• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Far-Right-Wing Violence since January 2008

This, plus: I'd rather someone overturn a radio tower than murder a nine-year-old daughter of mine, but what do I know? :rolleyes:

Oh, right, Olbermann's the hateful one, according to ichab. Think of the poor radio tower's family! (Not that he ever suggested anyone should knock one over, but who knows, maybe someday he will.)

If you're going to bring me up in a post, don't lie about what I said.
Have you looked at your avatar lately? Olbermann holding a sign which has been altered to read: "Will spew hate for food". Looks like you're calling him hateful to me.
 
This, plus: I'd rather someone overturn a radio tower than murder a nine-year-old daughter of mine, but what do I know? :rolleyes:

Oh, right, Olbermann's the hateful one, according to ichab. Think of the poor radio tower's family! (Not that he ever suggested anyone should knock one over, but who knows, maybe someday he will.)

If you're going to bring me up in a post, don't lie about what I said.
Have you looked at your avatar lately? Olbermann holding a sign which has been altered to read: "Will spew hate for food". Looks like you're calling him hateful to me.

He stated it like as if I'm saying that ONLY Olbermann spews hateful rhetoric, which is false. I also like the "think of the children" line he tags on afterwards. Very classy.

My position on this has always been that NO PUNDIT OR MEDIA TYPE IS RESPONSIBLE for crimes like this except the person that committed it. Not Beck,Olbermann, Limbaugh etc. etc. Is that crystal clear for you?
 
George W Bush was called a nazi by the left on countless occasions. Where was your calls for civility then?

False equivalence between a bunch of idiots bitching on the internet and elected representatives and media personalities.

Further, if your argument here is actually valid, then you might find interesting the incidences of domestic terrorism during the Bush years:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...e&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table

As you can clearly see, while ELF/ALF continued to damage property, left wing organizations killed no one, certainly not on the scale we've been seeing the last few years. If the left's rhetoric was truly as bad then as the right is now, it demonstrates there is something different about the right wing. The data here does not support an equivalence between right and left wing terrorism in the last decade. I think there's a rhetoric difference, if you want to argue the right wing reacts differently that's certainly your prerogative.

Doesn't work that way. Beck's speech is protected by the first amendment. Beck is no more responsible than a horror film director is on a copy cat killing.

Funny, I would consider yelling 'commie-nazi' in a country full of angry people with guns roughly akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
 
Last edited:
He stated it like as if I'm saying that ONLY Olbermann spews hateful rhetoric, which is false.
But that's exactly what your current av does say. As for quoting random message boards as a counterpoint to Fox's hatred... that's just too asinine to bother addressing.


George W Bush was called a nazi by the left on countless occasions. Where was your calls for civility then?
I'm not calling for civility. I'm calling for not inciting violence. Is that crystal clear to you?


Funny, I would consider yelling 'commie-nazi' in a country full of angry people with guns roughly akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Morally true, no doubt, but not sufficient to establish culpability in a court of law. All we sane people can do is call Becks and Palins on their crap, and hope that people thus see them for what they really are.
 
George W Bush was called a nazi by the left on countless occasions. Where was your calls for civility then?

False equivalence between a bunch of idiots bitching on the internet and elected representatives and media personalities.

Further, if your argument here is actually valid, then you might find interesting the incidences of domestic terrorism during the Bush years:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...e&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table

As you can clearly see, while ELF/ALF continued to damage property, left wing organizations killed no one, certainly not on the scale we've been seeing the last few years. If the left's rhetoric was truly as bad then as the right is now, it demonstrates there is something different about the right wing. The data here does not support an equivalence between right and left wing terrorism in the last decade. I think there's a rhetoric difference, if you want to argue the right wing reacts differently that's certainly your prerogative.

Not for lack of trying, on their part... Just saying...

James Von Brunn
James Chester Blanning
Carol Ann Burger...

Town Hall article
 
Gaith said:
Morally true, no doubt, but not sufficient to establish culpability in a court of law. All we sane people can do is call Becks and Palins on their crap, and hope that people thus see them for what they really are.

Wasn't talking about legal responsibility so much as personal responsibility. I don't know a case offhand the establishes exactly how far one can go before one's rhetoric is considered incitement.

Not for lack of trying, on their part... Just saying...

James Von Brunn
James Chester Blanning
Carol Ann Burger...

Town Hall article

Nice of that article to leave out that Brunn was a birther and a BNP member, also Burger is just a murderer, not a domestic terrorist. Blanning certainly seems to fit the bill but the sourced article indicates he abandoned his attempt halfway through and shot himself.
 
George W Bush was called a nazi by the left on countless occasions. Where was your calls for civility then?

False equivalence between a bunch of idiots bitching on the internet and elected representatives and media personalities.

No it's not and it doesn't make any difference who is doing the rhetoric. It doesn't make any difference if the people throwing up Nazi signs at a protest got their ideas from television or the internet. The "Nazi" rhetoric was still the same. The only difference is that Bush was a white republican and Obama is a black democrat. The Nazi analogy with an elected official has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a protestor's anger at the politician.



Funny, I would consider yelling 'commie-nazi' in a country full of angry people with guns roughly akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Then you have a very warped way of looking at the world.
 
He stated it like as if I'm saying that ONLY Olbermann spews hateful rhetoric, which is false.
But that's exactly what your current av does say.

You need to get your eyes checked.
As for quoting random message boards as a counterpoint to Fox's hatred... that's just too asinine to bother addressing.

Counterpoint to Fox's hatred? I thought we were talking about Glen Beck? Or are you one of those that thinks the entire network inspires hatred?


I'm not calling for civility. I'm calling for not inciting violence. Is that crystal clear to you?

I wasn't addressing you with that remark. And no one is inciting violence.
 
No it's not and it doesn't make any difference who is doing the rhetoric. It doesn't make any difference if the people throwing up Nazi signs at a protest got their ideas from television or the internet. The "Nazi" rhetoric was still the same. The only difference is that Bush was a white republican and Obama is a black democrat. The Nazi analogy with an elected official has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a protestor's anger at the politician.

No, suggesting a mixed race man subscribes to an ideology whose core principles are about racial purity is absolutely ludicrous. Race takes that particular allegation from crazy into being completely laughable. Second, who is saying it makes a huge difference. There will always be a few random people on the internet spewing crazy, for crazy to be coming out of the mouth of elected officials and supposedly trusted media personalities is another thing entirely. At minimum it means the volume the of rhetoric is higher and more people are hearing it, at worst, it legitimizes it.

You completely ignored the data that show that, if what you say about the rhetoric being the same is true, left reacted differently to it than right. What is your explanation for this?

Then you have a very warped way of looking at the world.

Personal attack, nice. You could, instead, explain why.
 
If one wants to bring up the past..

1930s...

The Business Plot..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

America's leading capitalists were panicked after Roosevelt's first 100 days. Accustomed to enjoying complete control over the government during the preceding 12 years of Republican rule, they found FDR's rhetoric and more importantly, action to constitute a threat to their dominance of American economic and political life. They looked abroad and saw ruling Fascists in Italy and Spain and a rising Nazi Party in Germany and thought their fortunes would fare better under a similar regime if it could be instituted in the United States.

These were men of action: Rene DuPont of the chemical fortune, the Heinz family, several wealthy men connected with J. P. Morgan includng Thomas Lamont, and Prescott Bush (father of George H.W.Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush) whose connections with the Nazis continued through 1942. Politicians were included as well as Wall Street interests. Among them were two previous Democratic Party candidates for President: John Davis and Al Smith.

Their plan was to overthrow the government of the United States.

Their plan depended upon three distinct elements:

1. The Public Face: The American Liberty League..Funded by the DuPonts and U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, the League was "the front for the whole thing" according to Gerald MacGuire, the New York City stockbroker who was one of the conspirators.

2. Fascist thugs like the Black Legion , the Silver Shirts, and of course, the Ku Klux Klan. The Black Legion was organized into arson squads, execution squads and anti-Communist squads. They wore a skull and crossbones on their uniforms to boast about the Communists they had murdered.

3. The Super Soldiers, an army of 500,000 veterans mobilized by the American Legion. The troops would gather in Washington, surround the White House and demand Roosevelt's resignation. If he said no, they would kill him.

The conspirators needed a trusted, charismatic leader for their private army, and tried to recruit retired Marine General Smedley Butler. This was their mistake because Butler had no use for these capitalists. He led MacGuire and his backers on long enough to get the details of the plot, then blew the whistle on them.

The House Un-American Activities Committee convened hearings and heard Butler's testimony, most of it in private. They returned with a whitewashed report that focused on MacGuire but expunged all the information given them by Butler about the plutocratic backers. Butler expressed his disgust with the report, "They have slaughtered the little guys and let the higher-ups escape." The press quickly let the matter vanish from its pages, and some historians believe that Roosevelt allowed the conspirators off the hook in exchange for their toning down their attacks on the New Deal.


From the Left...

The Weather Underground..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions


For the Weathermen, violent action was nothing short of necessary in a time of crisis, a last-ditch effort to grab the country’s attention. And grab attention they did—in March 1970, just days after Bernardine Dohrn publicly announced a “declaration of war.” When an accidentally detonated bomb killed three Weathermen in the basement of a Manhattan townhouse, the group suddenly became the target of an FBI manhunt, and members were forced to go into hiding. The bomb had been intended to be set off at a dance at a local Army base.
How did the Weathermen arrive at this point? Some of the group’s former members, interviewed in THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, cite the murder of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in a December 1969 Chicago police raid as a turning point. What many believed to be a government-sanctioned killing in an effort to wipe out militant groups such as the Panthers was, for the Weathermen, the final straw.
In 1960, nearly 50 percent of America’s population was under 18 years of age. This surplus of youth set the stage for a widespread revolt against the status quo: against previously upheld structures of racism, sexism and classism, against the violence of the Vietnam War and America’s interventions abroad. At college campuses throughout the country, anger against “the Establishment’s” practices turned to protest, both peaceful and violent.
As the decade continued, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, an organization founded by Martin Luther King, Jr. in order to promote nonviolent protest, grew increasingly militant—as did the mostly white, middle-class “New Left,” which took cues from the civil rights movement, protested policies both home and abroad, and sparked factions like the Weathermen.


It's the SCALE of the Right wing's actions that make it different from the Left.....

But methods can be similar..and the technology as well..

I'm sure that had the public internet existed in the 1960s, the Weather Underground would have used truck bombs on the Pentagon...
 
I hardly think the Business Plot, such as it was, was anywhere near an imminent threat. Certainly not as much as losers like Butler or MacGuire might have claimed. Linky There may have been wild, fanciful claims that it was, but nothing concrete. Mayor LaGuardia called it a "cocktail putsch", which seems accurate. Just a bunch of guys getting drunk and making wild threats which they would, or could, never actually do.

And even the Anti-Defamation League denied that Prescott Bush was a Nazi... that oughta tell you something.

Funny, I would consider yelling 'commie-nazi' in a country full of angry people with guns roughly akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Morally true, no doubt, but not sufficient to establish culpability in a court of law.

And the further difference is, yelling *anything* in a crowded theater is different - the audience is basically captive there. It's more immediate. Any danger that might exist is, well, more dangerous. Radio or TV, though? In that case, any jackass who's listening and decides to go out and do something stupid is going to have to premeditate it. Any excuse they might have just goes flying out the window.

If you're in a small, crowded space like a theater, you can get caught up in the moment relatively easy; but if you're at home listening to the radio or watching TV, you have no excuse.
 
Smedley Butler is one of only a handful of soldiers to ever win the Medal of Honor twice, and he would have won it a third time except that at the time Marine officers were not allowed to be awarded it. Calling him a loser, no matter how kooky he was later in life, is hardly fair. But enough with that rabbit trail.

After reading through this thread, several questions popped into my mind fully formed.

1) Why was this posted in Misc and not TNZ?

2) Are there any stronger ties between these violent incidents and the mainstream rightwing than what is listed? Because not a single example from the list would fly in a court of law. It would be like finding that a murderer had the season one box set of TNG and thus was clearly a politically motivated radical leftist(after all, who would watch that season for entertainment?:devil:).

3) If rightwing violence in the USA is a growing threat, how should it be dealt with?
 
3) If rightwing violence in the USA is a growing threat, how should it be dealt with?
Education as to what is really going on so these nuts no longer live under the delusion that we are facing the imminent takeover of America by a socialist dictatorship.
 
And the further difference is, yelling *anything* in a crowded theater is different - the audience is basically captive there. It's more immediate. Any danger that might exist is, well, more dangerous. Radio or TV, though? In that case, any jackass who's listening and decides to go out and do something stupid is going to have to premeditate it. Any excuse they might have just goes flying out the window.

The case was actually about flyers during WW1 that compared the draft to slavery and encouraged readers to dodge it, so the crowded theater metaphor isn't so direct. If I am remembering the ruling correctly, the justice used the metaphor to demonstrate that if one speaks in a way that's likely to create a dangerous situation (as related to the case, dangerous to congress' ability to defend the country) the speech is not protected.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top