That's exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently the Nazi symbol represents hate and racism and genocide, but the Confederate flag is perfectly fine? The Confederate flag was waved as blacks were lynched, mutilated, raped, burned, beaten, whipped, killed. The Nazi flag was waved while Jews and other minority groups were sent to concentration camps and murdered in the streets. I just don't understand how anyone can say that the Confederate flag is any more appropriate than the Nazi flag, it just seems very hypocritical to me. Both represent an era of hate and violence. You can wave a flag that represents people of darkened skin being whipped and enslaved, but I can't wave a flag that represents genocide and murder? Neither is any better than the other, and mass enslavement by force is just as bad as mass murder.

The US flag is being used by white supremacist groups. The KKK flew the US flag back in the early 1900s because the US was inherently racist (pre civil rights) and they supported the US government in upholding those racist laws, so you could say the same thing. I understand what you're saying and what you mean, but it's how you view it. There's no right way to view it. To many people in the South (me included), we don't associate the Confederate flag with slavery and lynching and killing of slaves (yes we acknowledge it happened but it also happened under the US flag) because we don't support nor believe in the idea that the Confederacy was fighting for the sole reason to retain slavery (see reply to Cp) but to improve their economic and industrial situation which, at the time, happened to involve slavery. If there industry and economy was still poor but did not rely on slavery, they still would have seceded (If that explains my point of view). You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world who doesn't associate the swastika with the Holocaust. But in America, many people don't associate the Confederate flag with slavery.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with stating that mass enslavement is as bad as mass murder. Not even close to be comparable. 

I clearly stated I didn't support slavery.

Yes I understand that there was racism in the South, but there rampant racism in the North at the same time and even after the Civil War. 

You're painting the South as a country that rebelled because they just wanted to keep slaves. That's not true at all. The disparaging economic differences between the South and the North were night and day. The south was not happy with that. They didn't want to be agricultural, but the North basically forced them (due to need for cotton). The differences between Federal and States Rights. The southern states wanted more independence from the Federal Government, the northern states wanted more federal control. Yes slavery played a part (as the south was primarily agriculture), but that was not the main reason for seceding. There was a multitude of reason why, that many people ignore.

Hell, the South was about to end slavery around 1864, but it was too late, but many southern states started to recognize freed slaves. Many of the generals (Lee and Johnston) in the CSA have been quoted as saying that slavery is immoral and evil, yet they still fought. Surprisingly, non-whites who fought for the CSA were paid the same as white soldiers, yet in the Union were paid much less. So yes, slavery played a part in all the reasons the South seceded (the abolition of slavery would have devastated and wrecked the southern economy and industry) but was not the main factor. The fact that most southern states started to recognize free slaves and found memoirs from CSA politicians who were also quoted as saying that they'd like to abolish slavery, shows that the South was not fighting just for slavery. They would have given up slavery if that meant they could secede. 

 

I've yet to actually say anything about the shooting. All I'm saying is that the flag is fine to fly. It does not represent racism. Plain and simple. That's ignorant to think that. Government officials have said multiple times that the flag is not flown to represent the CSA's secession or treason, but to honor the men that fought what they believed in. 260,000 people died as a result of the war. To not honor them would be a slap in the face to their families. 

**I clearly stated I didn't support slavery. **

 

 

 

The civil war was about state's rights and the thing that got the south really pissed off was the federal government wanted to abolish slavery. The south didn't like that and they thought it should be up to the states to choose whether or not they allow slaves or not. So yes, the civil war was about state's rights...state's rights to keep slaves.

The civil war was about state's rights and the thing that got the south really pissed off was the federal government wanted to abolish slavery. The south didn't like that and they thought it should be up to the states to choose whether or not they allow slaves or not. So yes, the civil war was about state's rights...state's rights to keep slaves.

That's exactly why I said slavery was the common element throughout their problems. But as I've said, the South would have done anything to improve their situation. Be it slaves or free men. It wasn't for the sole evil purpose of keeping slaves because of hatred and racism as many people believe. 

True, but there is always a very vocal minority when it comes to every situation and unfortunately they usually get the most attention from the media.

 

You can thank people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and all the other people that said the police were "too militarized" in the wake of the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. They wanted the police to scale back and have a "friendlier" look to them yet they turn around and complain that we do not take a tough enough stance against domestic terrorism. And this is where I sit back and think to myself "I knew I was right" because look at them now, crying how they need the police and how the legal system isn't doing enough.

I agree, having the confederate flag over the state capitol and naming streets after confederate generals is pretty racist and it is wrong. I also agree that the conservatives in the government right now are very hypocritical.

Amen brother, but I can understand why many Southern states have flags based off of Confederate flags and landmarks named after Confederate figures. To the South, the Confederacy represents pride and it is also a historical treasure to them.

Nothing can be done though. What should we do? Ban white people?

Maybe investigate right-wing terrorism as much (or more than) Islamic terrorism?

That's exactly why I said slavery was the common element throughout their problems. But as I've said, the South would have done anything to improve their situation. Be it slaves or free men. It wasn't for the sole evil purpose of keeping slaves because of hatred and racism as many people believe. 

Yes, part of the reason they wanted to keep slaves was for economic purposes but it was also out of hatred for African Americans. You can read about how they described African Americans and the crazy things they said about them. It surprises me so much that people today still deny these things. That is almost the equivalent as someone flying the Nazi Flag and saying "No it doesn't represent genocide and hatred, it represents my aryan heritage and the history of my country". You say that those states fly those flags to honor the men who fought for what they believe in. So I am assuming it is ok to fly the Nazi flag to honor all the Germans who fought what they believed in; and most German soldiers didn't even really know what they were fighting for as opposed to Confederate soldiers who knew exactly why the south wanted to secede.

Yes, part of the reason they wanted to keep slaves was for economic purposes but it was also out of hatred for African Americans. You can read about how they described African Americans and the crazy things they said about them. It surprises me so much that people today still deny these things. That is almost the equivalent as someone flying the Nazi Flag and saying "No it doesn't represent genocide and hatred, it represents my aryan heritage and the history of my country". You say that those states fly those flags to honor the men who fought for what they believe in. So I am assuming it is ok to fly the Nazi flag to honor all the Germans who fought what they believed in; and most German soldiers didn't even really know what they were fighting for as opposed to Confederate soldiers who knew exactly why the south wanted to secede.

This is what I was saying as well. The south said crazy things about African Americans, but so did the North. Equality was achieved about 100 years later. Don't pretend that the North wasn't racist as hell, as well. Everyone paints the North as the hero of the African Americans, but they weren't. They never went to war to free slaves only to try and hold the country together. Only after immense pressure from liberal groups did Lincoln cave in and sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, I don't mean to sound so offensive (I feel like I am), but this is the exact reason why a lot of the South gets upset when the Civil War is brought up. People think that the South were the only racist savages. They weren't. The North was just as racist as the South but they did not have slavery.

 

I don't get the comparison between Nazis and the Confederacy. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes slavery was bad, but this was at a time when slavery was still socially acceptable at a time. Granted it was towards the end of that period of human history, slavery was okay in many peoples eyes, around the world. Abolition was still becoming a global movement at the time. Many people were okay with slavery around the world (even though that didn't make it any more right). NOBODY around the world was okay with the Holocaust. They were the only country that condoned mass genocide.  Again, hindsight is 20/20. We know, globally, slavery is evil, but back in the 1860s it was a completely different mindset. Not the case with the Nazis.

Maybe investigate right-wing terrorism as much (or more than) Islamic terrorism?

There are pictures of him burning the American flag. On his website, he even stated that he hated the sight of the American flag. This doesn't sound like a good ol' patriotic right wing conservative to me. And are you saying that we should investigate conservatives more than we should investigate Muslims? How many shooting have occurred because of "right-wing terrorism"? Not very many. How many shootings or tragic events have occurred in the name of Islam? A lot.

Edited June 22, 201510 yr by MayhemMercenary

This is what I was saying as well. The south said crazy things about African Americans, but so did the North. Equality was achieved about 100 years later. Don't pretend that the North wasn't racist as hell, as well. Everyone paints the North as the hero of the African Americans, but they weren't. They never went to war to free slaves only to try and hold the country together. Only after immense pressure from liberal groups did Lincoln cave in and sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, I don't mean to sound so offensive (I feel like I am), but this is the exact reason why a lot of the South gets upset when the Civil War is brought up. People think that the South were the only racist savages. They weren't. The North was just as racist as the South but they did not have slavery.

 

I don't get the comparison between Nazis and the Confederacy. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes slavery was bad, but this was at a time when slavery was still socially acceptable at a time. Granted it was towards the end of that period of human history, slavery was okay in many peoples eyes, around the world. Abolition was still becoming a global movement at the time. Many people were okay with slavery around the world (even though that didn't make it any more right). NOBODY around the world was okay with the Holocaust. They were the only country that condoned mass genocide.  Again, hindsight is 20/20. We know, globally, slavery is evil, but back in the 1860s it was a completely different mindset. Not the case with the Nazis.

While there was still racism in the North they still wanted to abolish slavery which upset the South. So if hindsight is 20/20 then why do states still fly the flag of a country that wanted to continue to keep slaves after everyone else wanted to abolish it?

While there was still racism in the North they still wanted to abolish slavery which upset the South. So if hindsight is 20/20 then why do states still fly the flag of a country that wanted to continue to keep slaves after everyone else wanted to abolish it?

Because they're not flying the flag to remember slavery and racism. They're flying to remember the loss of life. Besides, there's a lot of evidence that supports the the theory that the South was on the verge of abolishing slavery right before the war ended. And, again, many states actually started to recognize freed slaves (through various means). Although that's a debatable issue.

The South would have still fought even if it didn't have slavery. There's more to it that just slavery.  Again, the flag is not flown to remember the treason and racism. It's flown to remember the soldiers that fought (many of whom didn't own slaves, or were against the idea). 

 

It's not like my views on this issue are of a radical kind of thinking. Our governor (of SC) supports the flag (although she's willing to relocate it again). Many senators from southern states support flying the flag for remembrance of the loss of life. Distinguished politicians and 'the higher ups' also share my way of thinking. Many southerners do.  

------

Look, I'm originally from Michigan. I'm a northerner, not a southerner, but I do live in South Carolina. When I first moved down here, I was totally against the idea of flying the confederate flag, and completely against having any reminders of the fact that the south rebelled against the United States. However, I slowly realized that that was not their intentions (Flying it to remember slavery and racism). Especially after serving in the military, it means more to me when one man gives up his life for his country (or state in this case). Many of those soldiers held no racist views, and did not care one way or another for slavery (they taught them to read and write, simple schooling, gave them freedoms). They simply fought for their state, and later their country (CSA).

 

The same way I do respect the fallen Wehrmacht (the SS were the ones responsible for the mass executions and plethora of war crimes) soldiers from Nazi Germany. They fought and died for their country regardless if they held the same belief as the Nazi leaders. Does that really make me evil minded, racist and sadistic?

Because they're not flying the flag to remember slavery and racism. They're flying to remember the loss of life. Besides, there's a lot of evidence that supports the the theory that the South was on the verge of abolishing slavery right before the war ended. And, again, many states actually started to recognize freed slaves (through various means). Although that's a debatable issue.

The South would have still fought even if it didn't have slavery. There's more to it that just slavery.  Again, the flag is not flown to remember the treason and racism. It's flown to remember the soldiers that fought (many of whom didn't own slaves, or were against the idea). 

 

It's not like my views on this issue are of a radical kind of thinking. Our governor (of SC) supports the flag (although she's willing to relocate it again). Many senators from southern states support flying the flag for remembrance of the loss of life. Distinguished politicians and 'the higher ups' also share my way of thinking. Many southerners do.  

------

Look, I'm originally from Michigan. I'm a northerner, not a southerner, but I do live in South Carolina. When I first moved down here, I was totally against the idea of flying the confederate flag, and completely against having any reminders of the fact that the south rebelled against the United States. However, I slowly realized that that was not their intentions (Flying it to remember slavery and racism). Especially after serving in the military, it means more to me when one man gives up his life for his country (or state in this case). Many of those soldiers held no racist views, and did not care one way or another for slavery (they taught them to read and write, simple schooling, gave them freedoms). They simply fought for their state, and later their country (CSA).

 

The same way I do respect the fallen Wehrmacht (the SS were the ones responsible for the mass executions and plethora of war crimes) soldiers from Nazi Germany. They fought and died for their country regardless if they held the same belief as the Nazi leaders. Does that really make me evil minded, racist and sadistic?

The biggest factor that pushed the South over the edge and led to the Civil War was slavery. The South thought it should be up to the states to decide if they allow slavery or not and the federal government didn't see it that way. The South relied on slavery for their economy which was much more agricultural than the North's.

I am originally from the North too and I lived in Florida for 8 years. I also have one side of my family entirely from southern Virginia and Tennessee so I have lots of family members who still think that the South was actually right in the Civil War. I am also in the military, none of that changes my views on the subject though. What evidence do you have that most CSA soldiers were not racist and didn't care for slavery?

If the Confederate flag is flown to respect the fallen CSA soldiers then I assume you think it is ok to fly the Nazi flag to show respect to the fallen Wehrmacht soldiers as well?

I know your view isn't very radical but that is what I think is wrong with our society. It is still acceptable to fly a flag that represents racism and a dark time in our history.

There are pictures of him burning the American flag. On his website, he even stated that he hated the sight of the American flag. This doesn't sound like a good ol' patriotic right wing conservative to me. And are you saying that we should investigate conservatives more than we should investigate Muslims? How many shooting have occurred because of "right-wing terrorism"? Not very many. How many shootings or tragic events have occurred in the name of Islam? A lot.

He was inspired to do the shootings by a group called the "Council for Conservative Christians". He was known among his friends to have hardcore right-wing views. Right-wing terrorism is often fueled by racism and other hardcore conservative views, another example being the bombings and killings of abortion doctors. Religious and racial fundamentalism are strictly conservative ideologies. Just because he's not a "good ol' patriotic right wing conservative", doesn't mean he's not a right-wing terrorist.

 

And you're actually incorrect, right-wing terrorism is a greater threat to Americans and American police officers than Islamic terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

"Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"

"Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low."

"Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years."

"In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center."

"In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism."

 

There are pictures of him burning the American flag. On his website, he even stated that he hated the sight of the American flag. This doesn't sound like a good ol' patriotic right wing conservative to me. And are you saying that we should investigate conservatives more than we should investigate Muslims? How many shooting have occurred because of "right-wing terrorism"? Not very many. How many shootings or tragic events have occurred in the name of Islam? A lot.

Actually Riley is right. There haven't been nearly as many shootings or other violent attacks from Muslims compared to right wing extremist (which are not the same things as conservatives). The media just doesn't cover those stories as much because nobody cares. Everyone is scared of Muslims nowadays so the media is playing off that fear to get better ratings and push their agendas.

Edited June 23, 201510 yr by l3ubba

 

He was inspired to do the shootings by a group called the "Council for Conservative Christians". He was known among his friends to have hardcore right-wing views. Right-wing terrorism is often fueled by racism and other hardcore conservative views, another example being the bombings and killings of abortion doctors. Religious and racial fundamentalism are strictly conservative ideologies. Just because he's not a "good ol' patriotic right wing conservative", doesn't mean he's not a right-wing terrorist.

 

And you're actually incorrect, right-wing terrorism is a greater threat to Americans and American police officers than Islamic terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

Actually Riley is right. There haven't been nearly as many shootings or other violent attacks from Muslims compared to right wing extremist (which are not the same things as conservatives). The media just doesn't cover those stories as much because nobody cares. Everyone is scared of Muslims nowadays so the media is playing off that fear to get better ratings and push their agendas.

How much have we spent to deter Muslim terrorism since 9/11? How much have we spent on wars directly related to 9/11? How many data banks were set up to track primarily radical Muslims since 9/11? There is no question we have some crazy right wing groups. Some of them ready to act in a very violent manner. The U.S has done a lot to deter Muslim terrorism here in the U.S, so of course it has been scarce. What about all of the failed terror plots that have been foiled by police? There have been several large scale terror plots that would have killed dozens if not prevented. And many of these plots were in the name of Allah. 

 

How much have we spent to deter Muslim terrorism since 9/11? How much have we spent on wars directly related to 9/11? How many data banks were set up to track primarily radical Muslims since 9/11? There is no question we have some crazy right wing groups. Some of them ready to act in a very violent manner. The U.S has done a lot to deter Muslim terrorism here in the U.S, so of course it has been scarce. What about all of the failed terror plots that have been foiled by police? There have been several large scale terror plots that would have killed dozens if not prevented. And many of these plots were in the name of Allah. 

Do you have numbers on how many realistic plots have been foiled? I think the number would be a lot lower than you think. My point is being why should we wait for right wing (or even left wing for that matter) extremist to start becoming a bigger threat before we shift focus on them? They are a much more real threat to terrorism in the US that Muslims.

Now more than ever Islamic extremists have been focusing more on the Middle East than planning attacks on the west, especially the US. They are focusing most of their resources in the Middle East because that is where the war is. That is why you see these extremist organizations encouraging people to commit lone wolf attacks because, one: it is harder for law enforcement to detect and prevent than a larger plot, and two: organizations such as ISIS have a limited number of skilled men such as bomb makers and other skilled fighters that they can spare on planning a large scale attack that may or may not be successful, not to mention that they are probably already on a watch list and would have an extremely difficult time getting into the US.

My point is we shouldn't be reactive when it comes to terrorism, we need to be proactive. We should take extremist, no matter what affiliation, seriously and come down hard on them. We shouldn't wait for another Oklahoma City Bombing, WTC Bombing, or 9/11 to take a group seriously. They have been inside our borders for a long time and I think eventually one of them will decide it is time to do something and when that time comes they will have a much easier time planning and carrying out an attack than a Islamic extremist from Syria, Iraq, or else where in the world.

How much have we spent to deter Muslim terrorism since 9/11? How much have we spent on wars directly related to 9/11? How many data banks were set up to track primarily radical Muslims since 9/11? There is no question we have some crazy right wing groups. Some of them ready to act in a very violent manner. The U.S has done a lot to deter Muslim terrorism here in the U.S, so of course it has been scarce. What about all of the failed terror plots that have been foiled by police? There have been several large scale terror plots that would have killed dozens if not prevented. And many of these plots were in the name of Allah. 

Apart from the controversy of the wars and weather or not they spurred more attacks, there's nothing wrong with investigating and stopping islamic terrorism. But we're way beyond that point. Muslim Americans are vilified 24 hours a day by the media, particularly conservative media. We don't hold right-wing extremists to the same standard. When it comes to stopping Islamic terrorism, we've invaded two countries, tortured people, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sacrificed thousands of American lives, and spent trillions of dollars. But when it comes to dealing with right-wing terrorism, the furthest we've gotten is an unproductive discussion about gun control.

Watch as Fox News responds to the Charleston shooter, and just imagine if the shooter was a member of ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXn6sJDypT0

Edited June 23, 201510 yr by Riley24

Apart from the controversy of the wars and weather or not they spurred more attacks, there's nothing wrong with investigating and stopping islamic terrorism. But we're way beyond that point. Muslim Americans are vilified 24 hours a day by the media, particularly conservative media. We don't hold right-wing extremists to the same standard. When it comes to stopping Islamic terrorism, we've invaded two countries, tortured people, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sacrificed thousands of American lives, and spent trillions of dollars. But when it comes to dealing with right-wing terrorism, the furthest we've gotten is an unproductive discussion about gun control.

Watch as Fox News responds to the Charleston shooter, and just imagine if the shooter was a member of ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXn6sJDypT0

What about left-wing terrorism?

What about left-wing terrorism?

Left-wing terrorism isn't nearly as common or deadly, but usually comes in the form of property damage by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front.

Left-wing terrorism isn't nearly as common or deadly, but usually comes in the form of property damage by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

 

The 60s and 70s were a high point for left-wing terrorism, its been declining rapidly since then(https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states.) Its almost unheard of now. And I'm not trying to assert that the left is somehow morally superior to the right, its just that the right has some significant problems that should be addressed. I've always believed that the actions of a few don't represent the beliefs of the many, whether it be Islam, Christianity, conservatism, and so on. A terrorist is a terrorist, and terrorists don't represent legitimate beliefs. I just think that the right should stop calling these terrorists "lone wolves" and start connecting the dots, because the pictures pretty scary.

 

Edited June 24, 201510 yr by Riley24