Who are the Atomwaffen and what do they Represent?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Those of you who know a little bit of german should be concerned just reading that name. I was when I heard it. And I just took german in high school.

Atomwaffen are a fringe new group of American Neo-Nazis. And it turns out that a good deal of 2017 white nationalist attacks were committed by the group, albeit it only 80 strong at the time of this post.

Devon Arthurs killed his roommates, all who belonged to Atomwaffen. They also had an explosive device and were planning to attack a nuclear power plant with it.

Nicholas Giampa, the boy who killed the parents of his ex-girlfriend trained regularly with guns, but found himself enchanted with Atomwaffen.

Samuel Woodward received training that he used to kill a gay man who tried to kiss him. Where did he receive his training? Atomwaffen.

Now to the main question? Who are the Atomwaffen? Why do we have to ask that when they have done what they've done and proclaimed themselves to be actual terrorists and wanting to over throw the government?

That's the question.

Because if any minority or islamic group changed their website to say "We can no longer work with the government, we must violently overthrow them", the Trump-led reign of authority and SWAT calls would be reverbating in our ears for months to come. Even years. It would be what Trump would tattoo on his face for re-election and he would have been swept into office.

They were born of the Alt-right and Far Right. The Atomwaffen call for the overthrowing of the United States government by the use of terrorism and guerrilla warfare, Ethnic cleansing and race war against non-whites, Establishment of a National Socialist state in North America. The Atomwaffen declare their intent with no uncertain words.

But White Terrorists focused on minorities, Islamic people and government? Not that big of a deal. Let's see how many more bodies they pile up until really do anything about it.

By the way, to people who proclaim that we need to be careful with getting into Atomwaffen because until they all do acts of terror, they are protected by free speech? You're wrong.

What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

?Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.?

Freedom of speech includes the right:

~Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

~Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (?Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.?).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

~To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

~To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

~To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

~To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

~To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O?Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

~To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

~Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

~Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

(Source)

United States citizens are under more danger from White Nationalists than Islamic Terrorists, but we turn a blind eye. That brings us back to the title of this thread. Who are the Atomwaffen? They are actually one in probably dozens, maybe even hundreds of groups that are growing in this country. Do all of them have bodies to their name? No.

But the question is how many more bodies do we need until we ignore the names they flag their flags on, and realize that White Nationalism is dangerous.

And before you say "Duh, of course it is", do remember that Trump saw it fit to change the focus of a rename a U.S. government program focus from "Countering Violent Extremism" to "Countering Islamic Extremism".

The same man who will ceaselessly condemn Islam to the fact he doesn't want Muslims coming in, but will say there are fine people in the neo-nazi group. Who is Atomwaffen and what do they Represent? They represent the oppurtunity given by government, Spin pieces and PR for profit, and feelings of Marginalization left unattended to create the rise of this movement. Not our proudest moment.

Please stop citing Schenck v. United States. It's pretty much moot as of Brandenburg v. Ohio. I can shout about hypothetical "revengence [sic]" against variable ethnic groups while I'm standing in front of a burning cross, and the court says that's okay, then Schenck is no longer good caselaw.

Roth v. United States is moot as of Miller v. California. Explicitly moot, I might add. The fact that California has a massive and legal porn industry is testament to this fact.

Now onto the substance of what you're talking about, I agree. Far right terror should not be tolerated. And I believe that even under the Brandenburg test (not the Schenck test) anyone calling for the active overthrow of the US government has crossed the border of the "imminent lawless action" test.

They're Nazi terrorists. The only difference between these guys and the rest of the 'alt right' is they're willing to act on their murderous ideology.

Now, no offence, but of your three described incidents, only one could conceivably be put down as discriminatory. One is infighting, one is a domestic incident. And I would also add - given this is the US where guns are freely available, what "training" do you need to kill a man?

Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether they can say what they say legally or not, but making them out to be some major threat kind of rings of hysteria based on the evidence above.

Seems like scare-mongering honestly.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Seems like scare-mongering honestly.

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

Jux:
They're Nazi terrorists. The only difference between these guys and the rest of the 'alt right' is they're willing to act on their murderous ideology.

Much of the rest of the alt right.

undeadsuitor:
if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

Would be seen as such, yes. That's largely because of over-sensitivity to Muslims, though. Killing 5 people is a problem, yes, but an awfully small one in a nation like the US. They should be dealt with, certainly, but in of themselves they aren't a cause for concern.

That they aren't by themselves, and won't be dealt with, that's a real problem.

https://atomwaffendivision.org/

Well, I mean, they have a website and on it they say pretty clearly what the represent.
So, I mean, to answer your question...

Formed in 2013 'The Atomwaffen Division' is a Revolutionary National Socialist organization centered around political activism and the practice of an autonomous Fascist lifestyle.

Is it a surprise that people of these group are involved in crime?

Not particularly.

They're Nazis. So what? There are larger organisations of neo-Nazis in America with more violent records.

I mean, now that I've said it, that doesn't seem like a thing to be dismissive about. But I am somehow still compelled to dismiss it because...why worry about an eighty-man organisation connected to five deaths when you've got an entire neo-Nazi crime syndicate with like twenty thousand members operating out of prisons across the country?

bastardofmelbourne:
They're Nazis. So what? There are larger organisations of neo-Nazis in America with more violent records.

I mean, now that I've said it, that doesn't seem like a thing to be dismissive about. But I am somehow still compelled to dismiss it because...why worry about an eighty-man organisation connected to five deaths when you've got an entire neo-Nazi crime syndicate with like twenty thousand members operating out of prisons across the country?

I'm guessing the OP is trying to start small to point out the hypocrisy people have when it comes to violent natives vs violent immigrants (or perceived immigrants.) I mean, people haven't given a shit about the Aryan Brotherhood for a long time, most of them probably think they only really existed as the bad guys in Breaking Bad's final season, so I guess the OP is trying a more recent and smaller angle. Baby steps.

Catnip1024:
NAnd I would also add - given this is the US where guns are freely available, what "training" do you need to kill a man?

How to make an alibi, how to carry your weapon concealed, how to pass through security points, how to aim properly, how to shoot without the kickback ruining your aim, how not to get shot first or afterwards, the best way to keep yourself out of reach so you don't get disarmed before shooting, meeting points before and after the murder...

...I think.

The Lunatic:
https://atomwaffendivision.org/

Well, I mean, they have a website and on it they say pretty clearly what the represent.
So, I mean, to answer your question...

Formed in 2013 ?The Atomwaffen Division? is a Revolutionary National Socialist organization centered around political activism and the practice of an autonomous Fascist lifestyle.

Is it a surprise that people of these group are involved in crime?

Not particularly.

Well true... right-wing fascists and Nazis in particular are violent groups of people.

CM156:
Please stop citing Schenck v. United States. It's pretty much moot as of Brandenburg v. Ohio. I can shout about hypothetical "revengence [sic]" against variable ethnic groups while I'm standing in front of a burning cross, and the court says that's okay, then Schenck is no longer good caselaw.

Roth v. United States is moot as of Miller v. California. Explicitly moot, I might add. The fact that California has a massive and legal porn industry is testament to this fact.

Well, to be fair, I was quoting the UsCourts.org. If they cite it... they know a hell of a lot more than I about what free speech trials to cite.

Catnip1024:
Now, no offence, but of your three described incidents, only one could conceivably be put down as discriminatory. One is infighting, one is a domestic incident. And I would also add - given this is the US where guns are freely available, what "training" do you need to kill a man?

Sure, there is a discussion to be had about whether they can say what they say legally or not, but making them out to be some major threat kind of rings of hysteria based on the evidence above.

You know, my fault. When I link things, I normally read three sources to make sure I stating the right thing and not just opinion. I linked the wrong link. This is the link I meant.

Arthurs allegedly told detectives he killed his roommates for teasing him about his recent conversion to Islam. He also said he killed his roommates to thwart a terrorist attack by Atomwaffen. He claimed Russell had materials in the house ?to kill civilians and target locations like power lines, nuclear reactors, and synagogues,? prosecutors said.

?I prevented the deaths of a lot of people,? Arthurs said in a rambling statement. Asked why his roommates would plan such an attack, he responded, ?Because they want to build a Fourth Reich.?

Like I mentioned in their case, their ultimate goal was to blow a nuclear reactor up. In their minds, it would start a Fourth Reich. Now, the more logical of us would sit for three seconds and realize that doesn't come together. In no way would a nuclear meltdown make people sit up and go "You know what? The races shouldn't mix". But that's the issue. With whatever slight the collective disillusioned are suffering, no one is replacing that void with sense. They instead make people dangerous and let them go off and do their own thing. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be in the name of the Hate of which they spew.

And people just shrug them off as being "Nazis, so of course they are violent". As much as I detest them (I wrote this thread condemning them, after all), at least actual Nazis back in Germany were disciplined. They were raised as Youths to the cause and were told only to follow orders. They were raised soldiers.

These Neo-Nazis Now are more like Jimmy De Santa from GTA V who learned how to make actual explosive devices with the conviction to use them.

Catnip, we do have our differences of opinion, but I still respect you. So it strikes me as very weird that you would label something "hysteria" when not only are these youths and all manner of fringe groups that are popping up more and more every year, but they are starting to take action.

Like I said in my OP, it is not that much about Atomwaffen as it is the fact that they are just the next evolution. Who gives a shit about Rallies? We should care about action. And new groups like the Atomwaffen put stock in only action. In any gang mentality, it doesn't matter what you say, your rep only improves through documented strikes.

It doesn't matter if you say you're badder than the Crips and the Bloods if the police never heard about you, right? Same thing. Atomwaffen now has a sheet. Any other new upandcomer group needs a sheet at least as bad as Atomwaffen to get the same kind of respect. But no one wants to be 'similar'. Everyone wants to be better.

bastardofmelbourne:
They're Nazis. So what? There are larger organisations of neo-Nazis in America with more violent records.

I mean, now that I've said it, that doesn't seem like a thing to be dismissive about. But I am somehow still compelled to dismiss it because...why worry about an eighty-man organisation connected to five deaths when you've got an entire neo-Nazi crime syndicate with like twenty thousand members operating out of prisons across the country?

Because like I said, they represent a growing dissatisfaction within the ranks of the White Hate Groups who consider groups like the Ku Klux Klan to be too tame for their standards.

It's like they say "It's the bullet that you don't see that will get you".

They need to prove that the large groups have gone soft and they don't have the conviction as the younger group does. The younger group is at college campuses, trying to get the word out and grow their numbers. They are trying to gather people who are ready to actually fight instead of sit around and say the same rhetoric to each other. These new neo nazi groups are ready to prove the larger groups weak through action. And they have the good fortune of the Larger Groups' distraction to go under the radar, even though they have the same message of hate

The larger groups are monitored in some fashion (less now that Trump is President). And we all, government and common folk alike, just shrug our shoulders because they haven't done anything yet. That to me is baffling, as they've already shown they are ready to go full Timothy McVeigh. In fact, that is someone they idolized and decided to go bigger in getting their message across by bombing a nuclear power plant.

That's the what in "so what". These are young, stupid people that no one is focusing on (which was half the problem to begin with) who feel they have to prove they need attention. They will outdo their 'heroes'. And when they do, all we'll say after that is "Why wasn't anyone watching them? They were clearly violent. They said so in their manifesto".

Honestly, think of the strange luck of the draw we had that prevented a bombing at a nuclear power plant (which once again, I think they absolute most damage they could do is a nuclear meltdown scare). One of the White Nationalist, Devon Arthurs, became Islamic. That led to Mockery. That's it. One twist of fate so laughable that if you found it in a movie you were watching, you would roll your eyes so hard that you couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.

When someone is constantly underestimated, they will do their damnest to prove to you that you were wrong for doing so. When their trade is hate and death... that's not the best of outcomes if they attempt to prove that you were wrong for underestimating their abilities.

Oh and don't forget Brandon Russell too! He's Devon Arthurs' roommate -- the one Arthurs didn't (allegedly) kill, obvi:

"During a search of the house after the murders, authorities discovered bomb-making equipment and radioactive material they determined belonged to Russell. In Russell's bedroom, police found a framed photo of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. In his car were rifles, ammunition, binoculars and a skull mask. Prosecutors later alleged that Russell had planned to bomb civilian targets, including synagogues and a nuclear power plant in Miami. He was recently sentenced to five years in prison."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/atomwaffen-nazi-murder-bomb-plot_us_5a70825ae4b00d0de2240328

If a Middle Eastern/Muslim man was arrested for planning to bomb a *nuclear power plant* then it would have headlined Trump's State of the Union address and been front page news across every media outlet.

But he's white, so it's not.

ObsidianJones:

Arthurs allegedly told detectives he killed his roommates for teasing him about his recent conversion to Islam. He also said he killed his roommates to thwart a terrorist attack by Atomwaffen. He claimed Russell had materials in the house ?to kill civilians and target locations like power lines, nuclear reactors, and synagogues,? prosecutors said.

?I prevented the deaths of a lot of people,? Arthurs said in a rambling statement. Asked why his roommates would plan such an attack, he responded, ?Because they want to build a Fourth Reich.?

Like I mentioned in their case, their ultimate goal was to blow a nuclear reactor up. In their minds, it would start a Fourth Reich. Now, the more logical of us would sit for three seconds and realize that doesn't come together. In no way would a nuclear meltdown make people sit up and go "You know what? The races shouldn't mix". But that's the issue. With whatever slight the collective disillusioned are suffering, no one is replacing that void with sense. They instead make people dangerous and let them go off and do their own thing. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be in the name of the Hate of which they spew.

Now, that link just makes things even more confused. So the guy who actually conducted the shootings had recently converted to Islam?

Okay, at least it shows this group actually prepared to commit acts of terror. That said, I'm pretty sure they didn't have the means to cause a nuclear meltdown, even if they had the means to get past the security. Those things are a lot safer than say Fallout would have you believe.

Catnip, we do have our differences of opinion, but I still respect you. So it strikes me as very weird that you would label something "hysteria" when not only are these youths and all manner of fringe groups that are popping up more and more every year, but they are starting to take action.

Like I said in my OP, it is not that much about Atomwaffen as it is the fact that they are just the next evolution. Who gives a shit about Rallies? We should care about action. And new groups like the Atomwaffen put stock in only action. In any gang mentality, it doesn't matter what you say, your rep only improves through documented strikes.

My problem here is that often the fear of crime is worse than the crime itself. Over-inflating a groups reputation without any reason actually helps their cause. The same reason that I dislike the media dwelling overly much on Islamic terrorist attacks. It's a handy recruiting tool.

That said, I don't believe that such attacks would boost support at all in this instance. Indiscriminate writing off of swathes of land in your own country will gain you the support of nobody but maybe the environmentalists. If anything, this is a step back rather than a step forwards in terms of tactics.

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Seems like scare-mongering honestly.

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

Catnip1024:

Okay, at least it shows this group actually prepared to commit acts of terror. That said, I'm pretty sure they didn't have the means to cause a nuclear meltdown, even if they had the means to get past the security. Those things are a lot safer than say Fallout would have you believe.

On one hand, I agree with your point -- too often the government overstates the risk of foreign-born terrorist suspects they've apprehended BEFORE any attacks are committed. On the other hands....means, capability and an significant chance of success are not factors that the law enforcement/intelligence communities generally take into account when investigating, charging and prosecuting foreign-born/Muslim terror suspects. So why should it be different for white Americans? Or rather, why IS it different?

Exley97:
On one hand, I agree with your point -- too often the government overstates the risk of foreign-born terrorist suspects they've apprehended BEFORE any attacks are committed. On the other hands....means, capability and an significant chance of success are not factors that the law enforcement/intelligence communities generally take into account when investigating, charging and prosecuting foreign-born/Muslim terror suspects. So why should it be different for white Americans? Or rather, why IS it different?

It isn't. What I am saying is not intended to imply that any of this should be factored into the sentencing handed out by the legal system - idiocy is no defence from the law. It's pointing out that the threat is nowhere near as significant as many media outlets would like to believe.

It's like someone trying to stab you to death with a banana. It's technically still attempted murder, but it would never work because it's a stupid idea.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Seems like scare-mongering honestly.

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

The problem is that Crips are monitored. They are policed. They are hounded. They are bugged, followed, and everyone is going over them with a fine tooth comb so they can be picked up for jaywalking.

And the Crips do not have aspirations of causing massive damage to infrastructure with the efforts of somehow translating that to a Race War.

The very point we're making is what you just described: Dangerous groups need to be monitored and treated as a threat. Any time a Crip kills someone, it boils my blood. Throw them in jail, lock them up, and look at the members very, very closely because it's not a Gentleman's club they've joined.

And the same goes for white nationalist groups. The difference is not neligible. It's paramount. These mounting hate groups are trying to start a war. To me, that's a bigger concern than criminals. It's like having Pearl Harbor mounting, we see it, we found their plans and their strategies, and looking to the left and going "Hey, we got Mobsters. That seems more important"

By the way, That Supposedly Happened. Didn't work out so well back then either.

ObsidianJones:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

The problem is that Crips are monitored. They are policed. They are hounded. They are bugged, followed, and everyone is going over them with a fine tooth comb so they can be picked up for jaywalking.

And the Crips do not have aspirations of causing massive damage to infrastructure with the efforts of somehow translating that to a Race War.

The very point we're making is what you just described: Dangerous groups need to be monitored and treated as a threat. Any time a Crip kills someone, it boils my blood. Throw them in jail, lock them up, and look at the members very, very closely because it's not a Gentleman's club they've joined.

And the same goes for white nationalist groups. The difference is not neligible. It's paramount. These mounting hate groups are trying to start a war. To me, that's a bigger concern than criminals. It's like having Pearl Harbor mounting, we see it, we found their plans and their strategies, and looking to the left and going "Hey, we got Mobsters. That seems more important"

By the way, That Supposedly Happened. Didn't work out so well back then either.

The crips were just an example because they're well known. There's probably hundreds of other gangs out there.

And how do you know they aren't monitored? There's probably an undercover FBI informant in amongst them.

ObsidianJones:
Well, to be fair, I was quoting the UsCourts.org. If they cite it... they know a hell of a lot more than I about what free speech trials to cite.

That may very well be the case. But I've explained why those two cases are no longer considered good caselaw. I mean, the first one was about the government arresting people who protested conscription and war. Imagine if someone argued that Bush could have Code Pink arrested for opposing the Iraq war and telling people not to enlist in the military. You'd think they were mad. And yet that is what Schenck would allow, if it were still good caselaw.

The "fire in a crowded theater" has been used for nearly a century by petty tyrants to try to justify restrictions on speech that they claim will undermine the country. Try putting it in a brief filed with the court. $5 says the Judge will yell at you for ignoring Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
The crips were just an example because they're well known. There's probably hundreds of other gangs out there.

And how do you know they aren't monitored? There's probably an undercover FBI informant in amongst them.

I don't know. But I Follow the Money. And if Trump really did slash 10 million from groups fighting domestic terrorism, I do think that the FBI will focus on the big ones, and leave the small ones unchecked. Because that's how life works.

CM156:
That may very well be the case. But I've explained why those two cases are no longer considered good caselaw. I mean, the first one was about the government arresting people who protested conscription and war. Imagine if someone argued that Bush could have Code Pink arrested for opposing the Iraq war and telling people not to enlist in the military. You'd think they were mad. And yet that is what Schenck would allow, if it were still good caselaw.

The "fire in a crowded theater" has been used for nearly a century by petty tyrants to try to justify restrictions on speech that they claim will undermine the country. Try putting it in a brief filed with the court. $5 says the Judge will yell at you for ignoring Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I hear you. But literally, this isn't what I went to school for. It might be what you went for school for. Or you're extremely well read. And if so, please link me to places where what you're saying has been adopted.

I make it a rule not to just blindly trust what people on the internet say. I'll keep an open mind to believe I could be wrong and then go to a source that shows me how I'm wrong.

ObsidianJones:
I hear you. But literally, this isn't what I went to school for. It might be what you went for school for. Or you're extremely well read. And if so, please link me to places where what you're saying has been adopted.

I make it a rule not to just blindly trust what people on the internet say. I'll keep an open mind to believe I could be wrong and then go to a source that shows me how I'm wrong.

For the first one? Here's a good link. Try starting here. Popehat is in general a good blog for first amendment issues. Try the second trope here for your specific point. Here.

Here's a link to the Court's decision in Miller v California. Link.. I'll TL;DR it for you: The court threw out Roth v. United States and other cases which determine obscenity. The Miller test is very difficult to deal with for pro-censorship folks and most cases brought before the court have been struck down due to one of its prongs.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Seems like scare-mongering honestly.

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

So you're okay with people dying as long as it's just a little bit?

Avnger:
Well true... right-wing fascists and Nazis in particular are violent groups of people.

Maybe.

Black gangs typically lean left and they're significantly higher in terms of body count.

Do they get a thread next?

The Lunatic:

Avnger:
Well true... right-wing fascists and Nazis in particular are violent groups of people.

Maybe.

Black gangs typically lean left and they're significantly higher in terms of body count.

Do they get a thread next?

Maybe when their candidates start successfully running for office and the president starts dog-whistling at them, sure, we can certainly have that conversation then.

renegade7:
Maybe when their candidates start successfully running for office and the president starts dog-whistling at them, sure, we can certainly have that conversation then.

Trump is part of Atomwaffen now?

Huh. You know, I don't really see him as the skull-mask AR-15 wielding type.

In regards to charlottesville, Atomwaffen actually made a propaganda poster.

I don't remember the part about Trump celebrating that police officers died in a helicopter crash. In fact, I recall him being very against that, as any sane human should be.

The Lunatic:

renegade7:
Maybe when their candidates start successfully running for office and the president starts dog-whistling at them, sure, we can certainly have that conversation then.

Trump is part of Atomwaffen now?

No, but Trump has the support of the far right, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists, and Atomwaffen seems to fit into that whole group. If we're going to play the guilt by association game of associating the black gang violence with leftism (which seems tenuous to say the least), then I think we can make that go both ways.

In regards to charlottesville, Atomwaffen actually made a propaganda poster.

Yeah, but there was another death that happened at Charlottesville that he was awfully quiet about.

Or are we still doing the "BUT MUH HEART ATTACK" thing?

The Lunatic:

renegade7:
Maybe when their candidates start successfully running for office and the president starts dog-whistling at them, sure, we can certainly have that conversation then.

Trump is part of Atomwaffen now?.

I doubt he has a membership card, but when viewing a situation where a neonazi hauled a gay Jewish kid out into the woods and murdered him, Trump probably thought there were good people on both sides.

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

if a team of 80 muslim men banded together to train with weaponry, and were responsible for three and counting acts of violence that led to the death of 5 and counting people, it would be a problem

just because its a bunch of white boys doesnt mean they're any less dangerous

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

So you're okay with people dying as long as it's just a little bit?

How do you suggest the problem be solved. Last I checked violent crime is one of those things we all just have to live with.

Eh.

They sound like very fine people, you know? Bet they are just concerned young republicans who want to discuss the future of their country, who are we to deny them their rights? We should give them access to public platforms and megaphones so that they can give their clearly vital opinions and positions.
I just care about free speech you know?

Besides something something black gangs, you know? They're relevant even when they have nothing to do with what is being discussed. Black people scare mehave social problems that need to be address you know? I mean you might think me wanting to divert attention away from talk about violent racist hate groups by 'um actually'ing about how scary black people can be can be construed as me agreeing with their views or something.

But it doesn't because shut up!

There's violence on many sides and both sides are equally as bad as each other so you should just ignore this and not care.
(Unless it's the left in the hot seat in which case suddenly I don't give a shit about 'both sides', not worth asking why I have such different standards for two sides despite earlier claiming I'm above it all)

Not caring about stuff is cool and edgy. Why can't all these people getting killed see the humour in all this? South Park taught me that mocking people who want to make the world a better place and shrugging off the people actively killing it is fucking hilarious and now I am a brilliant subversive genius on all politics ever. I know things, way more then anyone who literally devoted their lives to studying social issues like racism. I get my news from shitty memes, I am just more intellectually superior. I know more then those dang SJW's, despite literally never taking even so much as ten minutes to honestly Google these issues outside of far right echo chambers.

Besides I mean did you even hearabout Antifa like breaking a window and punching a few people?

That's like exactly the same as forming paramilitary organisations and training with guns in order to be better at murdering minorities.

This is just what happens when SJW's are allowed to freely allowed to express their opinions on how women and minorities are portrayed in video games, they totally brought this on themselves. They should never have been allowed to express those opinions freely in the first place really.
Oh yeah what I said about free speech earlier? Disregard it for some reason. Please don't look into the fact that I care about Neo Nazis being denied a platform but just shrug when I hear about feminist game critics being intimated into silence by online harassment mobs. Nothing to read into there.
Nothing.

So who cares, both sides are equally as bad as each other and as such you should just shrug and let this happen. And you have to tolerate and welcome my smug bullshit because if you call me out, challenge me or even try to educate me I'll immediately flip out, throw my shit, try to doxx you and ruin your life and then when enduring my bullshit for a sustained several years finally gets too overbearing and you lash out and say 'fuck you', I'll cry and declare myself a victim and accuse you of hating all white straight men and claim I had 'no choice' and that you 'forced me' to join this 'so called Nazi' movement (god guys just because they prioritise ethnic nationalism, the superiority of 'whiteness' and express a desire to kill all non white people and who's members have actually killed people, that doesn't make them Nazis. It's not like they're feminist SJW scam, you know) and that really it was all your fault that I'm wearing a klan hood with a torch and eventually ramming my car into people killing them.
I'll drive myself into becoming one of these Nazis and kill people all while claiming that you drove me to this with your unreasonable attitudes.

And people will agree with me

So like you should probably stop talking about this now, you know. For reasons. What matters is the police do their job even when they objectively don't! Like you know, doing something about this shit.

/s

The Lunatic:
Black gangs typically lean left

Do they? Genuinely curious on where you get this info.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

No it wouldn't. I sometimes think even Americans forget just how fucking big America is. 80 men in a population of 323 million is barely a blip worth noticing. The only reason it's getting any attention at all is because neo-nazis are the popular boogie-man right now.

Hell, most inner-city gangs probably have more members and have killed more people and not much is done about them. For the sake of it I googlea how many members of the crips there are and google says between 30,000 and 35,000.

So you're okay with people dying as long as it's just a little bit?

How do you suggest the problem be solved. Last I checked violent crime is one of those things we all just have to live with.

They're a group of men with a working website that meet in a specific place. A number of their members have commuted crimes resulting in murders, and they're clearly training to commit more.

The police have raided houses for less. I understand that police officers are hesitant about acting against their own but stopping this cell of neo Nazi terrorists doesn't seem like a complicated feat

undeadsuitor:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

So you're okay with people dying as long as it's just a little bit?

How do you suggest the problem be solved. Last I checked violent crime is one of those things we all just have to live with.

They're a group of men with a working website that meet in a specific place. A number of their members have commuted crimes resulting in murders, and they're clearly training to commit more.

The police have raided houses for less. I understand that police officers are hesitant about acting against their own but stopping this cell of neo Nazi terrorists doesn't seem like a complicated feat

So you'd be cool with police raiding the home of inner-city teenagers who are known to be involved in gang activity at the police's discretion on the assumption thag they might kill someone at some point maybe?

Did they have to pick a name that sounds like it came from an episode of Archer?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here