Charlottesville Car Crash Video

[uke2se]

Yes, you are of the opinion that to question the accepted narrative of this event makes one a Nazi apologist. That's what I took from the statement,

No, I am of the opinion that to give the Nazi terrorist the benefit of doubt is to post Nazi apologetics.

Are you claiming this individual was working as part of a cell, had worked out in advance where his targets were, had completed intel and surveillance, had rehearsed the attack, had considered escape and exploitation and was taking orders from someone higher up in the organisation?

Not every ISIS terrorist is part of a cell, nor have they done any particular prep work. See the Stockholm terrorist as an example.

I can't be sure but it looks very much to me like it was one POS who acted alone, on a spur of the moment urge without remotely considering the potential repercussions.

Like many terrorists.

To suggest that it was part of a pre-planned operation is ridiculous.

Nobody knows, but it's still terrorism. Terrorism doesn't require pre-planning.

Quite, but this wasn't one of them.

Yes, it was.

 

[Oystein]

How would you describe those who formed the group that the victims were in and what do you think were the intentions of this group on that particular day?

Protesters protesting Nazi scum who had come with military weapons rather than just sticks and maze.

 

[Oystein]

Very, very small point.......... they are brakes not breaks.

Thangs four heeling migh spalling.

 

[Oystein]

...This attack was just as premeditated as an ISIS attack...

This is almost certainly completely FALSE.

ETA: Besides, I think you are giving this Nazi punk POS too much credit.

 

[bluesjnr]

Oh, so you're playing a game of 'gotcha' taking an overly literal reading of my post and trying to catch me on an inconsistency, because you assume I have a certain ideological position? Well, it's a forum tradition I suppose.

No, calm down.

I've certainly seen people in this thread make excuses for the driver

Agreed 100%.

...and I have seen people imply the protesters were violent thugs who should have expected something like that.

I haven't seen that at all.

a mob of hippies and anarchists.

Thank you

I don't think he could have ploughed into them by accident. And I think that's bad, even if the people he was trying to murder weren't very nice either.

Agreed.

See! Not a gotcha in sight and thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

 

[sphenisc]

No dog in this fight, but -

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ldg2nZv.jpg[/qimg]

He did brake and from the looks of car's posture, possibly swerving to avoid hitting the guy in the green shorts.

Maybe didn't want to kill a white guy. Who knows.

Am I correct in thinking the white light on the rear panel is a reversing light, and would be lit if the car was simultaneously reversing and braking?

 

[phiwum]

I'm not making that case, would you be willing to answer the question I put to you? I'm interested to know, from you, what label you would use to describe those who formed the group that the victims were in, and what you think were the intentions of this group on that particular day?

Far as I know, that was a group of counterprotesters and that their intention was to voice their opinions regarding white nationalism and disrupt the rally.

Now, I would not at all be surprised that some counterprotesters had more aggressive intentions than what I just said, but I haven't seen any reason to think that the particular group targeted by the driver consisted of the most radical elements of the counterprotest.

I've given my answer. Now why not supply your own answer to the same question? Following that, perhaps we can discuss the relevance of these questions.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't see how the intentions of a crowd justify ramming into them with a speeding car.
Unless someone would like to argue that this was the only way to prevent greater harm...

Maybe he thought they were zombies?

Since all ISIS attacks are premeditated...

That's not necessarily known to the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.

Am I correct in thinking the white light on the rear panel is a reversing light, and would be lit if the car was simultaneously reversing and braking?

Yes.

 

[bluesjnr]

Far as I know, that was a group of counterprotesters and that their intention was to voice their opinions regarding white nationalism and disrupt the rally.

Now, I would not at all be surprised that some counterprotesters had more aggressive intentions than what I just said, but I haven't seen any reason to think that the particular group targeted by the driver consisted of the most radical elements of the counterprotest.

I've given my answer. Now why not supply your own answer to the same question? Following that, perhaps we can discuss the relevance of these questions.

I think the exact group the victims were with were largely peaceful protestors as you describe in your opening paragraph.

It is known that the larger group were joined by Anti-fa thugs earlier on in the day. That's my opinion of members of Anti-fa, thugs. Thugs who regularly utilise violence, vandalism and civil disobedience to further their aim. It is a matter of record that it was these people that attacked the Nazi Group - who attacked first, I don't know and frankly it matters not.

As for the Nazi's - they are to a man, POS and not really all that different from the mob I've just described when you pop the lid off and look inside.

The relevance of my question? To you, none. None whatsoever as it was not directed at you but at Porpoise of Life as he/she had announced that this thread had identified people that she/he would henceforth "stay away from". Apart from intimating his/her disgust at people defending the driver I wasn't clear what, if any, other criteria he/she might be employing in such a hit list.

I was interested to find out more.

That's it in a nutshell and I hope that clarifies things for you.

 

[johnny karate]

That's not known by the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.

I would defy anyone to provide examples of the level of "critical thinking" we're seeing in this thread from any other thread about a terrorist attack involving someone with brown skin or an Arabic name.

 

[bluesjnr]

That's not known by the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.

I simply think that the whole event needs a more critical eye. There can be no argument that Fields Jr has committed a crime, it is a matter of fact. How he came to commit that crime is open to scrutiny.

Your accusation of racism is a non starter in this instance. When have I mentioned the colour of the perpetrators skin as being relevant to how much scrutiny the event should receive?

I object (for a given value of objection) to the event being labelled a terrorist act as I think it muddies the water and is an emotional knee-jerk.

Finally, I don't think I've suggested anything about this event as being in any way benign and have not put forth any theory that would support that accusation.

Are you mixing me up with somebody else?

 

[Arcade22]

I don't think when he started accelerating can be concluded from simply eyeballing the video.

And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.

 

[Arcade22]

Even people who think it was cold blooded murder should consider that it was a non terrorism hate crime.

Brilliant argument. I'm completely convinced.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.

Funny you should mention that. We know witnesses are extremely unreliable for some of the same reasons just watching a video is unreliable.this is not the place to make a claim that counts on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Brilliant argument. I'm completely convinced.

There is simply no evidence yet that the intent was to affect political discourse or whether he hated them and simply wanted them to die.

 

[Arcade22]

Funny you should mention that. We know witnesses are extremely unreliable for some of the same reasons just watching a video is unreliable.this is not the place to make a claim that counts on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.

Of course you have to put up completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof to make any conclusion impossible. I mean we got to be "skeptical" here right?

There is simply no evidence yet that the intent was to affect political discourse or whether he hated them and simply wanted them to die.

I don't see how those are mutually exclusive in fact i'd say they are highly related. Going by your earlier post we'd be hard pressed to know whether he simply accidentally drove into them. Why are you so presumptuous?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Of course you have to put up completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof to make any conclusion impossible. I mean we got to be "skeptical" here right?



I don't see how those are mutually exclusive in fact i'd say they are highly related. Going by your earlier post we'd be hard pressed to know whether he simply accidentally drove into them. Why are you so presumptuous?

I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.

 

[Oystein]

And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.

It would actually be rather foolish to rely much on eye witnesses here.
For starters, eye witnesses are NEVER a reliable source to determine velocity or acceleration of a motor vehicle. Just simply never ever.
But in this case, it is clear that the vast majority of witnesses can be assumed to be biased against the attacker, on top of being emotionally distressed by the awful results of the attack.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.

Honestly, unless you're saying that he's a psychopath (is that your argument, because it may fit with more evidence?), then killing or attempting to kill people who you "hate" (as you termed it) but who you do not actually know, pretty much makes it political, at minimum. And if murder of innocents to make a political point is how one wishes to define terrorism, then it would becomes terrorism.

Personally, I think there's too much of this Obama/Trump concern of "will they call it terrorism... stay tuned". How about "Nazi thug murders person and attempts to murder several other with his vehicle". It weren't a love triangle. Let people make of it what they will. I see no value in calling it terrorism or not calling it terrorism other than to make GOP nazi enablers and apologists squirm, and there is a certain value to that, after all.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Your accusation of racism is a non starter in this instance. When have I mentioned the colour of the perpetrators skin as being relevant to how much scrutiny the event should receive?

Well, explicitly sharing one's awareness of the perpetrator's skin color is not necessary for skin color to be a factor in one's argument. I'd say that most "casual racists" wouldn't think to mention it; it's just a significant undercurrent pushing their thinking in a particular direction.

Not that I necessarily think that you are overtly or even casually racist, but there was a certain curious rigidity in your counter-argument that "all ISIS attacks are premeditated" that you seem reluctant to apply to this neo-Nazi's attack.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that you should be equally rigid toward this incident. I'm simply (perhaps too simply) trying to point out that there may be no significant difference between the information available to the public in the days following an actual ISIS or ISIS-inspired attack and this attack.

I object (for a given value of objection) to the event being labelled a terrorist act as I think it muddies the water and is an emotional knee-jerk.

I'd agree that it's not terrorism in the sense that Mr. Fields likely hadn't planned the attack for months. However, I'm not sure "months of planning" is a requirement for terrorism. Also, I'd argue that his attack was still very much premeditated: as he was coming down the street, approaching the crowd of counter-protesters, he had more than enough time to consider his options.