CA - Mass casualty incident, 5+ stabbed at Neo-Nazi rally, Sacramento, 26 June 2016

[sonjay]

Do you think it is OK to be a Nazi ?

I've been asking one simple question over and over. Do you think the mob attack on Sunday was justified?

So far I've not received an answer.

Because I'm honest about my opposition to instigating violence in pursuit of political goals, I'll answer your question and say that no, I do not support Nazis or the Nazi party or its goals.

Whatever happened to "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? There is NO reason to think that because I support free speech rights for all groups that I think it's "OK" to be a Nazi.

I find it unfortunate that so many people simply cannot condemn the use of violence.

 

[Cryptic]

Where fascism meets anarchy. And where violence is inevitable.

And punishment for initiating that violence must also be inevitable. There are far too many weapons in the USA to allow Neo Nazis or Anarcho fascists to have hit lists of people or groups to attack. Rather, such attacks need to get nipped in the bud before things snowball and escalate.

As a side note, the anarcho fascist leader is pretty pumped up as she expanded her definition of "Neo Nazi" to pretty much: "Those opposed to an immigration amnesty are neo nazis". Needless to say, this makes alot of people subject to attack and could well lead to escalating violence.

Do you think it is OK to be a Nazi ?

Nazis and anarcho fascists are both equally useless to society. The problem, however, is not the individual brawl at the capital between groups of idiots. Nor is what groups of idiots "won" really an issue (both sides claim victory as the neo nazi rally was stopped, but most of those hospitalized are anarcho fascists).

Rather, the big problem it is the potential for escalating violence. As this forum illustrates with its crime focus, we dont need anymore violence in US society.

 

[sonjay]

And punishment for initiating that violence must also be inevitable. There are far too many weapons in the USA to allow Neo Nazis or Anarcho fascists to have hit lists of people or groups to attack. Rather, such attacks need to get nipped in the bud before things snowball and escalate.

As a side note, the anarcho fascist leader is pretty pumped up as she expanded her definition of "Neo Nazi" to pretty much: "Those opposed to an immigration amnesty are neo nazis". Needless to say, this makes alot of people subject to attack and could well lead to escalating violence.

Oh, wow, I missed that! Yes, that certainly does expand the pool of potential targets for their brand of hate and violence. I would bet that if we looked even more closely at their definition of Neo Nazi, it would include lots of political viewpoints they disagree with that have nothing to do with Nazism.

These people are not only a hate group, they're terrorists, IMO.

 

[Cryptic]

Oh, wow, I missed that! Yes, that certainly does expand the pool of potential targets for their brand of hate and violence. I would bet that if we looked even more closely at their definition of Neo Nazi, it would include lots of political viewpoints they disagree with that have nothing to do with Nazism.

These people are not only a hate group, they're terrorists, IMO.

I agree. For the sake of a stable society, I really hope the anarcho fascist leader gets charged. Charging the individual combatants though, is probably going to be alot harder due to the confusion about who did what to whom first.

As a side note, I think she is going to go down. She has apparently not only openly called for the attacks (both verbally and in writing), but then identified herself as the leader while congratulating the fighters from her faction. Like with the right wing anarchists out in Oregon, there maybe a delay as the police gather evidence.

IF she is not charged, then the political divide is deeper in the US than it appears and this could be dangerous. The Spanish Civil war started as small groups of officially tolerated extremists attacked each other. The attacks, needless to say, got bigger and bigger.

 

[sonjay]

Police panned for slow response to violence:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...lly-sacramento-california-20160627-story.html

"It was basically a free-for-all," said Cres Vellucci, an observer with the National Lawyers Guild. "I was just appalled that nothing seemed to be done."

Vellucci said his group was at the Capitol on Sunday to watch for police overreaction, but in this case the opposite happened. The California Highway Patrol and Sacramento city police failed to separate about 30 members of the Traditionalist Worker Party from about 300 counter-protesters who rushed to confront them, he said.

Law enforcement was slow to protect people who were attacked and slow to get them medical help, Vellucci said.


Also this:

FBI considers BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) group potentially a terrorist group:
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-docum...ffirmative-action-and-peace-groups-terrorists

 

[cvaldez1975]

while I agree with you that violence is not the answer here from either side, historically, if the counter demonstrators hadn't "gone there" first, the initial ones would have when they were heckled. both are wrong.

Well, if you're being chased down by violent anarcho-fascists who are throwing bricks and rocks at you, and all you have to defend yourself with is a flag on a pole, you might well need to use the pole as a self-defense weapon. When people are attacking you, you may have to use whatever you have at hand.

 

[Cryptic]

FBI considers BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) group potentially a terrorist group:
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-docum...ffirmative-action-and-peace-groups-terrorists

Though the link is old (2005), my bet is that the FBI is going to be looking at them again soon. If they do get designated a terror group, that is going to be bad news for their leader.

 

[sonjay]

while I agree with you that violence is not the answer here from either side, historically, if the counter demonstrators hadn't "gone there" first, the initial ones would have when they were heckled. both are wrong.

Do you have any links to show that the people who were part of the permitted rally ever initiated violence in response to heckling?

Or are you assuming they would do so?

 

[sonjay]

From the SacBee:

The first sign of violence came just before 11 a.m., when KCRA reporter Mike Luery and his cameraman were caught in an altercation with anti-fascist protesters shouting “no cameras” and demanding they leave.


“We’re not causing the problem; your belligerent people are causing the problem,” Luery told the crowd before someone knocked his mike from his hand and others tried to grab the camera. The pair were eventually shoved out of the crowd and crossed the street away from the protesters.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html#storylink=cpy​

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html

I imagine that if the so-called "anti-fascists" hadn't started the violence, the KCRA reporter and cameraman would have. So I guess yeah, violence was inevitable.

 

[cvaldez1975]

I don't have any proof. I said historically. and I have no doubt that this group was glad for the violence. it "proved their point". they are a hate group.

Do you have any links to show that the people who were part of the permitted rally ever initiated violence in response to heckling?

Or are you assuming they would do so?

 

[cvaldez1975]

what makes you think KCRA would have? he was chastising the anifa group, not the neo Nazi group.

From the SacBee:

The first sign of violence came just before 11 a.m., when KCRA reporter Mike Luery and his cameraman were caught in an altercation with anti-fascist protesters shouting “no cameras” and demanding they leave.


“We’re not causing the problem; your belligerent people are causing the problem,” Luery told the crowd before someone knocked his mike from his hand and others tried to grab the camera. The pair were eventually shoved out of the crowd and crossed the street away from the protesters.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html#storylink=cpy​

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html

I imagine that if the so-called "anti-fascists" hadn't started the violence, the KCRA reporter and cameraman would have. So I guess yeah, violence was inevitable.

 

[sonjay]

I don't have any proof. I said historically. and I have no doubt that this group was glad for the violence. it "proved their point". they are a hate group.

So.... no link, no evidence, no historical data. Just assumptions.


Okay.

 

[sonjay]

what makes you think KCRA would have? he was chastising the anifa group, not the neo Nazi group.

Well, because everyone knows the Antifa people wouldn't initiate violence against someone unless it was justified.

 

[cvaldez1975]

im not the one who said that.

Well, because everyone knows the Antifa people wouldn't initiate violence against someone unless it was justified.

 

[cvaldez1975]

yep, everyone makes them. I worked in corrections for ten years, hate groups are hate groups, inside, outside, educated, uneducated.

So.... no link, no evidence, no historical data. Just assumptions.


Okay.

 

[Elley Mae]

while I agree with you that violence is not the answer here from either side, historically, if the counter demonstrators hadn't "gone there" first, the initial ones would have when they were heckled. both are wrong.

bbm, That is your opine, and not fact... let's be clear. jmo

 

[Elley Mae]

yep, everyone makes them. I worked in corrections for ten years, hate groups are hate groups, inside, outside, educated, uneducated.

bbm, in reference to making assumptions, working in corrections has no relevance to this. jmo

 

[cvaldez1975]

yes it does. I dealt with neo Nazis all the time.

you may not agree, as is your right. I don't agree with the slant your posts in this thread take either, as is mine.

to clarify to both you and the other, I said several times that I don't agree with violence on either side.

<modsnip>

bbm, in reference to making assumptions, working in corrections has no relevance to this. jmo

 

[Cryptic]

while I agree with you that violence is not the answer here from either side, historically, if the counter demonstrators hadn't "gone there" first, the initial ones would have when they were heckled. both are wrong.

Yes, I think you could be right (one of the neo nazis was recorded assuring reporters that his knife was legal in California, kind of strange how he did that research in advance)- but that is speculation.

What appears to be fact is that the leader of the anarcho fascist faction (tongue twister) put on an "attack on site" order. This could trump who heckled who, and who did what first type arguments.

For example, following the biker brawl in Waco, the leader of the Bandidos club was charged with not only some standard drug charges, but also some RICO violations as he had been recorded ordering members of his group to attack rival Cossacks on site and also been recorded congratulating individual Bandidos who had taken part in attacks.

Though the anarcho fascist leader was not video taped before the brawl, she has appeared on video after the brawl aknowledging that there was an attack on site order put out by her group and also congratulating her faction's fighters for their roles in the attack. Needless to say, federal charges are nothing to sneeze at, and the feds rarely lose. She had better hope that the feds dont get involved.

 

[Elley Mae]

yes it does. I dealt with neo Nazis all the time.

you may not agree, as is your right. I don't agree with the slant your posts in this thread take either, as is mine.

to clarify to both you and the other, I said several times that I don't agree with violence on either side.

<modsnip>

bbm, Well besides the two (2) that I quoted responding to you there is only one other post that I quoted, post #60 in this thread where I said Yes it is. And I have to say one more time, Yes it is. jmo idk