|
Post by camdenshrew on Aug 17, 2017 4:38:56 GMT 1
Before suggesting that if the violence is equal, blame should be equal, surely you have to take into account the ideology at the core of the problem. If groups of anti-fascists fought with Hitler's most fervent supporters of Nazi ideology in the 1930s Germany, would we say that both sides were equally to blame if the level of violence was equal. Surely we would be right in thinking that those who fought to oppose the notions of racial superiority were fighting for a just world and so should be lauded and not condemned as being equally to blame. The notion of white, Caucasian supremacy in modern America must surely be condemned, and although violent protest should be strongly discouraged, the core blame for what happened has to fall on the racist side. And to be fair, many leading Republicans have made this clear. The worry is that Trump didn't agree with them until the backlash became too strong. Spot on. If we look at our own history, those who fought at the Battle of Cable Street against Mosley's fascists are rightly regarded as heroes.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 17, 2017 12:46:01 GMT 1
Before suggesting that if the violence is equal, blame should be equal, surely you have to take into account the ideology at the core of the problem. If groups of anti-fascists fought with Hitler's most fervent supporters of Nazi ideology in the 1930s Germany, would we say that both sides were equally to blame if the level of violence was equal. Surely we would be right in thinking that those who fought to oppose the notions of racial superiority were fighting for a just world and so should be lauded and not condemned as being equally to blame. The notion of white, Caucasian supremacy in modern America must surely be condemned, and although violent protest should be strongly discouraged, the core blame for what happened has to fall on the racist side. And to be fair, many leading Republicans have made this clear. The worry is that Trump didn't agree with them until the backlash became too strong. Spot on. If we look at our own history, those who fought at the Battle of Cable Street against Mosley's fascists are rightly regarded as heroes. No doubt Breitbart and its ilk would have attacked them as far left terrorists, as they do with Antifa in the US.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Aug 17, 2017 13:13:41 GMT 1
While probably not an actual supporter of the far-right racists, Trump's words and actions (or lack thereof in some cases) have time and again shown where his priorities and biases lie. This is compounded by the man's innate childishness and self-absorption - he just cannot stand any criticism, hence his belligerent and ill-advised press conference in reaction to the criticism of his initial statements regarding the Charlottesville troubles. He is absolutely unfit for office and is causing and heightening terrible division in America. Anyway, regarding Charlottesville, watch this: It makes me physically sick. Anyone who thinks there is equal blame or that those so-called "Antifa" protesters are the danger need to think again. And, by the way, surely now it is time that Mrs May withdraw her invitation for Trump's state visit? He's likely to be welcomed about as warmly as Kim Jong Un! That is a tough watch. Wow. I'm speechless
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Aug 17, 2017 13:43:36 GMT 1
While probably not an actual supporter of the far-right racists, Trump's words and actions (or lack thereof in some cases) have time and again shown where his priorities and biases lie. This is compounded by the man's innate childishness and self-absorption - he just cannot stand any criticism, hence his belligerent and ill-advised press conference in reaction to the criticism of his initial statements regarding the Charlottesville troubles. He is absolutely unfit for office and is causing and heightening terrible division in America. Anyway, regarding Charlottesville, watch this: It makes me physically sick. Anyone who thinks there is equal blame or that those so-called "Antifa" protesters are the danger need to think again. And, by the way, surely now it is time that Mrs May withdraw her invitation for Trump's state visit? He's likely to be welcomed about as warmly as Kim Jong Un! That is a tough watch. Wow. I'm speechless You took the words right out of my mouth..WOW!! Unbelievable, and hopefully we will never see the like in the UK
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 17, 2017 14:57:37 GMT 1
Agree with that Stutty, no place for violence or intimidation from any extremist groups, though my experience of the far left in this country only goes as far as some bearded 60 year old wearing brown cordaroy shoving a copy of socialist worker under your nose! That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead.
|
|
|
Post by kinder on Aug 17, 2017 18:22:30 GMT 1
Agree with that Stutty, no place for violence or intimidation from any extremist groups, though my experience of the far left in this country only goes as far as some bearded 60 year old wearing brown cordaroy shoving a copy of socialist worker under your nose! That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 19:41:24 GMT 1
Agree with that Stutty, no place for violence or intimidation from any extremist groups, though my experience of the far left in this country only goes as far as some bearded 60 year old wearing brown cordaroy shoving a copy of socialist worker under your nose! That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead. I'm sure I said all that but without the longevity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 20:13:41 GMT 1
Agree with that Stutty, no place for violence or intimidation from any extremist groups, though my experience of the far left in this country only goes as far as some bearded 60 year old wearing brown cordaroy shoving a copy of socialist worker under your nose! That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead. So what's the solution to right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video?
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Aug 17, 2017 20:33:08 GMT 1
The end result - not necessarily the solution - is that as the far right peddle their hatred ( and we have them on here doing exactly that ) then there will come a pinch point somewhere in The States that will lead to catastrophe and wide spread bloodshed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 22:49:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Aug 17, 2017 23:33:54 GMT 1
The end result - not necessarily the solution - is that as the far right peddle their hatred ( and we have them on here doing exactly that ) then there will come a pinch point somewhere in The States that will lead to catastrophe and wide spread bloodshed. It's virtually inevitable. What a bizarre country the States is to allow people to own assault rifles. What possible legitimate need could there be for a regular person to own such military grade weaponry!? That Cantwell chap alone had enough armaments for a small army squad!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 18, 2017 19:39:32 GMT 1
That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead. I'm sure I said all that but without the longevity? Yeah, probably. But I do enjoy waffling on when the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Aug 18, 2017 19:50:20 GMT 1
I'm sure I said all that but without the longevity? Yeah, probably. But I do enjoy waffling on when the opportunity presents itself. No s**t !
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 18, 2017 19:58:37 GMT 1
That's nice. But I think people elsewhere see things quite a bit different. More so of late. I just think it's important to condemn anyone who is clearly looking to attend such events with the aim to incite and participate in violence. More so than ever because, as I said above, politics is now becoming ever more politicized and tensions are clearly already high. Those who did attend with that in mind contributed to the inevitable escalation of violence that resulted in the death of one young women and many more injured. All sides need to be told that their intentions are simply unacceptable and unwanted. Sure the argument will be that these people are legitimate targets because of their abhorrent beliefs but I do not think that is any excuse. We saw similar scenes during the US election campaign where anti-Trump demonstrators sought out Trump rallies to cause problems which inevitably resulted in violence with everyone including kids getting caught up in it. No doubt those people heading to those rallies to cause problems and incite violence also deemed all attending as legitimate targets too. It's because that line can become blurred that I think all violence and intimidation needs to be condemned. Not to do so just empowers those with that intent to continue as is. And I just don't think that's the best way ahead. So what's the solution to right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video? So we should use violence to tackle extremism? What do you believe was actually achieved by the violence seen in Charlottesville? And with all considered, with everything that happened, do you think that was a price worth paying? Are you suggesting that the next time we see far left extremists ripping up some European town or city the people should get out there and confront them, fight them? Are you saying the next time we see Islamists spouting their hatred on the streets of the UK people should get out there and try to kick the s**t out of them? Do people really think that's the way we need to deal with this? And looking to the wider picture, you think that helps combat extremism? Don't agree with that at all. I would think the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people. It isn't violence that is going to put an end to extremism.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 19, 2017 0:58:24 GMT 1
Thanks for the link Shrewinjapan. I often dip into Vice News, but hadn't seen their coverage of Charlottesville. It was excellent, and the young female reporter was very able.
Much of what you say is sensible Stuttgartershrew, but is there no ideology that is beyond that of simply differing views. Should we never stand up to those propogating KKK and Nazi views and chanting their slogans, when the Government and Law enforcement agencies rather than " Dealing with these people", are in fact allowing it. especially when, as in the US today, there is such a blurring of the line between these racist extremists and those holding power in the White House.
You ask whether that was a price worth paying. Do you ask that of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela?
And one point regarding the squaring of blame: those who protested against the Unite the Right's march in Charlottesville, were mainly citizens of Charlottesville and students at their Universities, protesting against the march in their city. But those on the Unite the Right march, came from all over the US, and some even from Canada.
I think if a torch-lit mob waving swastikas and chanting racist and anti-semetic slogans marched down Pride Hill, A fair few Shrewsbury lads and lasses would be out to protest their presence in the Town.
Most of those protesting the march were doing so peacefully, admittedly some didn't... but watching that Vice News link, the aggression and violence of the marchers was tangible from the outset.
Anybody who hasn't watched the YouTube link that Shrewinjapan posted, really should do, it is gut-clutching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 12:14:37 GMT 1
So what's the solution to right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video? So we should use violence to tackle extremism? What do you believe was actually achieved by the violence seen in Charlottesville? And with all considered, with everything that happened, do you think that was a price worth paying? Are you suggesting that the next time we see far left extremists ripping up some European town or city the people should get out there and confront them, fight them? Are you saying the next time we see Islamists spouting their hatred on the streets of the UK people should get out there and try to kick the s**t out of them? Do people really think that's the way we need to deal with this? And looking to the wider picture, you think that helps combat extremism? Don't agree with that at all. I would think the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people. It isn't violence that is going to put an end to extremism. The question was, what's the solution to the right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 19, 2017 21:31:47 GMT 1
So we should use violence to tackle extremism? What do you believe was actually achieved by the violence seen in Charlottesville? And with all considered, with everything that happened, do you think that was a price worth paying? Are you suggesting that the next time we see far left extremists ripping up some European town or city the people should get out there and confront them, fight them? Are you saying the next time we see Islamists spouting their hatred on the streets of the UK people should get out there and try to kick the s**t out of them? Do people really think that's the way we need to deal with this? And looking to the wider picture, you think that helps combat extremism? Don't agree with that at all. I would think the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people. It isn't violence that is going to put an end to extremism. The question was, what's the solution to the right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video. I answered that... the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people.
I'm not really sure what your getting at here? Do you think it should go beyond that? Do you support the use of violence to tackle extremism? Do you actually think it helps to tackle extremism? In the last 48 hours in Europe 16 people have been killed by Islamic extremists. So what's the solution to Islamist violence, when you consider what what has happened in Barcelona and Turku? Do you think the solution to violence perpetrated by extremists should go beyond what I stated it should involve? If so, what? Violence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 8:29:43 GMT 1
The question was, what's the solution to the right-wing violence, when you consider what is being said by Cantwell et al in the video. I answered that... the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people.
Well, no you haven't, because talking about what's in the video. And you know, that march by the black hating, Jew hating, and gay hating far-right groups was planned and known about by the authorities and the police stood by while armed militia and other tooled up right-wingers marched. What I think should happen is that Trump should own what he's helped enable and facilitated and condemn in the highest terms possible without a half-@rsed "you're all naughty" tweet. As for meeting violence with violence. Well people will do what they have to do, particularly if your black, Jewish, or gay and feel threatened by these types of 'people'. I'm certainly not going to take any high morale ground over something I have no idea what it feels to be.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 20, 2017 12:27:02 GMT 1
I answered that... the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people.
Well, no you haven't, because talking about what's in the video. And you know, that march by the black hating, Jew hating, and gay hating far-right groups was planned and known about by the authorities and the police stood by while armed militia and other tooled up right-wingers marched. What I think should happen is that Trump should own what he's helped enable and facilitated and condemn in the highest terms possible without a half-@rsed "you're all naughty" tweet. As for meeting violence with violence. Well people will do what they have to do, particularly if your black, Jewish, or gay and feel threatened by these types of 'people'. I'm certainly not going to take any high morale ground over something I have no idea what it feels to be. You do know what it feels like. You're a British guy who has had to put up with years of successive governments allowing anti-British hatred on the streets of this country in the name of 'free speech.' Just as the black people, Jewish, gay etc feel threatened in the US, we have felt threatened here too. Just as they are concerned that Trump isn't doing anything, we are concerned that our government(s) aren't doing anything either. I agree with your thoughts on what Trump should do, but in the same respect, our government(s) should be doing the same to crack down on what threatens the peoples of this country too. Zero-tolerance to any hatred.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 20, 2017 12:39:57 GMT 1
What's the difference? Our police and politicians allow it, the American police and politicians allow it. Trump fails to condemn it hard enough, Blair/Brown/Cameron/May fail to condemn it hard enough.
The problem isn't Trump. The problem is what is allowed as free speech and what isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 15:49:24 GMT 1
Well, no you haven't, because talking about what's in the video. And you know, that march by the black hating, Jew hating, and gay hating far-right groups was planned and known about by the authorities and the police stood by while armed militia and other tooled up right-wingers marched. What I think should happen is that Trump should own what he's helped enable and facilitated and condemn in the highest terms possible without a half-@rsed "you're all naughty" tweet. As for meeting violence with violence. Well people will do what they have to do, particularly if your black, Jewish, or gay and feel threatened by these types of 'people'. I'm certainly not going to take any high morale ground over something I have no idea what it feels to be. You do know what it feels like. You're a British guy who has had to put up with years of successive governments allowing anti-British hatred on the streets of this country in the name of 'free speech.' Do I? Oh right, thanks for telling me how threatened I should feel. Blimey...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 16:01:10 GMT 1
What's the difference? Our police and politicians allow it, the American police and politicians allow it. Trump fails to condemn it hard enough, Blair/Brown/Cameron/May fail to condemn it hard enough. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is what is allowed as free speech and what isn't. The difference here is that one group is influenced by an elected political leader and the other by religious dogma that is being combated by violence in various parts of the world.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 20, 2017 17:04:04 GMT 1
I answered that... the solution to right wing violence is the same for any sort of extremism that we see today. That we we allow the police, security and intelligence services to get on with their job in dealing with these people.
Well, no you haven't, because talking about what's in the video. And you know, that march by the black hating, Jew hating, and gay hating far-right groups was planned and known about by the authorities and the police stood by while armed militia and other tooled up right-wingers marched. What I think should happen is that Trump should own what he's helped enable and facilitated and condemn in the highest terms possible without a half-@rsed "you're all naughty" tweet. As for meeting violence with violence. Well people will do what they have to do, particularly if your black, Jewish, or gay and feel threatened by these types of 'people'. I'm certainly not going to take any high morale ground over something I have no idea what it feels to be. Yeah, I have. I'm talking about this video and I still believe that these people should be dealt with by the police, security and intelligence services just like any other extremists. With regards to your comment about the planning and the police, are you now saying that the authorities (the police, security service, intelligence services, politicians, whoever) are facilitating this? And so people will do what they have to do. You believe that to be the case when combating and looking to eradicate Islamic extremism too, right? People will have to do what they have to do in order to do so. Including violence. And you support that.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 20, 2017 17:21:56 GMT 1
What's the difference? Our police and politicians allow it, the American police and politicians allow it. Trump fails to condemn it hard enough, Blair/Brown/Cameron/May fail to condemn it hard enough. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is what is allowed as free speech and what isn't. The difference here is that one group is influenced by an elected political leader and the other by religious dogma that is being combated by violence in various parts of the world. What does that mean? That far-right extremists should not be allowed to march and spout their hatred in public? The authorities and the police should stop this happening from the off? However, you are saying that Islamic extremists are well within their right to do so? Did I read that right? For the reasons you give there?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 20, 2017 17:25:21 GMT 1
What's the difference? Our police and politicians allow it, the American police and politicians allow it. Trump fails to condemn it hard enough, Blair/Brown/Cameron/May fail to condemn it hard enough. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is what is allowed as free speech and what isn't. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 20, 2017 17:42:31 GMT 1
What's the difference? Our police and politicians allow it, the American police and politicians allow it. Trump fails to condemn it hard enough, Blair/Brown/Cameron/May fail to condemn it hard enough. The problem isn't Trump. The problem is what is allowed as free speech and what isn't. The difference here is that one group is influenced by an elected political leader and the other by religious dogma that is being combated by violence in various parts of the world. There's no difference here, both are examples of hatred. Both allowed by their governments on the grounds of 'free speech.' Just as the police stood by in the American video, the police stood by in the British video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 17:53:21 GMT 1
Well, no you haven't, because talking about what's in the video. And you know, that march by the black hating, Jew hating, and gay hating far-right groups was planned and known about by the authorities and the police stood by while armed militia and other tooled up right-wingers marched. What I think should happen is that Trump should own what he's helped enable and facilitated and condemn in the highest terms possible without a half-@rsed "you're all naughty" tweet. As for meeting violence with violence. Well people will do what they have to do, particularly if your black, Jewish, or gay and feel threatened by these types of 'people'. I'm certainly not going to take any high morale ground over something I have no idea what it feels to be. Yeah, I have. I'm talking about this video and I still believe that these people should be dealt with by the police, security and intelligence services just like any other extremists. With regards to your comment about the planning and the police, are you now saying that the authorities (the police, security service, intelligence services, politicians, whoever) are facilitating this? And so people will do what they have to do. You believe that to be the case when combating and looking to eradicate Islamic extremism too, right? People will have to do what they have to do in order to do so. Including violence. And you support that. You said they should be dealt with by the authorities, fine. The march was planned. The authorities let them march despite there rhetoric of hate against people based on their race, religion and sexuality. You heard the filth coming out of their mouths. But, that's the first amendment for you isn't and as the police seemed unable to step in, so others took matters into their own hands. As for your comment about Islamic extremism. I fail to see what your point is. But, yes absolutely when necessary and violence is already being used is case you hadn't noticed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 17:57:23 GMT 1
The difference here is that one group is influenced by an elected political leader and the other by religious dogma that is being combated by violence in various parts of the world. There's no difference here, both are examples of hatred. Both allowed by their governments on the grounds of 'free speech.' Just as the police stood by in the American video, the police stood by in the British video. Yes, but the point I'm making, and you're astute enough to get this, is the one group is emboldened by the President of one if the most powerful countries in the world. And how this discussion has turned into 'whataboutry' is beyond me, but there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 18:00:34 GMT 1
The difference here is that one group is influenced by an elected political leader and the other by religious dogma that is being combated by violence in various parts of the world. What does that mean? That far-right extremists should not be allowed to march and spout their hatred in public? The authorities and the police should stop this happening from the off? However, you are saying that Islamic extremists are well within their right to do so? Did I read that right? For the reasons you give there? You're bright enough to know what I mean. And, no I don't believe Islamic extremists are within their right to spout hate, why would I?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 20, 2017 18:14:12 GMT 1
What does that mean? That far-right extremists should not be allowed to march and spout their hatred in public? The authorities and the police should stop this happening from the off? However, you are saying that Islamic extremists are well within their right to do so? Did I read that right? For the reasons you give there? You're bright enough to know what I mean. And, no I don't believe Islamic extremists are within their right to spout hate, why would I? You give me too much credit. I'm really not sure what you mean at all. And I would I think that from looking to your previous response to Champagne above when he asked what the difference is between far right extremists and Islamic extremists being allowed by the spout their hatred in public. You seem to think there is a difference and that therefore they should be treated differently. They shouldn't.
|
|