-life, paradise, salvation. In Islam, as opposed to Christianity, there is no assurance of salvation. Even if a muslim follows the Five Pillars there is no guarantee. Ask any muslim if they know they are going to heaven when they die, and the best they can tell you is "insha'Allah" or "God willing." The one exception is dying as a martyr in jihad. That is the only guarantee that allah will accept you through those pearly gates. So you see where that goes, right?

If I were a muslim, who say, grew up in a life of crime, and was certain that on judgment day the scales would not weigh in my favor and that I would be condemned to hell for eternity, but there was one way out by strapping this vest on. What would I do?

I'll reply to the rest of your post later. I'm kinda ... busy right now.

And thank you for having this discussion with me.

I actually came across that site and watched that video while looking for information on the PJD. I'm certainly not about to argue with a Muslim over the semantics of his religion, and I think we're at the point where the two of us will have to agree to disagree, at least when it comes to defining 'islamist'.

My responses to your listing of issues:

• You reject Allah/Muhammad - I can only guess this is because it conflicts with your religion/beliefs. Fair enough.
  
  
• Salvation - Is it the fact that lives are lost in order to acquire salvation what bothers you, is it that you believe they're misguided, or both? In regards to jihad solely being a violent demonstration, it's not. For some, jihad is to live life as a good Muslim. I'm not saying that the word hasn't taken on new meaning when most Western cultures use it or hear it, but that's not its sole definition. Just typing it into Google l found "a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam" but also "the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin".
  
  In regards to your possible turning to violence to find salvation, you could do that. However, that's the individual's choice. I'm sure you notice that there are many Muslims around, enough to be the second largest religious group in the world consisting of more than 1.8 billion people as of 2015. It seems that there are many of them who haven't decided to be martyrs to gain salvation, most likely more than those who have or are. If the entire group as a whole was so pressed to achieve paradise upon death, don't you think you wouldn't see as many or they'd be much fewer in number? Wouldn't there be a jihad reported every other day? Not necessarily; some prescribe to the Jim Jones method, and some prefer to take their chances when they die and continue to live.
  
  Question: How is a murderer receiving absolution before he's executed any different than someone killing to get into Heaven? The murderer may not have killed to get salvation, but how is a retroactive statement of forgiveness acceptable when the end result is the same for both; lives have been lost and people who don't deserve paradise supposedly get it.

I'm glad we can discuss this.

 

[Johan]

On the other hand the Quran specificaly says that those who commit suicide will get to Hell forever.

- - - Updated - - -

On the other hand the Quran specificaly says that those who commit suicide will get to Hell forever.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Daily Caller Once Advised How to ‘Plow Through’ Liberal Protesters With a Car
https://www.mediaite.com/online/dai...o-plow-through-liberal-protestors-with-a-car/

 

[Jack Davenport]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-white-nationalists-rally/index.html

Why won't this president call it what it is? white supremacy. Domestic terrorism. He get's very specific when he condemns Comey, McConnell, KJU but with this he decides be vague in his condemnation. There's a reason for that.The right needs to own this. And these are the same fuckers who who got their panties in a wad over people not saying "radical Islam". I'm sick to my stomach

LOL @ Whataboutism

 

[sean miguel]

[*]Salvation - Is it the fact that lives are lost in order to acquire salvation what bothers you, is it that you believe they're misguided, or both? In regards to jihad solely being a violent demonstration, it's not. For some, jihad is to live life as a good Muslim. I'm not saying that the word hasn't taken on new meaning when most Western cultures use it or hear it, but that's not its sole definition. Just typing it into Google l found "a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam" but also "the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin".

In regards to your possible turning to violence to find salvation, you could do that. However, that's the individual's choice. I'm sure you notice that there are many Muslims around, enough to be the second largest religious group in the world consisting of more than 1.8 billion people as of 2015. It seems that there are many of them who haven't decided to be martyrs to gain salvation, most likely more than those who have or are. If the entire group as a whole was so pressed to achieve paradise upon death, don't you think you wouldn't see as many or they'd be much fewer in number? Wouldn't there be a jihad reported every other day? Not necessarily; some prescribe to the Jim Jones method, and some prefer to take their chances when they die and continue to live.

I've thought that as well - why aren't there more suicide bombers if that's the case? But then, why are there as many as there are? Why do so many literally put everything on the line to kill and die as a martyr? I think of the San Bernardino shooters who had that beautiful baby girl to raise. They willingly gave that all up to kill people and be martyrs. Why do so many imams preach this even out in the open? Are they going outside of Islam with this teaching and belief?

Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat [Torah] and the Injeel [Gospels] and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement. - Surrah 9:111


But as you said, most are content to live their lives and hope for the best.

Question: How is a murderer receiving absolution before he's executed any different than someone killing to get into Heaven? The murderer may not have killed to get salvation, but how is a retroactive statement of forgiveness acceptable when the end result is the same for both; lives have been lost and people who don't deserve paradise supposedly get it.

Because one would be an explicit call to commit murder? The one committing murder to get to heaven calls on his brothers and sisters to do the same? The sincere convert on death row is sorry for what he's done and calls for others to repent?