Vigilante groups forming all over Europe but why refer to them all as far right

a reply to: Noobarino

Yes, you did misunderstand me. You dont live here so i can understand, but it was mentioned previously in this thread. Most of the groups that advocate such vigilantism are fascist, such as Britain first, the English Defence League, Lincolnshire Warriors, and many more. I do not know of one vigilante group not affiliated with the BNP or Britain First, and these are the lads who braught up the hilarity of the 'muslamic raygun'

www.youtube.com...

This is teh same rhetoric of the last major fascist uprising, and here we take it very seriously. These people are in themselves almost as destructive to the culture we love as the immigrant types who refuse to integrate.

Hope that clears it up for you somewhat.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: forkedtongue
But aren't most acts of terrorism in the US carri ed out by white males?

Since whites are the majority, wouldn't that seem to be obvious?

Not to mention what is defined as terrorism.

100 people killed in Chicago in the first 2 weeks of 2016 not terrorism, one idiot shoots up a place and is white he is a terrorist.....

Ad, funny how that label only ever applies to whites or ME people in America, never blacks or Latinos though, and blacks and Latinos are the ones doing most of the terrorizing.....

Meh, I don't print the labels, I just read the memes.

a reply to: Learningman

This does not mean that every group forming is fascist or racist though.

BNP has a nationlist bent, but I'm sure some of the groups are just being demonized by the left-leaning media

a reply to: forkedtongue

I'm sure there have been black terrorists in U.S. history, but white spree killers are not terrorists by definition, they have no political motivation. I think there were some plans decades ago by the black panthers to bomb some places, and that would certainly have been terrorism. I may be wrong though. What did the idiot who shot up a place actually do? Unless he had a political motivation to use violence of threats of violence to effect political change, he(she?) was just a murderer.

originally posted by: Noobarino
a reply to: Learningman

This does not mean that every group forming is fascist or racist though.

BNP has a nationlist bent, but I'm sure some of the groups are just being demonized by the left-leaning media

I would be interested in some links to these types of groups of vigilantes that are not right wing or criminal based.

I would be honestly shocked but concede if you can find evidence of them.

a reply to: uncommitted

Yawn, of course, it must be those nasty powers that be, right? Always has been I guess then. You mention dollars which implies an American angle - did the government promote racially based lynchings and cross burning?

America is not paying these countries to take in the asylum seekers, and I see no place in this conversation in regards to lynchings and cross burnings in America.

If this doesn't seem contrived to you then you are either not looking at this situation closely enough, are deliberately trying to draw attention away from the severity of the situation, or have decided to ignore the handwriting on the wall.

All of which you have the right to do. It is your life and your choice.

a reply to: Noobarino

No, neighborhood watch is not fascist, but they also do not go out looking for islamists or brown people to make sure they aren't raping. I agree the left media demonizes them, but the right doesn't or only does in extreme cases because those types of people are their voter-base. Britain first is universally demonized, they use awful tactics to garner support, they make facebook requests for donations that just goes to the leaders, and refuse to accept when the army cadets want nothing to do with them.

did you watch teh video by the way? Regardless of our disagreements, you will get a laugh from it.

Why would anyone oppose a neighbor hood watch or even a vigilante group? I can see with vigilantism, since sometimes an over zealous group will target the wrong person or a perceived wrong "demographic" person in their neighborhood.

But the real intent is the issue. If you are tired of crime in your area and you have a perception that the police are not doing enough, then you have to band together to stop it. In fact you have to band together and stop it. I would stop crime in my neighborhood all by myself. I don't need a group or any back up, but not everyone is as confident as me. It's those living in fear that need to be shown, that there is a better way and that living on your knees is never acceptable.

a reply to: amazing

I don't think anyone (barring criminals) opposes neighborhood watch in the U.K., but vigilantism, as you mentioned, can be very dangerous, and the types of groups that are keen on it, at least here, are generally meatheads, the kind that does it to feel tough rather than be helpful, the kind of person that never once did anything to help their communities, and often do a lot of detriment such as selling hard drugs, and 'boy-racer' joy riding. Me being a metalhead, they are just as likely to give me # than they are a brown chap who may well be 3rd 4th 5th generation British, and who delivers kebab to the very meatheads who hate them because they are different.

I personally see the idea of the public needing protection from what is a glorified gang as an insult, we tend to like the idea we can stick up for ourselves, and those in our communities who cant (children/elderly) are often mugged or ran over by the types of people mentioned. I see what you mean, but the reality is that these guys tend to be like mall ninjas, after some violence, but for their own ego. They have been known to cover up violence in their own groups, etc.

originally posted by: Siddharta

originally posted by: Noobarino
What a piece of crap for a media you have if people can't even come together to protect themselves and their neighbors without being called racist.

Some of the comments in here are disgusting....ya'll would rather have your country destroyed and your women raped instead of some propagandist in his ivory tower calling you racist, ....spineless.

Lynching justice is a crime everywhere in the western world. The western democracies have a legislative, an executive and a judicative to keep things civil and right. It works not always perfect. But it will run out of control if every idiot can start to play police or even judge.

It is rather digusting when some people want to destroy our democratic values just because they are pissed by the gouvernment or by some people they don't like. Adding people with weapons and bats to idiots who attack our women makes an even worse scenario.

Everybody talks about the scene at Cologne station worldwide. Nobody talks about that idiot who shot dead an eleven year old girl on NYE, because he was annoyed by the noise of the celebrating people. Let guys like him protect our streets.

What does that crazy ass have to do with any of this? If you had a point I would ask you to elaborate.

a reply to: dr1234

The point was made in the sentence immediately following the sentence you refer to, if vigilantism becomes commonplace what is to stop people like him feeling legitimised?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: anxiouswens

The answer to roving gangs of immigrants, is not roving gangs of ignorant, unaccountable, unidentified muppets laying down "the law". Wrongdoing cannot be countered by wrongdoing, fascism cannot be countered by fascism.

The answers to this issue lay in forcing the government to provide law enforcement equal to requirements, and to refuse to engage in work, travel, or spending on anything but the essentials until that enforcement is in place.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: forkedtongue

I honestly see where you are coming from, I am not a fan of MASS immigration, but I have grown up in a multicultural society. The U.K. has been a mongrel nation for over a millennia, and I don't wish to have to change our values because of extremists. (both why I do not wish to BAN immigration, nor see an influx of people who aren't prepared to assimilate to our values).

We have many Sikhs of an Indian heritage, been here years, they are 100% British. We have many Muslims (I cant fully speak for the south like London as I'm not from there) who are fully integrated, and identify as 100% British. I don;t want to have to change our values for the sake of extremists.

One thing that seems taboo in our media is vetting them, both the Right and Left media oppose it for different reasons, but from what I can tell, Right leaning and Left leaning people with a brain both agree that it is a good solution.

If you are migrating legally to the UK then you are vetted and if you fail you don't get in - not legally anyway, or are deported. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. The difference being of course is that borders are open to any EU country for anyone who is a citizen of the EU, that's different, but why should Muslims (as an example) be more subject to vetting than a non Muslim? I know the answer I'm going to get, and it's not a good one.

It is called profiling and it in fact works.

That is why.

Profiling based solely on religion does not work, that's nothing more than prejudice. If you look at America for example that would mean not letting in white Christian males as they have been responsible for most mass murders in that country - profiling based on that would mean don't let in any white Christian males - you think that is logical as well, right?

Um no, see mass murders, while tragic make up like a couple percent of gun homicidesevery year.

If we followed your model we wouldn't let any black people in since they are only 13% but make up a huge swath of overall gun homicides.

Nice trying to zero in on the whitedevil though, but you failed badly since in America whites by far commit less crimes per capita than blacks or Latinos.

The Asians are safe, since their crime rate is like basically nonexistent.

I've read a lot of your posts, so will respond to this but frankly no more. You suggested profiling but gave no profile but I'm kind of fairly sure you are suggesting the profile would be based on someone being Muslim and I assume brown of skin. I suggested that is a ridiculous standard to base a profile on and used the example that although mass murders by any perpetrator are evil, in America (where you are) they would most likely be done historically by white Christian males therefore exposing the strawman that this isn't enough to provide an adequate profile - no talk of white devils anywhere, just showing that your logic kind of falls through the floor. Anyhow, you post what you like, it's just a shame that ignore button was discarded on ATS.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: forkedtongue

Just to point out that profiling on RELIGION was what you mentioned, and uncommited needn't have specified the colour of the Christians that spree-kill. Also, just for clarity, a lot or Muslims are Asian.

I specifically mentioned faith and colour because a vigilante group wouldn't know someone was Muslim as not many people carry around a banner professing their faith, but many look at skin colour and assume the persons religion. Do vigilantes walk around with a questionnaire asking you to state your religion before delivering knuckle dragging 'justice' or look at your skin colour, guess your ethnicity and therefore follow a fools logic as to your faith before getting their kicks?

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: uncommitted

Yawn, of course, it must be those nasty powers that be, right? Always has been I guess then. You mention dollars which implies an American angle - did the government promote racially based lynchings and cross burning?

America is not paying these countries to take in the asylum seekers, and I see no place in this conversation in regards to lynchings and cross burnings in America.

If this doesn't seem contrived to you then you are either not looking at this situation closely enough, are deliberately trying to draw attention away from the severity of the situation, or have decided to ignore the handwriting on the wall.

All of which you have the right to do. It is your life and your choice.

I just don't think the sneaky P's that B can be blamed for the fact that some people are xenophobic idiots that despise anyone that isn't a direct facsimile of themselves. I call that not avoiding personal responsibility rather than seeking to blame some faceless entity for all the woes of the world.

a reply to: uncommitted

I had not though of it like that, my mistake. I suppose that is why certain politicians in certain places are fans of a badge for people of a certain religion. Less likely for their own to be spit on by the vigilantes. Or the SS if wer'e talking a different 'certain'.

originally posted by: Ashamedandsad
a reply to: Soloprotocol

We are seeing the rise of it again but instead of Jews it's the Muslims...

...and tomorrow it will be the Jews. The day after that it will be the rest of us.

a reply to: anxiouswens

Probably because they're not afraid to protect everyone. In other words, they're fed up with the bull# so instead of curling up into a ball under some type of shelter like a table or desk, they arm themselves and go in search of the enemy. That would be my guess as to why they're referred to as righties. 'Nother words, they have cast iron balls.

a reply to: LSU0408

Protect everyone? Like the vigilantes in Germany a few days ago who went around decking as many 'foreign' people as they could? It just shows, if someone commits an atrocity, the vigilantes make it worse, not better, by targeting anyone they deem fits, without lawful justification.

That is not protecting ANYBODY.

And who the hell is scared, let alone cowering? Worried, I will admit. But nobody is scared of terrorists. They want fear, we (at least the U.K. I cant speak for the whole of Europe) have no intention of being scared of cowards who count on our fear.

Speaking for the 'vigilante' gangs in MY area, they aren't brave at all. They are bullies to everyone in their communities, and criminals to boot. They VOTE Right wing, but only because its the closest they can get to their ideals. They aren't generally interested enough in politics to care about the other thing the right in European countries stand for, neither the Positives not the Negatives. I encourage you to research British groups that advocate this sort of thing and are just itching to get a nod from the public to go, as they call it, 'Paki bashing'. The English Defence League, and Britain First being prime examples of why many of us, for loved ones and families, do not want these idiots running around pretending to care for our elderly and vulnerable. What are they going to accomplish that the general citizenry wouldn't? Are people gonna suddenly turn a blind eye to rape and assault just because there is no vigilante mob? No chance.

And what do the press call to "gangs" of muslims imposing shariah law in some neighborhoods in Belgium, France and UK?