rumitoid

"Here you have a case of a young white male who k**led and injured people of color, and we're culturally more concerned about his story, about his life, about what led him to take these lives," said David Leonard, professor in the department of critical culture, g****r and race studies at Washington State University. "It's a striking reminder of a racial empathy gap that persists." Too funny. Though what he says "of a racial empathy gap that persists" is very real and ubiquitous in the States, and looking at his motives somewhat on a higher plane afforded to people of color, he is a k**ler period. End of story. He terrorized a community for wh**ever reason--and it was wrong!

His actions are somehow now being debated about "a challenged young man" or terrorist. Very strange. What do you think? And where is Trump on these attacks?

JW

ter·ror·ism
[ˈterəˌrizəm]

NOUN
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism" ·


He had no political agenda. He's NOT a terrorist. Get it?

PeterS

That would make the skin head who drove a car into a crowd in VA a terrorist yet no mention of that by the president. Instead it drew a comparison to a group who had committed no terrorist act at all...

JW

In 1977, a bunch of N**Is wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, in full regalia, including swastika emblazoned f**gs. The city refused and a lawsuit followed. Abbreviating the intricate details, the SCOTUS decided that the city and the Illinois courts were wrong in their handling of the situation. The ultimate result was a Liberal triumph... even N**Is have First Amendment rights.

That being the case, the Charlottesville counter protestors were violating the Constitutional rights of the w***e s*********ts and must be held liable for the many various altercations that occurred during the 48 hours in question. As despicable as their rhetoric was and as repugnant as their philosophy is, the marchers were within their rights and the law.

Here is a recounting of those 48 hours. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/charlottesville-timeline/?utm_term=.38ce05dde5fd

Had the protestors honored the law and the marcher's rights, the deaths would never have occurred.

The man who rammed the crowd is clearly a criminal and fully responsible for his actions but the protestors are also culpable. Exactly the position that President Trump took.

PeterS

What a crock of bull s**t. Al Qaeda says they are only terrorists because the US is in the middle east. Based on your argument the US is responsible for 9/11 and bin Laden was unjustly hunted down--the innocent man that he was.

You can play cause and effect all you like but by your definition W***e S*********ts are a terrorist organization therefore if one of their members acts on their behave then that is in fact terrorism--even if Trump was too chickens**t to call it that...

JW

Bulls**t? Really? The US is responsible for everything it does. It is not responsible for what our enemies do. The marchers are responsible for everything they did. They are not responsible for what the protestors did.

I agree that w***e s*********ts constitute a potential threat of violence and they probably expected violence at the march. They were certainly prepared for it but the protestors were equally well prepared to commit violence and equally inclined to it. However, the marchers were acting within the law... the protestors were not. It's not an issue of cause and effect. It is a matter of legal and illegal. The marchers were acting in accord with the rights granted all Americans by the First Amendment. The protestors tried to deny them their First Amendment rights.

Are w***e s*********ts a terrorist organization? To the best of my knowledge, they are not so designated. Failing that, the incident was a homicide. The President's response was entirely correct and appropriate under the circumstances.

PeterS

If the W***e S*********ts knew that their rally was going to cause trouble and they went through anyway then they are responsible for starting the trouble are they not? After all, if there had been no rally then Heather would be alive and well today. As for Trump, he did what he knew his base would fawn over so by drawing an equivalence between a terrorist organization and a****a. Trumps minions were delighted at the comparison and they could care less if it was valid or not. That's how they believe and that's all that's important--that their beliefs are served whether they are valid or not is irrelevant...

JW

There isn't nickel's worth of difference between A****a and the w***e s*********t movement. Both groups are pushing an agenda that excludes anyone who doesn't think like them.

It doesn't matter that the s*********ts expected trouble. They were exercising their rights as American citizens and they had a court order that authorized their march. Say what you will but the protestors were violating the Constitutional rights of the marchers. No one would have died if the protestors had stayed in their permitted protest areas.

As for President Trump, what he said was EXACTLY correct; there are two sides to the story and it was the protestors who were violating the rights of the marchers.

I have no time for r****ts or s*********ts of any kind. That includes skinheads, KKK, B*M, A****a or just plain meatheads claiming the angels are on their side. There is no freedom for anyone if there is no freedom for them, detestable as the all are.

rumitoid

True.

rumitoid

A "liberal triumph"? It was not for N**ism but the freedom of speech. W***e s*********ts, no matter how abhorrent, have the right to speak.

JW

Explain that to Pete, would you. He doesn't seem to understand me when I say that.

rumitoid

Lol.