[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[luiz]

Now that is complete nonsense. There is nothing benevolent about Assad. He only ever cared about his own power, and when people complained about mistreatment he brutally beat them down. Acting as if the current situation of mostly facing religious fanatics has anything to do with the way the civil war started is odd to say the least. There was a broad group of people involved in the uprising, from all over the spectrum, students and workers, Assad's own military and yes, also some religious fanatics. There was no coherent group that led the effort, which is exactly what destroyed the moderate rebels in the longrun. The government could hang on somewhat due to foreign support from Russia or Iran, though it had been on the brink of destruction and couldn't try to take back the country on its own. The rebels had no such support from anyone and being a ragtag bunch of people had no way to properly organize, unlike religious fanatics (or even ISIS) which already had a structure to begin with. Not to mention the Turkish support for these groups. After years of war, the only ones left standing are those with foreign backing, or those who could draw in a lot of support from fanatics from all over the world (ISIS). At this stage it is about an authoritarian dictatorship, various religious groups that only survive with Turkish backing, the Kurds, and a collapsing ISIS. But that's not hpw the civil war started, and linking the early rebels with what is left now is nothing but a disgrace.

I agree of course that Assad is scum, but the West was very naive to back the uprising against him. Because, as is often the case in the Middle East, the only organized and effective opposition to the despot comes from religious nutcases who are worse. The non-Islamist rebels never stood a chance of defeating Assad, and much less of uniting the country afterwards and ruling it stably. From a perspective of limiting human suffering (and also of advancing Western self-interest), it would have been preferable to just stand aside as Assad, Hamas, Iran and Russia crushed the rebels.

 

[Colon]

Hamas isn't involved in Syria. Hezbollah and Iranian militia only got involved when the rebels threatened to take Damascus around late 2012 - early 2013. The CIA programme to support rebels started around the same time. Islamist forces didn't dominate the rebellion until after Obama failed to enforce his red line, in the summer of 2013. Russia only got directly involved after 4 years.

 

[Lexicus]

The "fascists" is the US are not killing hundreds of thousands, nor will they.

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

Presented without comment.

but the West was very naive to back the uprising against him.

The West didn't really back the uprisings against him in any substantive way. In fact, the majority of their military intervention in Syria has been directed toward IS and what used to be called Al-Nusra (can't remember their current name right now), which means that the US military intervention has largely been in de facto support of the regime despite the token gestures of support for the FSA and other rebels and the hostile rhetoric about regime change.

 

[Yeekim]

GWB and Obama were fascists?
EDIT: That is rather rich use of that term from someone who saw a need to argue against moral equivalence of Wehrmacht and Soviet troops just few posts ago.

 

[luiz]

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

Presented without comment.

You know very well that war had nothing to do with fascism. Or rather, it toppled a fascist dictator. So "anti-fascists" should support it, no? Isn't their whole point that violence against fascists is justified?

But anyway, you you avoided my real point when I mentioned the Syrian immigrat and woman giving interview which were assaulted by Antifa thugs. The point is that any rational person cannot condone violence by vigilantes based on the vigilantes' own judgment of who deserves violence. As the events of Berkeley clearly demonstrate, the Antifa are not really competent to judge who is or isn't a Nazi. Therefore people who criticize them and want them stopped are not "defending Nazis", as the OP put it, but rather opposing random thuggish violence.

 

[Lexicus]

You know very well that war had nothing to do with fascism. Or rather, it toppled a fascist dictator. So "anti-fascists" should support it, no? Isn't their whole point that violence against fascists is justified?

Fascists can fight one another. The entire point is that the issue is more complicated than binary categories of who is "fascist" and who is not, which is a point that some others have made (with justice) in arguing against the actions of Antifa. My view is that the Iraq War was as monstrous a crime as the Nazi invasion of Poland, and thus that it did indeed "have something to do with fascism". But whatever, agree to disagree.

But anyway, you you avoided my real point when I mentioned the Syrian immigrat and woman giving interview which were assaulted by Antifa thugs.

And you avoided my real point when you ignored the fact that the "gang" you keep dismissing the importance of regularly kills people. The terrorist attacks carried out by the far right in the past few years alone make them far worse than Antifa, and that's leaving the actions of fascist governments entirely out of the bargain. I don't know what it will take to get you to admit that pepper-spraying and punching people is morally preferable to running them over with cars, shooting, and stabbing them, but we'll see how long you can talk around that essential point, I guess.

 

[Yeekim]

"I'm only a simple arsonist, don't equate me with that killer over there! Calling us both "criminals" is highly offensive!"

My view is that the Iraq War was as monstrous a crime as the Nazi invasion of Poland.

Careful there, someone might say you are "normalizing Holocaust".

 

[Akka]

GWB and Obama were fascists?
EDIT: That is rather rich use of that term from someone who saw a need to argue against moral equivalence of Wehrmacht and Soviet troops just few posts ago.

You're still surprised at the convenient and whimsical redefinition of words ?

 

[luiz]

Fascists can fight one another. The entire point is that the issue is more complicated than binary categories of who is "fascist" and who is not, which is a point that some others have made (with justice) in arguing against the actions of Antifa. My view is that the Iraq War was as monstrous a crime as the Nazi invasion of Poland, and thus that it did indeed "have something to do with fascism". But whatever, agree to disagree.

Some very weird definitions, but sure.
But you seem to agree with what I was saying. If we say that "violence against fascists is acceptable", and further say that we get to define fascists, then we can easily justify the Iraq war or beating up random people in the streets.

And you avoided my real point when you ignored the fact that the "gang" you keep dismissing the importance of regularly kills people. The terrorist attacks carried out by the far right in the past few years alone make them far worse than Antifa, and that's leaving the actions of fascist governments entirely out of the bargain. I don't know what it will take to get you to admit that pepper-spraying and punching people is morally preferable to running them over with cars, shooting, and stabbing them, but we'll see how long you can talk around that essential point, I guess.

It's weird that you think the label "gang" is dismissive because these guys occasionally kill people. Well, gangs kill people too. In fact, regular gang violence kills way, way more people than far right extremists in the US. Gangs of a single city like Chicago kill more than far right extremists in all the US. So when I call them gangs, I'm not dismissing them or absolving them of their crimes. I'm putting it is perspective. I have no sympathy for gangs, be them of the regular type, far right extremists of Antifa morons.

 

[Lexicus]

But you seem to agree with what I was saying. If we say that "violence against fascists is acceptable", and further say that we get to define fascists, then we can easily justify the Iraq war or beating up random people in the streets.

I am not saying this. I believe that violence against fascists is acceptable in the abstract, but as you point out it raises questions such as "who gets to define who a fascist is?" Ultimately, I suppose, my commitment to political liberalism (to be clear I am using liberal in a nonpartisan sense of limited government and peaceful solutions to political problems) is stronger than my conviction that the only good fascist is a dead fascist. The practical and moral issues raised by taking real action (particularly the state taking action) are not easily dismissed.

All that said, Antifa does sometimes use violence in ways that I think are perfectly acceptable, as when they intervened at Charlottesville and according to multiple clergy members, may have saved numerous lives in doing so. There was also a good post floating around Facebook a couple of weeks ago that was a response to a silly Mia Farrow tweet about Antifa, that discussed the role of Antifa in defending parts of the punk scene against neo-Nazi skinheads.

Anyway to revisit the original point, I am simply arguing that Antifa are morally superior to neo-Nazis, I'm not saying that Antifa is 100% great.

It's weird that you think the label "gang" is dismissive because these guys occasionally kill people. Well, gangs kill people too. In fact, regular gang violence kills way, way more people than far right extremists in the US. Gangs of a single city like Chicago kill more than far right extremists in all the US. So when I call them gangs, I'm not dismissing them or absolving them of their crimes. I'm putting it is perspective. I have no sympathy for gangs, be them of the regular type, far right extremists of Antifa morons.

Fair. I actually do have some sympathy for people who join gangs, but that isn't what I want to discuss here.

 

[Berzerker]

Antifa does sometimes use violence in ways that I think are perfectly acceptable, as when they intervened at Charlottesville and according to multiple clergy members, may have saved numerous lives in doing so.

from the article:

I stood with a group of interfaith clergy and other people of faith in a nonviolent direct action meant to keep the white nationalists from entering the park to their hate rally.

Their intervention got someone killed and a bunch of people hurt... They were blocking access to the park. People wanting to enter the park had to push thru their blockade.

There was a group of antifa defending First United Methodist Church right outside in their parking lot, and at one point the white supremacists came by and antifa chased them off with sticks.

They were defending a church from attack?

I am simply arguing that Antifa are morally superior to neo-Nazis, I'm not saying that Antifa is 100% great.

So the saints can attack the sinners?

 

[Traitorfish]

"I'm only a simple arsonist, don't equate me with that killer over there! Calling us both "criminals" is highly offensive!"

Asinine, rather than offensive.

Their intervention got someone killed and a bunch of people hurt... They were blocking access to the park. People wanting to enter the park had to push thru their blockade.

There's a bit in the new season of Bojack Horseman, a flashback, in which Bojack's grandfather suggests that WW2 was the Jews' fault for getting Hitler all riled up.

It was meant a common on how messed up the 1940s were, but it's funny how things can take on a resonance not intended by the writers.

 

[Berzerker]

arsonists aint criminals?

 

[Lexicus]

Their intervention got someone killed and a bunch of people hurt... They were blocking access to the park. People wanting to enter the park had to push thru their blockade.

What a despicable and asinine characterization of the situation. Past that I'll refrain from commenting on your takes or answering your loaded questions.

 

[Berzerker]

There's a bit in the season of Bojack Horseman, a flashback, in which Bojack's grandfather suggests that WW2 was the Jews fault for getting Hitler all riled up.

It was meant a common on how messed up the 1940s were, but it's funny how things can take on a resonance not intended by the writers.

Hitler was invading neighboring countries because of the Jews? Or the Jews were blockading a park Hitler and his fans were attending to protest the removal of civil war statues?

What a despicable and asinine characterization of the situation. Past that I'll refrain from commenting on your takes or answering your loaded questions.

Thats too bad, I was hoping for further comments to explain the one you saw fit to run away from. How did I mis-characterize your link? I quoted it twice, your own witnesses admit antifa attacked people with 'sticks' - they were 'defending' the church lol - and blocked protesters from their rally.

Its simple cause and effect, the violence began when counter protesters were not content to let the protesters have their protest

 

[Ryika]

That's not how that works though. There's nothing in attacking people during their protest that leads to "therefor, the logical conclusion was that a guy would drive a car into a crowd of people".

I find it pretty ridiculous that you both are trying to pin that to a group of people, when the only one responsible for that is the guy himself, not the protesters, and not the counter-protesters. He's the actor who did this, not just a pawn in a chain of causality, and not a representative of everybody else in the crowd of the protest.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hitler was invading neighboring countries because of the Jews? Or the Jews were blockading a park Hitler and his fans were attending to protest the removal of civil war statues?

They were killed by fascists, and people with more than a sneaking sympathy for the fascists were willing to suggest that, hey, y'know, there's lots of blame to go around!

 

[Broken_Erika]

Everyone loves(to hate) a scapegoat.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not how that works though. There's nothing in attacking people during their protest that leads to "therefor, the logical conclusion was that a guy would drive a car into a crowd of people".

I find it pretty ridiculous that you both are trying to pin that to a group of people, when the only one responsible for that is the guy himself, not the protesters, and not the counter-protesters. He's the actor who did this, not just a pawn in a chain of causality, and not a representative of everybody else in the crowd of the protest.

I haven't argued he represents anyone but himself nor have I suggested either side should have 'known' somebody would die, only that the people responsible for that brawl share the blame for events leading to her death. No, they didn't have their foot on the pedal of a Dodge Charger, just on the violence that preceded it. And if its true he was under attack I wouldn't be feeling so good about my 'life-saving' efforts if I was one of the people attacking him when he jumped in a car to escape.

They were killed by fascists, and people with more than a sneaking sympathy for the fascists were willing to suggest that, hey, y'know, there's lots of blame to go around!

Looked like your analogy was blaming the Jews. If I start a fight that erupts into a street brawl, how do I escape responsibility when someone dies? I lie to myself... I tell me I was saving lives, yeah, thats the ticket. Why are you comparing Jews to antifa btw? Why are you even bringing them into this?

 

[inthesomeday]

You're still surprised at the convenient and whimsical redefinition practical application of words ?