• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is at fault - Charlottesville death(s)/violence

Who is at fault - Charlottesville death(s)/violence

  • White Supremacists/Neo Nazis

    Votes: 41 42.3%

  • Those that demonstrated against these groups

    Votes: 5 5.2%

  • Both are equally responsible

    Votes: 19 19.6%

  • Majority of blame -White Supremacists/Neo Nazis

    Votes: 11 11.3%

  • Majority of blame -Those that demonstrated against these groups

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Other pls explain

    Votes: 18 18.6%
  • Total voters
    97
Jredbaron96 said:
Communists, yes, anarchists not so much. But there's a substantial difference between the two, which is why the fact that both exist in antifa means they won't ever translate into meaningful political gain.
Click to expand...
See the Spanish civil war.
 
phattonez said:
What do you think Marxism is? Marxism is central to antia's core. That's why they have Communist flags at their events.
Click to expand...


Some of them do, for sure. I've also seen antifa events without any communist symbols. Nothing about antifa screams "coherent ideology" beyond reactionary anti-fascism.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not so sure. The Soviet Union had a history of aggressive maneuvers. They just took a more sinister approach to Eastern Europe than they did in, say, Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

It did, but many of these were emboldened by Western inaction and the rise of Nazi Germany. Prior to these events the USSR was seen largely as an isolated, backwater state.


And I can't understand why, given that its implementation is always associated with a massive wave of violence.
Click to expand...

Because communism is always doomed to failure. It will never last.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It did, but many of these were emboldened by Western inaction and the rise of Nazi Germany. Prior to these events the USSR was seen largely as an isolated, backwater state.
Click to expand...

Apparently not, since much of Hitler's rhetoric was built on the Communist threat. Franco and Mussolini were also very clear about the threat.


Because communism is always doomed to failure. It will never last.
Click to expand...

That doesn't bring tens of millions back from the dead.
 
phattonez said:
Apparently not, since much of Hitler's rhetoric was built on the Communist threat. Franco and Mussolini were also very clear about the threat.
Click to expand...

Because they represented ideological confrontation between fascism and communism. Prior to Stalin's five year plan the USSR was an isolated, backwater state that wasn't a significant strategic threat.




That doesn't bring tens of millions back from the dead.
Click to expand...

And nothing ever will. But the ideology of evil doomed to failure is better than the ideology of evil with potential for success.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
There is no credible threat to the United States from either group.

To try and pretend there is is just silly.
Click to expand...

That's true. Neither one is large enough to mount a threat against the US government. That said, our politics is becoming more violent, and that violence is largely along racial lines. I knew that this country was Balkanizing, but it's happening at critical speed now.
 
Real said:
It's really weird how, with all this video evidence out there of many individual clashes, no one in the media can tell us who was instigating physical violence (i.e. "throwing the first punch/rock") in the majority of these clashes. I don't have the time or inclination to watch all of the videos, but the fact that the media is leaving out that crucial detail leads me to believe that it may have been Antifa/BLM who were doing the bulk of that, i.e. they were the ones predominantly initiating physical violence.

Now, of course just because someone throws the first rock doesn't mean they deserve to be mowed down with a car, but it's an important question in my mind nonetheless.
Click to expand...


Puigb said:
It was the far right wing Trump voters that started the violence, which actually started the night before.

But I do understand yours, and others desperation to try and pin everything on the EVIL leftists. But the reality is...this was a bunch of a right wing Trump voters who went out looking for trouble and found it. But what do you expect? They have someone in the white house who pandered to them for the last 2 years...thus they feel they can "act out" as they please.
Click to expand...

I thought I was being quite clear with the parameters of my question, but in case there was any confusion please let me clarify some terms. By "violence" I was referring to literal, physical violence, (e.g. punching, striking, launching projectiles)... not hypothetical or metaphorical violence. Also, I was asking specifically about the "many individual clashes", meaning to consider on a case by case basis each small scale fight that had erupted on the main day of the protest... not a kind of big picture verdict about things from a day or a year or a decade ago.

If you have the intention of directly answering my original question, great! Otherwise, please be clear about your intentions so we can avoid wasting each other's time.

BTW, here's another question if you don't want to answer the first one:

Out of the two groups, which group came armed with the most objects intended to be thrown at others which could serve very little purpose in self-defense, but would serve well to instigate fighting? (For example: a rifle is an item which could potentially be used in self-defense and does not serve well to initiate a first physical strike in the type of violent yet mostly non-lethal combat we know was prevalent at the event; a bag filled with urine would serve little purpose in self-defense, but would work wonders to instigate fighting.)
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
What has happened to the US? People on EITHER side of an issue show up in combat gear for a "peaceful" protest. Shields, helmets, clubs, WTF? I don't get it. What happened?
Click to expand...

Makes one wonder doesn't it...I mean the people who are tearing down Confederate monuments sounds like the beginning of the same movement we saw in Germany by the Nazis and in Iraq and Syria with the tearing down monument dating back to the beginning of time. What next the burning of books that offend. As far as the shields and helmets are concerned it did appear the white supremacist know there was going to be trouble by the leftist fascist and come prepared.
I think dangerous times by the fascist left are just beginning....look for more suppressing free speech and violence by the left. You ain't seen nothing yet as one of the fascist said.
 
antiquity said:
Makes one wonder doesn't it...I mean the people who are tearing down Confederate monuments sounds like the beginning of the same movement we saw in Germany by the Nazis and in Iraq and Syria with the tearing down monument dating back to the beginning of time. What next the burning of books that offend. As far as the shields and helmets are concerned it did appear the white supremacist know there was going to be trouble by the leftist fascist and come prepared.
I think dangerous times by the fascist left are just beginning....look for more suppressing free speech and violence by the left. You ain't seen nothing yet as one of the fascist said.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I just posted a poll today by NPR/PBS which shows that 44% of African Americans are for leaving the statues while 40% are for removing them. The left is totally out of control.
 
phattonez said:
Let's please not play the "antifa are the real fascists" game. They are exactly what they say they are: anti-fascist. What they're showing is the inherent violence of Communism.
Click to expand...
Going around assaulting people whose views you disagree with is fascist. That is what ANTIFA does. So they are fascist. You don't fight fascism with fascism and claim your anti-fascist.


How much blame do you put on the police who forced the alt-right to exit right into antifa crowds?
Click to expand...

Part of that blame would be on whoever ordered the police to funnel the alt-right crowd into the alt-left crowd.
 
jamesrage said:
Going around assaulting people whose views you disagree with is fascist. That is what ANTIFA does. So they are fascist. You don't fight fascism with fascism and claim your anti-fascist.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Communism is the same as fascism, since both engage in that action?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The more benign violence was the fault of those participating in it. Which was some of both side, but certainly not all of them.

The death and serious violence that put people into the hospital was the fault of James Alex Fields Jr.
Click to expand...

A CBS reporter getting clubbed in the back of the head with a weapon, by ANTIFA, and requiring 4 staples doesn't count?
 
Fantôme said:
Excuse me for asking this simple question. I know many will bristle at it but I really am not sure.

Did the leftist/antifa mob have permits to hold a protest in the same place at the same time as those who had taken the time to organize and get all the necessary legal permissions to be there?

If they were both given permission to be there then it's the city's fault. If not the fault lies with the group who did not organize and get all the necessary and legal permissions who are at fault.

The nut job driving the car wouldn't have had a target if they had not broken the law with an unlawful assembly.

It's simple as that.

edit to add this: Why did you use the White-Supremicist Neo-Nazi terms in your poll? It shows your own bias against the group who had legal permission to be there and for the group who did not have permission.
Click to expand...

Basic questions that highlight how the narrative is being controlled by the left's reporting. That said, what's wrong with calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis? That's what they were. I mean, they still had the proper permits but that still remains accurate terms to use.
 
From what I know about events, I personally think the vast majority of blame for violence that occurred in Charlottesville rests on the various white nationalists, white supremacists, nazis, racists, bigots, and so forth, who collected from all over the country, bringing gear and weapons to "defend themselves if necessary"
Interesting point on that - no one got shot by one of those individuals, so I'll give them that much - they weren't willing to cross that line. Not sure if they were afraid of consequences or what.

I think the antifa protesters who gathered from all over bear a little fragment of blame for some of the violence (excluding the car attack), but that is on a case-by-case basis (don't know the details of every violent clash) - and there is the qualifier that they almost surely wouldn't have been there if the fascists hadn't been.
The protesters who went there to protest non-violently bear no blame whatsoever.

The terrorist who attacked protesters with his car bears almost all the blame for that specific event, possibly 100%. I am unsure because I don't know to what degree he was influenced by conversations on the internet or in person, with other individuals who did not immediately condemn any suggestion of such an act, and/or suggested it as a viable option.
 
Fantôme said:
lt.

The nut job driving the car wouldn't have had a target if they had not broken the law with an unlawful assembly.

It's simple as that.
Click to expand...
Its as simple as that? LMAO That is just beyond stupid

lets try a different scenrio using your same logic ..

"The nut guy who raped that girl wouldn't have had a target if she had not had not broken the law and been in that bar participating in unlawful underage drinking. It's as simple as that"

ANyway, now that retarded posts like above are destroyed time to give my opinion.

Who is at fault?

For the death? the whackjob driving the care
For violence? anybody participating in violence that wasnt acting in self defense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom