From that first paragraph, they sound sort of like luddite style ERE'ers. The article doesn't really say why any conflict happened in the first place. Did they just start squatting in their house and it all escalated from there?Mashable article wrote: The black liberation group MOVE was founded in 1972 by John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart). Living communally in a house in West Philadelphia, members of MOVE all changed their surnames to Africa, shunned modern technology and materialism, and preached support of animal rights, revolution and a return to nature.
Their first conflict with law enforcement occurred in 1978, when police tried to evict them from their house. A firefight erupted, killing one police officer and injuring several more on both sides.
White supremacy run amok
Re: White supremacy run amok
Wow, that MOVE house attack is crazy. Especially to not let them exit the building and forcing them to burn inside.
Re: White supremacy run amok
+1000Dragline wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:26 pm@ffj So you support the terrorists. Yes or no. If not, why are you hiding behind this crap of "we just don't know" when the guy who was there with the alt-right, was driving and owned the car, was caught red-handed on the scene, and has been charged with second degree murder? Do you think that was really a mistake? We do know. You know. I know. Everybody knows.
Stop hiding behind bullshit or show me better information than that which I have. If not, just admit you are wrong about this incident. Marco Rubio, Orrin Hatch, and Corey Gardner did not hesitate to call this by what it is: White Supremacists. Domestic Terrorism. It is obvious. Why can't you admit the obvious?
And they already have a national platform. His name is "Trump", and this is his legacy. This is what supporting Trump is all about: Anger leading to death and denial of responsibility. Yeah, keep trying to blame that woman for having the temerity to cross the street when she was run down by a white supremacist terrorist.
Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.
God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.
These are defining times.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Yes, System of a Down and Rage definitely. I found them a little latter. I wasn't an angry youth at all. I was the "All American" rural youth. For a long time I thought the pinnacle of my life would be serving in the military. Then football changed that view slightly and I thought I should be Jack in Mellencamp's Jack and Diane, but still thought about pursuing the military. It's a high calling for a rural kid. I quickly lost the romantic notion of the military after becoming a young adult and being exposed to stuff I wasn't exposed to in my 5,000 person home town (no internet when I was growing up).Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:19 pm@Chad:
For me that experience was System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine, lol.
And yeah, that's one they don't teach you about in schools. I believe the buildings that burned down in the bombing are still pretty much gutted. What was that about capital (or its bombed out absence) being passed on through communities...
I ETA'd so I'm not sure you saw, but compare that reaction to the reaction to the Bundys taking over a federal building.
The entire Bundy debacle from the ranch to the federal building is very informative.
Re: White supremacy run amok
The internet says terrorism is defined as: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
So, technically, it depends on whether that one guy was driving his car into the crowd in pursuit of political aims. I don't know for sure whether he was doing it for political aim or not. I'd say it seems more likely that he was - so I'd say it seems more like terrorism than not.
I don't get what's so bad about FFJ saying he thinks it's premature to declare it terrorism or pre-meditated. There's a good chance that understanding more about the guy and about what happened before he did this (I don't mean what people said to him) would in fact shine more light on whether he did it in the pursuit of political aims or whether maybe he did it because he's just a lunatic and got all riled up.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Either way it's terrorism. The only way it isn't is if it was truly a tragic accident. If the person spilled coffee on themselves and veered into the crowd then it's just an accident. But, if it was done on purpose, it would be terrorism.
Seems extremely unlikely this was a random accident.
Re: White supremacy run amok
huh? Is every murder terrorism? No one here is saying it was an accident.
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm
Re: White supremacy run amok
Honest question: at what point does (free speech/ right to assemble/ right to bear arms) become criminal intimidation? Can someone point me to any historical examples/legal precedents?
In other words, is there any legal difference between 1) a single unarmed person presenting extreme viewpoints against [insert race,gender,creed,etc.] in a casual conversation; and 2) a large group of heavily armed people presenting extreme viewpoints against [insert race,gender,creed,etc.] by yelling into microphones while parading through the middle of town?
In other words, is there any legal difference between 1) a single unarmed person presenting extreme viewpoints against [insert race,gender,creed,etc.] in a casual conversation; and 2) a large group of heavily armed people presenting extreme viewpoints against [insert race,gender,creed,etc.] by yelling into microphones while parading through the middle of town?
Re: White supremacy run amok
@C40
Of course not. What are the odds the person just wanted to kill someone...anyone? In Charllottesville? Not high. It would be very odd if it wasn't terrorism.
Of course not. What are the odds the person just wanted to kill someone...anyone? In Charllottesville? Not high. It would be very odd if it wasn't terrorism.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: White supremacy run amok
@C40:
Yeah, the only non-terrorist possibility, that he's just a nutbag who chose to randomly murder people in the midst of political turmoil but without political motivations, is... well, a stretch to me. I'm with Dragline on this: "We do know. You know. I know. Everybody knows."
The Wiki article I linked has a lot more background info on MOVE. The Mashable article was more for the pictures.
Yeah, the only non-terrorist possibility, that he's just a nutbag who chose to randomly murder people in the midst of political turmoil but without political motivations, is... well, a stretch to me. I'm with Dragline on this: "We do know. You know. I know. Everybody knows."
The Wiki article I linked has a lot more background info on MOVE. The Mashable article was more for the pictures.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: White supremacy run amok
I mean, I can't even begin to imagine how many comments I've seen on recent articles about protesters obstructing traffic where some right-winger is fetishizing grotesquely about how they'd plow through any crowd that tried to get in their way.
One of them decided to bring their internet fantasies into real life.
One of them decided to bring their internet fantasies into real life.
Re: White supremacy run amok
People can get crazy in situations like that. It could be that he was over arguing/fight with those people, got punched a few times, and over-reacted in extreme fashion. I'm not defending the guy here at all. It does seem extremely likely that he was there on the side of the white supremacists. I'm just saying that we don't know for sure whether he did it for political reasons. It seems odd to me to assume that you absolutely know, and to debate it right at this moment. Probably in a few days we'll know more about the guy and what he may have said online or to his friends and have a better idea.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Could be.... It would be odd as (probably) "his side" was the main group there. But a person who drives a car into a crowd of people probably wouldn't consider that clearly.Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:53 pmI mean, I can't even begin to imagine how many comments I've seen on recent articles about protesters obstructing traffic where some right-winger is fetishizing grotesquely about how they'd plow through any crowd that tried to get in their way.
One of them decided to bring their internet fantasies into real life.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Still terrorism. Terrorism isn't necessarily sane or calm.
Last edited by Chad on Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: White supremacy run amok
Two Republicans were even moving for bills to protect motorists who drive into crowds of protesters. Look up articles about it, I'm sure you'll see exactly the kinds of comments I mean.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029450595
Come on. This was clearly political.
Which is why at some point the natural question becomes, what do you gain by denying the obvious? Why are you struggling so hard to implicitly defend a white power rally? Whose side do you want to be on in this?
Because that's what it will come to. That's what it's already come to. These are defining times. "And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029450595
Come on. This was clearly political.
Which is why at some point the natural question becomes, what do you gain by denying the obvious? Why are you struggling so hard to implicitly defend a white power rally? Whose side do you want to be on in this?
Because that's what it will come to. That's what it's already come to. These are defining times. "And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Re: White supremacy run amok
This is true and scary. The old saying:
"May you live in interesting times"
I would prefer not too.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Huh, so basically it sounds like the main thing was they were just making rants with a bullhorn.(?). Crazy.Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:51 pmThe Wiki article I linked has a lot more background info on MOVE. The Mashable article was more for the pictures.
There are all kinds of events like this MOVE attack that I've never heard of. My history education was really shit.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Am I using the wrong definition?
(emphasis mine).Google wrote: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I'm just saying that the guy could've been motivated merely by being pissed off in the moment. If a person gets pissed off and runs someone over, that's not automatically terrorism.
Is it just important to use the buzzword terrorism once we reach a certain point of anger?
Ugh, debating this is such a waste of our time.
Last edited by C40 on Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: White supremacy run amok
if that's news to C40, brute has a Branch Davidian's compound to sell him. government treats humans like shit, especially humans that most other humans don't care about.
Re: White supremacy run amok
Really? Seriously? Come on....Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:57 pm
Which is why at some point the natural question becomes, what do you gain by denying the obvious? Why are you struggling so hard to implicitly defend a white power rally? Whose side do you want to be on in this?
Re: White supremacy run amok
Even if it is because the person is pissed off in the moment, that doesn't mean it's not terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have to be rational or calm. If the person is there for political reasons and then gets angry and kills people...it would be terrorism. It might be stupid terrorism, but that wouldn't change what it is.C40 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:06 pmAm I using the wrong definition?
(emphasis mine).Google wrote: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I'm just saying that the guy could've been motivated merely by being pissed off in the moment. If a person gets pissed off and runs someone over, that's not automatically terrorism.
Is it just important to use the buzzword terrorism once we reach a certain point us us/them anger?
Ugh, debating this is such a waste of our time.
It's possible it's not terrorism, it's just unbelievably improbable that it isn't. This is why the argument is...ugh.