Texas man explodes with rage at Confederate monument protestors

[blackascoal]

awesome. our very own Cultural Revolution and these idiots support the revisionism

Talk to society. Maybe you can convince it that you know better than everyone else.

Or, maybe you're the idiot you're looking for.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

awesome. our very own Cultural Revolution and these idiots support the revisionism

No hon, some of us just won't let you get away with revisionism, that's all.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

its funny how you think i'm all locked in and super intelligent when I agree with you, but i need serious intervention when I don't.

and yes, when you want to trash the country and constitution because you believe it does things it shouldn't, but doesn't, i'm all for absolutely violent restoration and extermination of the anti american idiots like you.

The nation trashed itself, and we've already seen the violence you incite along with Don. And what is obvious to even the most casual of observers is that fuckwits like you and Don will not do shit but tweet and post and incite, you will not be part of anything but sniveling from your safe space.

 

[Phantasmal]

The nation trashed itself, and we've already seen the violence you incite along with Don. And what is obvious to even the most casual of observers is that fuckwits like you and Don will not do shit but tweet and post and incite, you will not be part of anything but sniveling from your safe space.

You weren’t even here when he stayed home from the Bundy rebellion, how did you know?

 

[anatta]

No hon, some of us just won't let you get away with revisionism, that's all.

you obviously don't understand historical revisionism, or destroying one's own history for satisfaction now

 

[Flash]

I am so with that. That is one truly admirable quality. People need to think more about judging the action, not so much the actor, and always having empathy for everyone, even if they are guilty of serious social violations. That's wisdom and maturity talking. This makes sense, logically; and it's no surprise that Christianity attempts to teach it. It is unfortunate that so many so-called 'Christians' haven't gotten the message.

I agree. Feeling you must speak out against something to the people involved is poor judgment. If you are involved in a discussion and you want to express your opinion about the monument that is one thing. But yelling and screaming at the person you disagree with is more about being self-righteous than accomplishing anything positive.

If that is the correct action to take, that would mean those who believe homosexuality, bi-racial dating, being Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu are wrong it is ok for them to picket the homes of those people or yell and scream at them in public. Those people believe they are speaking out for what is right.

When it comes to someone telling a racist joke, I think you have to play that by ear to do what is most constructive. For example, I retired in 2013 and about 3 days a week sit around in the morning with other old men at the donut shop. They are all union guys (pipefitters) and die-hard Democrats. But they are also fairly racist by their language. One said "I said I would always vote Democratic even if they ran a n.....r for president, and sure enough they did"; although these same guys go out of their way to help others regardless of race. These guys also attend church regularly.

I found it much more effective to earn their respect and not say anything to most of their comments. But then, when appropriate, make a statement without anger or raising my voice, to point out such attitudes do not seem consistent with their religion or Bible. That seems to make them stop and think more than if I started yelling "racist" to their comments because they would not care and only disregard my opinions in the future.



That is very astute point.

Thanks for voicing it.

Although I do believe there are exceptions. There are altruistic people on both sides; more on the left, I do believe.

It seems so simple to me. It's unfortunate it is so elusive to so many.

If we are here to debate politics; then we are here to talk about issues, events, how we perceive those things, what should be done as a nation, etc. So why do so many on a chat site get so hung up with the other posters? That's just foaming with immaturity. And it is bothersome to those who come to actually talk about just plain politics - to have to wade through all the flame wars, looking for the higher quality discussions.

 

[Flash]

Flash, your approach is what led to so many monuments, schools, cities, roads, counties, etc, being named after rebels who became the enemy of the United States, and sought to destroy it. People saying, 'Oh, just don't draw attention to it,' because "It only created conflict if people attacked it giving it publicity it would have never had otherwise." That is totally giving in!

No, those are very different issues. A governmental body creating those monuments is our business as citizens, but a person putting a monument on private property is not our business.

Most of those monuments were put up many years ago before these were sensitive issues. New Orleans renamed George Washington Elementary school because he was a slave owner. Should we make the same complaints about Washington an Jefferson as we do Confederate monuments? Weren't slave owners as bad or worse than Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves and were probably drafted to fight?
That might seem like it is going too far, but so was taking down monuments a few years ago.

And, again, it depends on how that objection is raised. The couple with signs protesting the monument (and the digital billboard next door) were bringing attention to an issue. But yelling at a person in a restaurant or in public is not acceptable. We should not be teaching the young that if we find something offensive we can shout it down or stop it.

I think expressing our opinions (letters to the editor, etc.) is one thing because it might influence others. But "shaming" a person for what he chooses to believe, especially loudly and in public, is crude and accomplishes nothing. Those people who attacked Sarah Sanders just ended up on Facebook, Youtube, and news programs and seemed obnoxious and gave ammunition to her supporters.

For the example of the monument citizens appeared at city council meetings and businessmen expressed fear it would give the community a negative image and hinder businesses or citizens moving to the area. The black community was upset but had to be told there was nothing the city could do because it is free speech and private property--a good teaching moment in itself.

Shouting down someone because they work for the Trump administration (Sanders or Cruz*) is no different than shouting down someone from the Clinton administration in practice. People who think it is morally ok to shout down one but not the other are not the kind of people who should be making decisions for others and is the worst kind of intolerance.

 

[Airstrip One]

No, those are very different issues. A governmental body creating those monuments is our business as citizens, but a person putting a monument on private property is not our business.

Most of those monuments were put up many years ago before these were sensitive issues. New Orleans renamed George Washington Elementary school because he was a slave owner. Should we make the same complaints about Washington an Jefferson as we do Confederate monuments? Weren't slave owners as bad or worse than Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves and were probably drafted to fight?
That might seem like it is going too far, but so was taking down monuments a few years ago.

And, again, it depends on how that objection is raised. The couple with signs protesting the monument (and the digital billboard next door) were bringing attention to an issue. But yelling at a person in a restaurant or in public is not acceptable. We should not be teaching the young that if we find something offensive we can shout it down or stop it.

I think expressing our opinions (letters to the editor, etc.) is one thing because it might influence others. But "shaming" a person for what he chooses to believe, especially loudly and in public, is crude and accomplishes nothing. Those people who attacked Sarah Sanders just ended up on Facebook, Youtube, and news programs and seemed obnoxious and gave ammunition to her supporters.

For the example of the monument citizens appeared at city council meetings and businessmen expressed fear it would give the community a negative image and hinder businesses or citizens moving to the area. The black community was upset but had to be told there was nothing the city could do because it is free speech and private property--a good teaching moment in itself.

Shouting down someone because they work for the Trump administration (Sanders or Cruz*) is no different than shouting down someone from the Clinton administration in practice. People who think it is morally ok to shout down one but not the other are not the kind of people who should be making decisions for others and is the worst kind of intolerance.

Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were worse than American founders that did, because they were fighting for the institution, as well as against America.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

You weren’t even here when he stayed home from the Bundy rebellion, how did you know?

They tell on themselves, that kind, and they never even know.

 

[Flash]

Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were worse than American founders that did, because they were fighting for the institution, as well as against America.

Even when they were drafted and did not have a choice? Today we view Vietnam as a big mistake and even "immoral" by some. Were soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam bad because they were fighting for a country that invaded another one?

I think most soldiers, Union or Confederate, were fighting for their "side" and their fellow soldiers regardless of the cause. What institution are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

you obviously don't understand historical revisionism, or destroying one's own history for satisfaction now

I have an in depth and intimate understanding of how your beloved white washed history is institutionally indoctrinated into the nation's children and of how your fictious characterizations of yourselves as an exceptional people lead you to illusions of grandeur and a preposterous creation myth.

Your problem is I reject that for objective reality and the historical record as opposed to your manufactured fake news revisionist american history.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Even when they were drafted and did not have a choice? Today we view Vietnam as a big mistake and even "immoral" by some. Were soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam bad because they were fighting for a country that invaded another one?

I think most soldiers, Union or Confederate, were fighting for their "side" and their fellow soldiers regardless of the cause. What institution are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for?

Only the poor, the others could buy their way out of it. So yeah, very stupid to support power structures like that.

For the record, WWII was your last war of any kind related in any way whatsoever to defense.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The nation trashed itself, and we've already seen the violence you incite along with Don. And what is obvious to even the most casual of observers is that fuckwits like you and Don will not do shit but tweet and post and incite, you will not be part of anything but sniveling from your safe space.

 

[anatta]

Even when they were drafted and did not have a choice? Today we view Vietnam as a big mistake and even "immoral" by some. Were soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam bad because they were fighting for a country that invaded another one?

I think most soldiers, Union or Confederate, were fighting for their "side" and their fellow soldiers regardless of the cause. What institution are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for?

ANAF are actually fighting for Afghanistan (or to be free from the Taliban) . we are there to support their lead missions
I think our guys understand even if nation building fails,we are still there in a counter-terrorism role.

But I take your broader point as well,and agree

 

[anatta]

I have an in depth and intimate understanding of how your beloved white washed history is institutionally indoctrinated into the nation's children and of how your fictious characterizations of yourselves as an exceptional people lead you to illusions of grandeur and a preposterous creation myth.

Your problem is I reject that for objective reality and the historical record as opposed to your manufactured fake news revisionist american history.

the Confederacy was a myth. never happened.
there is nothing historical to be gained by understanding the civil war or monuments to soldiers and battles

 

[Fentoine Lum]

ANAF are actually fighting for Afghanistan (or to be free from the Taliban) . we are there to support their lead missions
I think our guys understand even if nation building fails,we are still there in a counter-terrorism role.

But I take your broader point as well,and agree

Bullshit, we're in over 80 nations and it has nothning to do with "terror". 7 hot shooting wars in muslim majority countries, nothing to do with "terror", we're the terrorists. We use the term "generational war" now. "Occupation" isn't PC.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

the Confederacy was a myth. never happened.
there is nothing historical to be gained by understanding the civil war or monuments to soldiers and battles

Don't pout.

 

[anatta]

Bullshit, we're in over 80 nations and it has nothning to do with "terror". 7 hot shooting wars in muslim majority countries, nothing to do with "terror", we're the terrorists.

some do some don't some will some won't.
I see you also do not understand the dangers of Waziristan/AfPak and it's ties to terrorists..awesome again.

https://www.heritage.org/middle-eas...he-region-still-hotbed-terrorism-and-violence
Afghanistan In Crisis: Why Is the Region Still a Hotbed of Terrorism and Violence?
Why does the AfPak region remain a hotbed of terrorist plotting and violence? General John W. Nicholson, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, notes that of the 98 designated terrorist organizations around the globe, 20 of them operate in the region. It’s an exceptional concentration, and just one reason why the U.S. must remain engaged in Afghanistan.

Yet for some years now, voices on both the right and left have urged American withdrawal. That would be a mistake. As America and its allies have drawn down troops in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has been quietly strengthening its hand.

The terrorist group has proved adept at retaining allies in the region, then working alongside them to strengthen the terrorist movement as a whole. Let’s focus on just three of these allies.

First, there is the Taliban. Many in the West believe they can be peeled off from Al Qaeda at the negotiating table. That seems highly unlikely. Despite multiple changes of leadership, the two groups have reaffirmed allegiance to each other after every change. It’s not just talk. The two continue to work together militarily.

Al Qaeda also retains its ties to the Haqqani network (HQN). In the immediate aftermath of the allied invasion of Afghanistan, the AfPak insurgent group helped al-Qaeda establish itself in Pakistani tribal areas. The groups continue to work hand-in-glove.

Intelligence officials recently told Fox News that Al Qaeda “provides fighters, expertise and material support to HQN when needed … and several times its members have participated in joint operations with the Taliban and HQN.” Indeed, a senior HQN leader has commented that there “is no distinction between us [and Al Qaeda]… we are all one.”

Then there is Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Formed in December 2007, it’s an umbrella group drawing terrorists from various Pashtun Pakistani groups.
TTP provided the training to Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. Back then CIA Director John Brennan noted that TTP and AQ ‘train together, they plan together, they plot together. They are almost indistinguishable.’

That remains true. TTP publicly confirmed that senior al-Qaeda leaders such as Qari Muhammad Yasin – killed in an air strike in March 2017 – worked closely with their group up until the time of his death.

In addition forging alliances in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda still uses it as a training base--most notably for its newest affiliate, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS).

Terrorism expert Bill Roggio says AQIS has likely drawn members from al-Qaeda allies such as TTP, Harakat-ul-Muhajideen, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. AQIS is a regional threat, focused on carrying out attacks on military targets in Bangladesh, Burma, India and Pakistan.

In October 2015, the U.S. launched “one of the largest joint ground-assault operations we have ever conducted in Afghanistan.” The target: two AQIS training camps that, in total, covered around 30 square miles. The U.S. commander said it was “probably the largest” Al Qaeda training camp found since the war began.

That such a training camp could exist in 2015 speaks to a broader problem of the U.S. consistently underestimating Al Qaeda’s strength. Last year, the U.S. killed or captured 250 Al Qaeda figures. Thomas Joscelyn, a leading expert on al-Qaeda points out, “This was two and half times the American government’s long-held, high-end estimate for Al Qaeda’s entire presence in the country.”

 

[anatta]

Don't pout.

twist and shout

 

[Fentoine Lum]

some do some don't some will some won't.
I see you also do not understand the dangers of Waziristan/AfPak and it's ties to terrorists..awesome again.

https://www.heritage.org/middle-eas...he-region-still-hotbed-terrorism-and-violence
Afghanistan In Crisis: Why Is the Region Still a Hotbed of Terrorism and Violence?
Why does the AfPak region remain a hotbed of terrorist plotting and violence? General John W. Nicholson, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, notes that of the 98 designated terrorist organizations around the globe, 20 of them operate in the region. It’s an exceptional concentration, and just one reason why the U.S. must remain engaged in Afghanistan.

Yet for some years now, voices on both the right and left have urged American withdrawal. That would be a mistake. As America and its allies have drawn down troops in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has been quietly strengthening its hand.

The terrorist group has proved adept at retaining allies in the region, then working alongside them to strengthen the terrorist movement as a whole. Let’s focus on just three of these allies.

First, there is the Taliban. Many in the West believe they can be peeled off from Al Qaeda at the negotiating table. That seems highly unlikely. Despite multiple changes of leadership, the two groups have reaffirmed allegiance to each other after every change. It’s not just talk. The two continue to work together militarily.

Al Qaeda also retains its ties to the Haqqani network (HQN). In the immediate aftermath of the allied invasion of Afghanistan, the AfPak insurgent group helped al-Qaeda establish itself in Pakistani tribal areas. The groups continue to work hand-in-glove.

Intelligence officials recently told Fox News that Al Qaeda “provides fighters, expertise and material support to HQN when needed … and several times its members have participated in joint operations with the Taliban and HQN.” Indeed, a senior HQN leader has commented that there “is no distinction between us [and Al Qaeda]… we are all one.”

Then there is Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Formed in December 2007, it’s an umbrella group drawing terrorists from various Pashtun Pakistani groups.
TTP provided the training to Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. Back then CIA Director John Brennan noted that TTP and AQ ‘train together, they plan together, they plot together. They are almost indistinguishable.’

That remains true. TTP publicly confirmed that senior al-Qaeda leaders such as Qari Muhammad Yasin – killed in an air strike in March 2017 – worked closely with their group up until the time of his death.

In addition forging alliances in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda still uses it as a training base--most notably for its newest affiliate, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS).

Terrorism expert Bill Roggio says AQIS has likely drawn members from al-Qaeda allies such as TTP, Harakat-ul-Muhajideen, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. AQIS is a regional threat, focused on carrying out attacks on military targets in Bangladesh, Burma, India and Pakistan.

In October 2015, the U.S. launched “one of the largest joint ground-assault operations we have ever conducted in Afghanistan.” The target: two AQIS training camps that, in total, covered around 30 square miles. The U.S. commander said it was “probably the largest” Al Qaeda training camp found since the war began.

That such a training camp could exist in 2015 speaks to a broader problem of the U.S. consistently underestimating Al Qaeda’s strength. Last year, the U.S. killed or captured 250 Al Qaeda figures. Thomas Joscelyn, a leading expert on al-Qaeda points out, “This was two and half times the American government’s long-held, high-end estimate for Al Qaeda’s entire presence in the country.”

We've partnered with al Qaida love. We're fickle like that.

And we've partnered with:

Saddam
Osama
al Nusra
ISIS
the beheading and journalist liquifying Saudis, in genocide
the Israelis, in genocide
NeoNazis in Ukraine

And we always have wonderful rationalizations.