General US Politics Discussion

[Eutyphro]

I don't really see anything of substance to respond to, as you are just repeating the same nonsense but phrased differently, but it is pretty funny how much slights you've conjured up in one comment. They are legion, but the silliest one is this one:

So yeah, I'd say it's totally fair and I quite enjoy his offended you are by the characterisation.

As if I'm offended by what you say, which is a fantasy on your part, that you seem to be 'enjoying' as the disingenuous troll that you are. Pathetic.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Eutyphro

[DEALUX]

 

That's very clever of you. I don't think the sentence splits the way you think it does. It's meant to be read as "suicide attacks against civilians and other forms of violence".

That's not what it says, though. Hence you having to reword the statement in order to get it to actually say what you think it's trying to say.

 

I changed the order of the words and used the more vague term "suicide attack". Nothing hinges on that though. You are reading this sentence as two different sentences:

 

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies."

 

Can you not see how disingenuous that is? Both parts of the question refer to civilians. You can't just split the question into two different questions to make it seem less worse.

[Creed Bratton]

I don't even care if he's calling me a leftist. I don't consider that to be an insult. It's just factually wrong, which is why I corrected him. Aside from vandalism I don't have a problem with most of the stuff that these so-called leftists in the US are doing. It's obvious that Euthypro has bought into Fox News' idea of how important and dangerous they are. Which is basically just a narrative designed to shift the blame and focus away from right-wing organizations like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Skin Heads and other white supremacy groups.

But I don't give a sh*t. They're on the losing side of history, and pretty soon they'll realize it, whether they like it or not.

[sivispacem]

I don't really see anything of substance to respond to

Let's start with the following then:

 

In what way is he "obviously" a leftist?

Does rather suggest that you believe DJ20 to have been instrumental in organising violence at the protest. Or do you not believe that?

On what basis are you asserting that active planning of violent acts has taken place on left wing forums? This is something that doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.

Anyway, what about the praise lavished on Dylann Roof on far-right boards, and encouragement for others to continue his legacy? What about the ongoing spate of noosing prominent civil rights symbols, effectively threatening black communities with lynchings? What about the reaction to the death at Charlottesville? All of these constitute condoning or encouraging acts of violence, or making threats of violence.

Exactly how is one supposed to react when violence breaks out? What if you don't see it, are you supposed to be able to identify it through some kind of extrasensory perception?

And also

 

I've never suggested that the left can't be extremist or violent, just that much if what you characterise as either one or both actually isn't, and questioned whether the additional LE scrutiny on the left you've welcomed would actually be better served redirected elsewhere.

I could go on, but that'll do for starters.

 

that you seem to be 'enjoying' as the disingenuous troll that you are

> Makes a series of ad hominem and straw man laden posts topped off with a very unsuccessful appeal to hypocrisy

> Refuses to respond to legitimate, reasonable questions or to provide evidence to support his assertions.

> Accuses other people of being trolls.

[Eutyphro]

Well, this is how it went thusfar: I say I sympathize with measures taken against the people who were involved in the G20 riots and inauguration riots. Then you ask me to 'prove' a range of assertions I haven't made, in order to 'win' the discussion, such as that I have to 'prove': "DJ20 was absolutely and unequivocally the antagonist and organiser behind violence" and "the assertion that active planning of violent acts has taken place on left wing forums".

Another thing I'm supposed to 'prove' is that DisruptJ20 thought the riots were a great success, which if you were bothered to read their public statements, you'd find out is true. I can't be bothered to be some sort of evidence monkey for you. Quite frankly, I don't give a f*ck. You can ask me to 'prove' a hundred things with a whole range of thinly veiled insults added to it, and then think you 'win'. Really, I don't give a f*ck. I'm not obligated to refute all the stupid nonsense you come up with.

[Cebra]

Well, this is how it went thusfar: I say I sympathize with measures taken against the people who were involved in the G20 riots and inauguration riots. Then you ask me to 'prove' a range of assertions I haven't made, in order to 'win' the discussion, such as that I have to 'prove': "DJ20 was absolutely and unequivocally the antagonist and organiser behind violence" and "the assertion that active planning of violent acts has taken place on left wing forums".

 

Another thing I'm supposed to 'prove' is that DisruptJ20 thought the riots were a great success, which if you were bothered to read their public statements, you'd find out is true. I can't be bothered to be some sort of evidence monkey for you. Quite frankly, I don't give a f*ck. You can ask me to 'prove' a hundred things with a whole range of thinly veiled insults added to it, and then think you 'win'. Really, I don't give a f*ck. I'm not obligated to refute all the stupid nonsense you come up with.

That's kind of the nature of this section. If it's so simple to do, back up your claims. You don't make accusations then refuse to back them up, expecting us to do it ourselves.

 

Everything sivis supposed in his response to you is relevant. You claimed that Yokel is 'obviously' a leftist without backing it up. You claimed that the planning of violent acts occurs on left-wing forums without backing it up. You keep making these silly claims in your pursuit to play devil's advocate which is fine in and of itself - it promotes discussion. When you refuse to back up anything you say, either through sourced writings or at the very least elaborating on your personal opinions, that's not promoting discussion.

 

Besides that, you haven't really answered why you're so keen on the DOJ logging so many IP addresses for the sole fact that they visited the DJ20 website. Sure, you can infer that they'll only pursue those who actively participated in the march, but that's nevertheless a violation of privacy. If I visited the website out of pure curiosity the DOJ now has my IP address although I've done absolutely nothing wrong. Wanna bet you get put on that fabled "list" just for entertaining the notion of disrupting the God Emperor's inauguration? There's no basis for what the DOJ is trying to accomplish.

[sivispacem]

I say I sympathize with measures taken against the people who were involved in the G20 riots and inauguration riots.

...and specifically pointed to DJ20 as involved in perpetrating that violence, something by your own admission you haven't given any evidence for.

 

"DJ20 was absolutely and unequivocally the antagonist and organiser behind violence"

Actually, I revised it to just confirming whether or not you believe that. That'll do for a good start. And if you do, then you can move onto evidencing it.

 

"the assertion that active planning of violent acts has taken place on left wing forums".

Which you alleged did happen. Yet our resident actual-leftwing-forum-member seems to think that most of the planning for violence takes place off of the internet.

 

Another thing I'm supposed to 'prove' is that DisruptJ20 thought the riots were a great success

Yaay, more straw men. F"cking hell, where does it end.

 

Quite frankly, I don't give a f*ck.

F*ckity-bye then.

[Eutyphro]

That's kind of the nature of this section. If it's so simple to do, back up your claims.

They are not my claims though. They are the claims of the American and German departments of justice. What I said was that I sympathize with action against left wing extremists, because as opposed to the majority commenting here, I think they are a problem.

 

Besides that, you haven't really answered why you're so keen on the DOJ logging so many IP addresses for the sole fact that they visited the DJ20 website. Sure, you can infer that they'll only pursue those who actively participated in the march, but that's nevertheless a violation of privacy.

They aren't pursuing the 1.3 million IP addresses anymore. They are pursuing information about who were actively involved in organizing.

 

You claimed that Yokel is 'obviously' a leftist without backing it up.

To me he is, but we can agree to disagree. I'm over 90% certain that if he were to take the political compass test he'll end up on the left.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Creed Bratton]

To me he is, but we can agree to disagree. I'm over 90% certain that if he were to take the political compass test he'll end up on the left.

You mean this test: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I took that test multiple times.

You called me an authoritarian leftist. On the x-axis I lean left, but I'm closer to the center than to the far-left. Essentially somewhere on the first half of the axis from the center. And on the y-axis I ended up somewhere in the second half of the axis, closer to libertarianism than centrism. So there you have it.

[Saggy]

 

To me he is, but we can agree to disagree. I'm over 90% certain that if he were to take the political compass test he'll end up on the left.

You mean this test: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I took that test multiple times.

You called me an authoritarian leftist. On the x-axis I lean left, but I'm closer to the center than to the far-left. Essentially somewhere on the first half of the axis from the center. And on the y-axis I ended up somewhere in the second half of the axis, closer to libertarianism than centrism. So there you have it.

 

 

That test seems based on generalizations. Such as that if you are worried about "Media" and "Entertainment" being too inter-related, does that boil down to "Fake news!"

[Creed Bratton]

That test seems based on generalizations. Such as that if you are worried about "Media" and "Entertainment" being too inter-related, does that boil down to "Fake news!"

Well it's just an online test. I don't expect scientific accuracy from it.

[Clem Fandango]

Another thing I'm supposed to 'prove' is that DisruptJ20 thought the riots were a great success, which if you were bothered to read their public statements, you'd find out is true.

Nobody is denying that they were pleased with the turnout. People want you to prove that they were specifically pleased with the broken windows and bloodied up cops. Do they have to explicitly condemn these things in order to not be legally culpable for them? If I throw a party and it... gets out of hand, am I legally responsible? No.

 

I think people would also like you to prove that Indymedia is directly involved with the planning of violent action. As if they were like "yeah have people stand on this street for optimal cop-bashing" unless you're referring to the smashed bank windows as 'violence' which wouldn't surprise me at this point. Not that they'd be involved in 'planning' that either.

 

 

 

If you don't want to get in trouble, distance yourself from that group.

How? No seriously, how? You're at a protest and people start punching on with the cops, do you run away and abandon the protest?

 

Also it cuts both ways: you don't want to get hit with a bottle, tear off your badge, lay down your gun and sprint in the other direction. Also maybe don't throw gas bombs at people if you don't want them to get kicked back at you.

[Eutyphro]

I think people would also like you to prove that Indymedia is directly involved with the planning of violent action.

That's what the German department of justice says. And from what I've read, it was only a specific part of Indymedia, and it is already back up, because it has been moved to another server. If people start organizing to break the law on a webpage, it's logical to try to take the page down, and investigate who are responsible. Organizing illegal actions is not part of free speech. But then again supposedly none of you even believe in the rule of law or the constitution, so that you would appeal to it is a f*cking joke.

 

Nobody is denying that they were pleased with the turnout. People want you to prove that they were specifically pleased with the broken windows and bloodied up cops.

They considered it nothing but a great success in hindsight, and support every single scumbag that had been arrested to get away scot free.

 

Do they have to explicitly condemn these things in order to not be legally culpable for them?

No, that's not what I said. But it is perfectly possible that the DoJ has legitimate reason to want to investigate them. They seem like a pretty militant group of left wing extremists, and they seem rather involved with the riot that occurred, so it kinda makes sense.

 

You're at a protest and people start punching on with the cops, do you run away and abandon the protest?

You can look to join a group that isn't filled with rioting degenerate scumbags. That's generally a good idea.

 

Also it cuts both ways: you don't want to get hit with a bottle, tear off your badge, lay down your gun and sprint in the other direction. Also maybe don't throw gas bombs at people if you don't want them to get kicked back at you.

Some of these reasonings are so idiotic and childish, that I'm unsure whether I should even bother to refute them. These police officers are making sure that the inauguration doesn't get overrun by rioting degenerate little scumbags. It's praiseworthy that they are enforcing that public good. They throw gas bombs to keep the rioting scumbags away. That's justified both legally and morally.

 

It's also funny that you now accept the threat posed by the far-right but still take such a hardline and emotional stance against Antifa ... I mean it's definitely strange that you think the state has more of a right to restrict fascist organising than the citizenry does.

There's something that is known as the 'rule of law', and you don't have a right to be a vigilante scumbag at your personal whim. That's not strange. That's what every even remotely succesful society is based on. I can't legally form a militia to come to your house and beat the sh*t out of you because on the basis of my personal whim, or that of people I am associating with, that is justified. And I'm sure you would call the police if anyone chose to take wanton action against you. Because most of this is just childish contrarianism and phony, masked as political idealism.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Eutyphro

[make total destroy]

 

 

 

 

I can't say I'm shocked, but I'm confused as to why somebody who is supposedly so adamant about the liberal notion of 'free speech' would be happy about the state shutting down and raiding an independent media collective? Is that a victory for 'free speech'?

My answer was clear when I posted 'freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots'.

And even if we accept your premise, you're still wrong, because IndyMedia didn't organize the Welcome to Hell march, like I just said to you earlier. Are you really just gonna ignore the three f*cking paragraphs I replied to you with and selectively quote one part of my post just to say "but I said this"? Are you f*cking kidding me? This is the exact reason why you get nothing but sh*tposts from me.

[Clem Fandango]

Some of these reasonings are so idiotic and childish, that I'm unsure whether I should even bother to refute them. These police officers are making sure that the inauguration doesn't get overrun by rioting degenerate little scumbags. It's praiseworthy that they are enforcing that public good. They throw gas bombs to keep the rioting scumbags away. That's justified both legally and morally.

Yeah and they throw bottles at cops to keep bootlicking, unhinged, red faced little pigs away. That's justified by any moral metric except those of bootlicking, pig loving performers whose tongues are laid out so flat on the boot that it's a wonder they can even speak.

 

I mean, shooting poison gas into a crowd is justified to protect starbucks windows? Seriously, who gives a f*ck? Why are you 'taking a stand' in defense of f*cking coffee shops? Grow a spine.

 

 

 

They considered it nothing but a great success in hindsight, and support every single scumbag that had been arrested to get away scot free.

So if you oppose someone being prosecuted after the fact, that means you planned the action with them in advance? I support battered women's clemency so I guess that makes me an accessory to literally countless murders.

 

 

 

But it is perfectly possible that the DoJ has legitimate reason to want to investigate them. They seem like a pretty militant group of left wing extremists

You seem to have descended into openly baying for the repression of the entire radical left.

 

 

 

You can look to join a group that isn't filled with rioting degenerate scumbags. That's generally a good idea.

Not everyone who went to the DisruptJ20 march is part of the presumably small group of activists that organised it.

 

 

 

But then again supposedly none of you even believe in the rule of law

I don't believe in the rule of law as a political theory, that is I don't believe that the justice system needs to be capitulated to on every little thing or society will rapidly collapse into Mad Max. Not sure why this is relevant.

 

 

 

or the constitution, so that you would appeal to it is a f*cking joke.

Legit never appealed to the German constitution, nor would I, since I don't know what's in it. Although I could if I wanted to without it being a 'f*cking joke' since whatever I think of its contents, it binds German state actors regardless.

 

 

 

There's something that is known as the 'rule of law', and you don't have a right to be a vigilante scumbag at your personal whim. That's not strange. That's what every even remotely succesful society is based on. I can't legally form a militia to come to your house and beat the sh*t out of you because on the basis of my personal whim, or that of people I am associating with, that is justified. And I'm sure you would call the police if anyone chose to take wanton action against you.

My point wasn't that randomly people have more of a right to use violence than the state, my point was that random people are incapable of infringing on peoples' rights, and can only violate norms that exist parallel to those rights. A guy standing in my way at the voting booth is less of an issue than the police doing so. I spelled this out pretty clearly, I thought, in the bits you cut out.

 

If you're going to support the far-right being curtailed it's obviously preferable for random people to crowd them then for the police to shut down their rallies (and if you'd bothered to actually look into degenerate black-clad antifa scumbags you'd know that they rarely hold counter-protests entirely on their own, rather they latch onto an already existing left-wing and/or community responses.)

 

 

 

Because most of this is just childish contrarianism and phony, masked as political idealism.

I don't believe in rights as a theory that doesn't mean I don't support them being used to restrict the state. It's also not really 'idealism' since these rights are already in place.

[Dr. Robotnik]

If you're going to support the far-right being curtailed it's obviously preferable for random people to crowd them then for the police to shut down their rallies

 

That's not at all obvious to me. I'd prefer the latter to the former.

 

But for the record, I don't support the DOJ logging IPs of those who visited the website. I think the government and corporations alike should stay off the internet as much as possible.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Dr. Robotnik

[sivispacem]

I think the government and corporations alike should stay off the internet as much as possible.

You do know who runs the internet, don't you?

[Dr. Robotnik]

 

I think the government and corporations alike should stay off the internet as much as possible.

You do know who runs the internet, don't you?

 

 

 

That's why I said as much as possible. I'm aware that they run it overall, but I think their ability to seriously interfere with its workings should be limited. I consider the IP logging an overreach.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Dr. Robotnik

[Creed Bratton]

First that murder and now this video surfaced. But somehow they're not terrorists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-preston-arrested-shooting-gun-charlottesville-rally_us_59a20a39e4b06d67e3380e37

And what did the cops do?

[sivispacem]

I think their ability to seriously interfere with its workings should be limited. I consider the IP logging an overreach.

I mean these are two pretty separate things that shouldn't really be conflated together. Collecting IP address logs doesn't interfere with the workings of the internet, though it's a ridiculous overreach in this case (but US LE seem to favour the kinds of dragnet surveillance that got the NSA into seriously hot water), and without most people batting an eyelid).

 

Literally the entirety of the infrastructure which comprises the internet runs on government or corporate assets. At some point, almost every connection traverses a piece of hardware operated by either a government or corporation, and normally both, multiple times.

[Eutyphro]

 

 

I can't say I'm shocked, but I'm confused as to why somebody who is supposedly so adamant about the liberal notion of 'free speech' would be happy about the state shutting down and raiding an independent media collective? Is that a victory for 'free speech'?

My answer was clear when I posted 'freedom of speech does not entail the freedom to organize and participate in violent riots'.

And even if we accept your premise, you're still wrong, because IndyMedia didn't organize the Welcome to Hell march, like I just said to you earlier.

They gave a platform for illegal action. That's what the German department of justice claims. I'm sure you wouldn't be bothered if Stormfront was shut down, so this crying over 'state repression' is disingenuous and laughable.

 

Are you really just gonna ignore the three f*cking paragraphs I replied to you with and selectively quote one part of my post just to say "but I said this"? Are you f*cking kidding me? This is the exact reason why you get nothing but sh*tposts from me.

There are a lot of people responding to me. I can't respond to everything. What else am I supposed to respond to? The fact that you don't believe in free speech, and your unsubstantial defence of that standpoint? I don't have much to say about it.

 

 

Some of these reasonings are so idiotic and childish, that I'm unsure whether I should even bother to refute them. These police officers are making sure that the inauguration doesn't get overrun by rioting degenerate little scumbags. It's praiseworthy that they are enforcing that public good. They throw gas bombs to keep the rioting scumbags away. That's justified both legally and morally.

Yeah and they throw bottles at cops to keep bootlicking, unhinged, red faced little pigs away. That's justified by any moral metric except those of bootlicking, pig loving performers whose tongues are laid out so flat on the boot that it's a wonder they can even speak. I mean, shooting poison gas into a crowd is justified to protect starbucks windows? Seriously, who gives a f*ck? Why are you 'taking a stand' in defense of f*cking coffee shops? Grow a spine.

All I see is a bunch of childish irrational rhetoric really. You repeat it over and over expecting me to respond to it. Police action is justified to protect public order in general, and in this case public order surrounding an official event. We can't have degenerate scumbags rioting with impunity in our society. You want to reduce that argument to 'taking a stance in defending windows' which is your rhetoric to-go, but that's a stupid childish reduction of my argument.

 

So if you oppose someone being prosecuted after the fact, that means you planned the action with them in advance?

No. My point is really that the circumstancial evidence that I can access makes it clear they support the rioting in every way, which to me makes it intuitively likely they have been actively involved, apart from them practically organizing it. Therefore I think it's pretty logical the DoJ want to investigate them.

 

You seem to have descended into openly baying for the repression of the entire radical left.

Thinking the law and public order should be upheld is not 'the repression of the entire radical left'.

 

Not everyone who went to the DisruptJ20 march is part of the presumably small group of activists that organised it.

I'm sure there were probably also many groups of peaceful protesters present. If you are decent and want to protest, you can join those.

 

I don't believe in the rule of law as a political theory, that is I don't believe that the justice system needs to be capitulated to on every little thing or society will rapidly collapse into Mad Max. Not sure why this is relevant. Legit never appealed to the German constitution, nor would I, since I don't know what's in it. Although I could if I wanted to without it being a 'f*cking joke' since whatever I think of its contents, it binds German state actors regardless.

You can't credibly appeal to the constitution if you don't believe in the rule of law. That is a f*cking joke.

 

If you're going to support the far-right being curtailed it's obviously preferable for random people to crowd them then for the police to shut down their rallies

Yeah, no.. It's preferable if it is done through legal means.

 

I don't believe in rights as a theory that doesn't mean I don't support them being used to restrict the state.

"In fact, you don't seem to believe in any moral principle except for the obligation of the rest of society to need to adapt to and accomodate your pathetic behaviour."

 

This. It's nothing but moral opportunism and egoism.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

 

You mean after the state infiltrated and amplified the violent neo-Nazi movements first, and thus further fueling the popularity of Germany's Antifa movement? The "militant left wing groups" that vaguely fall under the umbrella of Antifa seemed to be the primary culprits in the G20 unrest. You can't have an Antifa without fascism. Sounds like states are pretending to put out fires they helped create. States love pitting the far left and far right against each other.

 

In the US' case, fascism is largely a sporadic reaction by white nationalists who believe they are on the losing side of neoliberal capitalism, but internalize it as some ZOG Conspiracy gibberish. Our state's history of institutional racism and white supremecy probably has something to do with the prevalence of that worldview too. When you get a sense of scale, you'll find that these "similar measures" are just attempts at corralling the supposedly leftist dissent into more state-friendly civil society action.

 

 

You are also being quite liberal the label 'militant left wing groups' given the term's historical connotations. They are militant perhaps in principle, but still devoid of the weaponry, tactics, economic desperation, and overall public safety threat that in any way resembles militants in the context of late 20th century political violence. You should probably stick with the 'violent leftist' dog whistle instead.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[El Dildo]

For someone to be a terrorist, they have to be involved in planning or partaking in political violence. He hasn't done so, so he's not a terrorist.

 

Euty if you set that bar any lower I'm afraid you're gonna sprain an ankle.

 

the man and his rhetoric are responsible for murders and now he's being spurred on and encouraged by our own president who has failed to denounce this KKK and Nazi support at numerous junctures.

 

like I said, your logic is pathetic...

keep making excuses for the worst people in our society as though everything is perfectly equal between the Far Left and the Far Right.

 

you're perpetuating this dangerous narrative of radical equivalency.

you might as well wear the white hood yourself and buy a tiki torch.

[Eutyphro]

 

In Germany they are taking similar measures against the militant left wing groups responsible for the G20 riots. I applaud it.

 

You mean after the state infiltrated and amplified the violent neo-Nazi movements first, and thus further fueling the popularity of Germany's Antifa movement? The "militant left wing groups" that vaguely fall under the umbrella of Antifa seemed to be the primary culprits in the G20 unrest. You can't have an Antifa without fascism. Sounds like states are pretending to put out fires they helped create. States love pitting the far left and far right against each other.

That page is pretty tl;dr like, so what evidence is in there that the German state is involved in a conspiracy to support neo-Nazis?

 

 

For someone to be a terrorist, they have to be involved in planning or partaking in political violence. He hasn't done so, so he's not a terrorist.

 

the man and his rhetoric are responsible for murders

You've wished politicians got shot, yet I don't think you consider yourself a terrorist. You might have come closer to terrorism than David Duke in that manner. Legal norms aren't arbitrarily enforced to prosecute political enemies. I know Sivispacem made a silly comparison between me and Erdogan, but arbitrarily prosecuting or killing your political enemies, as you and the Yokel seem to want, that is genuine despotism.

 

and now he's being spurred on and encouraged by our own president who has failed to denounce this KKK and Nazi support at numerous junctures.

You are right the election of Trump has emboldened white supremacism. Since recently white supremacism has become mainstream among young men on the internet, and it's disgusting really. I share your worries in that respect actually. Identity politics is poison. And the increase of white identity politics is disgusting.

 

keep making excuses for the worst people in our society

Even the worst people have equal rights in a civilized country.

 

as though everything is perfectly equal between the Far Left and the Far Right.

They have some commonalities. They both hate liberalism. They both hate democracy. They both favor the importance of collective identity over the individual. Their moral thinking is the opposite, but they share some political goals.

 

you might as well wear the white hood yourself and buy a tiki torch.

Now you are just being an idiot.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

That page is pretty tl;dr like, so what evidence is in there that the German state is involved in a conspiracy to support neo-Nazis?

Going back a bit there was Gladio too, but the bulk of German operations were cancelled back in 1953 because the fact it was largely populated by German ex-Nazi paramilitaries and literal SS commanders was causing problems with the West German political administration.

 

The NSU, who are the target of that report and who were responsible for a wave of assassinations of immigrants, were funded by one of the right-wing German parliamentary parties. They are known to have been heavily penetrated by the BfV and senior members were confidential informants to both the BfV and Bundespolizei. Several individuals who have been intimately involved in NSU violence, including the Bosporus Murders, number amongst these CIs.

 

The allegation made in that report is that the German federal police and domestic intelligence agency intentionally hampered the investigation despite knowing who the perpetrators (or at least supporting NSU members responsible for arming them and hiding them). Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch based on the (absence of) evidence of actual complicity- never prescribe to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence.

[Shermhead]

Sure neo-Nazis and the KKK are bad but so are Antifa and Black Lives Matter...

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Shermhead

[Eutyphro]

Then the idea of the German state purposefully 'pitting far right and far left actors against each other' seems like a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy.

The fact that the radical left is only a response to neo-Nazism is itself a dubious idea anyway. In my country, the Netherlands, there are estimated between 200 to 300 right wing extremists, and I don't think the amount of radical leftists holds a relation to that number. There seem to be quite a lot of radical leftists regardless of how many right wing extremists there are.

[sivispacem]

Sure neo-Nazis and the KKK are bad but so are Antifa and Black Lives Matter...

 

 

 

If you'd read back a couple of pages, you'd know that wasn't BLM but a completely unrelated group, back in 2016. Loads of right wing YouTubers simply reuploaded the footage and claimed it was BLM in am attempt to poison the well.

[Shermhead]

Except it was BLM. They hate cops and there's plenty proof of it.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Except it was BLM. They hate cops and there's plenty proof of it.

 

Are you from the .Voodu. school of proof?

 

The evidence is plainly there for all to see about the reality of this footage.... Sivis is correct, this is re-uploaded footage of a different group, check your sources and validation next time.