I have a question???

[Caine]

how many people have been killed by the NBBP?

how many people have been killed by Neo-Nazis?

exactly.

To be fair.... the NBPP is... "New" (first word in the acronym)

Then you used a broad term like Neo-Nazis rather than the specific group name (like you did with the NBPP) being referenced in this thread.

So, you should have either said

How many killed by NBPP?
How many killed by American Front?

OR:

How many killed by the Militant Black Power Movement?
How many killed by Neo-Nazis?

 

[Aberration]

So the Neo-Nazi's would have been OK had they not killed anyone?

 

[Caine]

So the Neo-Nazi's would have been OK had they not killed anyone?

Neo-Nazis would be okay had they not committed any crimes.

Unless of course you want to make it illegal to think a certain way or hold certain views.

Personally, while I find nearly all of these "groups" and ignorant fools, Its not illegal for them to think like morons, nor should it ever.

 

[rhinefire]

how many people have been killed by the NBBP?

how many people have been killed by Neo-Nazis?

exactly.

Why not enter that data yourself? Include the criminal records of all members of each organization and the race of the victims. We will be waiting for your data.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The answer is obvious. Obama, Holder and the DOJ are not opposed to black or leftist "extreme" activity, since the black and leftist vote is part of the core of their political base. The assertion is ALWAYS that the threat of the right "extremist" activity is larger, so we can not safely ignore it, but the "minority" activity, of exactly the same nature, is not "as big of a threat" so it can be ignored with less negative impact (see post #10 for an example). Of course to ANY victim of a violent crime comitted by these "hate groups", it matters not that they are a "rare" casualty, only that the threat ws not taken seriously, possibly allowing the act to have been prevented.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why not enter that data yourself? Include the criminal records of all members of each organization and the race of the victims. We will be waiting for your data.

You missed the most clever part of Thunder's post #10. Comparing the actions of ONE specific, new organization (NBBP) to that of ALL organizations, throughout history, that fall into the broad group of "neo-nazis". That is like saying that any single serial killer is far less dangerous than all bank robbers, true, yet a nonsense argument. ;-)

 

[ttwtt78640]

Neo-Nazis would be okay had they not committed any crimes.

Unless of course you want to make it illegal to think a certain way or hold certain views.

Personally, while I find nearly all of these "groups" and ignorant fools, Its not illegal for them to think like morons, nor should it ever.

I disagree. Once the NBBP put out wanted "dead or alive" bounties on specific citizens. that clearly crossed the legal line of general political speach, to an illegal act that can and should be prosecuted. To make general statements is protected by the first amendment, to single out specific targets for violence or vigilante "justice" crosses the line, no matter how "noble" the motive may be.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hasnt many Attorney Generals been accused of racially motivated decisions and had their own beliefs and agendas that showed...

I think holder does show his bias towards white cases ...I believe empirica is right that black panthers should have been investigated as well for their actions...but white supremists have a long track record of organized violence and for being better armed and better organized...<timothymcveigh> holder has every right to go after them...and stop them before they create havoc.
Like it or not incidents against minorities will always get first priority from the justice dept no matter who is the attorney general...

Nonsense. Beacuse group A have acted in the past, they are more dangerous than group B, that have yet to act? Crime is crime, regardless of how "serious" previous crimes have been. It is wrong to "profile" blacks, yet perfectly acceptable to "profile" whites that promote racial violence. Great logic there, indeed.

 

[Caine]

I disagree. Once the NBBP put out wanted "dead or alive" bounties on specific citizens. that clearly crossed the legal line of general political speach, to an illegal act that can and should be prosecuted. To make general statements is protected by the first amendment, to single out specific targets for violence or vigilante "justice" crosses the line, no matter how "noble" the motive may be.

I agree, and never claimed that the "dead or alive" bounty wasn't a crime.