After Palmyra ISIS Targets Monuments on U.S. Soil

Wait, there are authoritarian anti-liberal socialist-hating nationalists in the US left?Hm, who'd have known? And your best evidence of this is a gardener who expresses her opinion when a journalist asks it? What a fucking fascist! Did you read the article you posted?Because some liberals said 'the statues should be taken down', the City Council voted on it, and the vote passed and then people {who happen to be fans of the confederacy presumably} set fire to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property belonging to those who were going to carry out the democratically agreed upon act. Death threats were also issued.How are the liberals the Fascists in this?Petitioning people using speech is not Fascistic, voting on something and abiding by that vote is not Fascistic. Using arson and death threats is Fascistic. The liberals did the former. Presumably those that did the latter were a few nutters on the right wing - I believe the Confederate flag supporters are typically right wing, yes?Also, removing a statue is not destroying a historical site.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Except the opposing viewpoints in this case have raised a lawsuit.
And the city council and mayor have agreed to halt plans to remove the monuments until they have had their chance to be heard in court. The idea that anybody is being 'silenced' here is laughably wrong.Nobody is using 'offense' to silence opposing view points. People have used 'offense' as part of their reasons for not wanting them proudly displayed in their city. Since when is this fascistic?When someone says something like 'These are not people the city should be proud of. We should remove the statues and place them in a museum and use the space left as a place to put some real local heroes', they are using offense to silence their opponents and they are fascistic.But when they say 'We should keep this in place, for historical reasons', they aren't using 'history' to silence their opponents and they aren't fascistic for so doing?Seems like having a liberal opinion is fascistic but having a conservative one is fine. Sounds like a silly double standard. My argument that expressing your opinion, and having the government vote on something isn't intrinsically fascistic. Burning property and issuing death threats is fascistic from a historical perspective. You seem very happy to call the left 'fascists' for following the US' culturally accepted political methods of free speech and petitioning their government - even as they accept the checks and balances and patiently await the judicial branch to make their decision based on what their opponents say. Yet you only go so far as to say that trying to get one's way using criminal acts of property damage and personal coercion through threats of violence and murder is 'unacceptable'. And only after you were challenged on not doing so earlier. Of course. But you are aware that you can't point to people who have an opinion, use their free speech rights to express their grievances, use their right to petition government, have the mayor agree and bring it to City Council for discussion, and then that City Council votes in favour of it and simply call them 'fascists'.They might be. But that series of activities is not evidence in favour of the hypothesis.What should somebody do, if they want the City to change the street furniture? I think they did exactly what they ought to. Perhaps instead of fascistically petitioning government they should have just blown the monuments up? At least that would only be merely 'unacceptable' in your eyes, eh?

I'm going to assume that these last two messages, quoted in their entirety, represent a concession speech. Two posts in a row within the first 15 posts of a thread where you don't address your own topic sounds to me like a concession anyway.a) Calling your opponents derogatory names is a childish tactic.
b) Comparing people to fascists and ISIS for legally using their free speech is also an act of the stupid.
c) Comparing hiring one of the best contractors in the country to carefully remove century old statues so that they can be re-housed (And still displayed) in a more appropriate venue with blowing up ancient cities is a fucking moronic thing to do which utterly trivializes ISIS' actions in attempt to drum up hatred of liberals.So if I'm correctly understanding how this is supposed to work, you should stop posting in this thread and hope it slowly drops off the front pages and slips from memory.

On my honeymoon I took a boat down the Danube. Upon getting off the boat in Bratislava I saw My wife didn't see it at first, she did see my face which went from agape mouth to mouthing 'what....the.....fuuuuuck?' The thing that I found really strange was it's just on the side of a street. There is nothing drawing attention to it, its not on some pedestal. It's location is almost as shockingly banal as the subject is shockingly unbanal. After my initial surprise I liked it.It turns out that the statue *was* on a pedestal and displayed sincerely in the 40s and 50s but was taken down and only put back on the streets (sans pedestal) a few months before my arrival.This isn't intended as an argument against you, but more of an aside. Since it speaks of history vs celebration its kind of on topic.We also visited Hungary - they did a similar thing From: Things to Do, Tickets, Tours & Attractions | 2022 | Viator - Image courtesy of Chris Brown on Flickr.

True enough, but in fairness I don't think Vegas was in the communist bloc

I expect he'll come stealthily up the Alma. Let me check with the locals....Oh. His 'salami' tour started two years ago, not too long after the Stalin statue went up. Looks like European bureaucracy got those suckers up in time!Seriously, they were removed when they had their worst negative impact. Now they serve as part of a historical cultural landscape in a tourist trap. It's like a twisted version of the N'awlins story.

Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the court transcripts about this case or you would have noticed that this exact argument was raised by those that wanted to keep the statues in place. An argument which fell to pieces upon examining the evidence of people....moving antique statues for a living...including the ones in question.The irony here is that if they do end up getting damaged, it was the REAL fascist's fault. You know, the guys who were using arson, death threats...the people with hardon for romantic imagery of a revisionist history of their fatherland that they hanker to return to? You know, fascists. They have deterred one of the best contractors in the country from doing the job. So any claim of substandard work was the arsonist's fault. It was those that threatened to commit murder rather than see statues of their favourite historical cunts moved a mile to the southeast who were to blame.Former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and notorious felon David Duke incited a riot at the foot of the Robert Lee statue. You know Robert E. Lee, that famous New Orleans resident? OH, well he did something historical related to New Orleans, right? Erm no. So the statue is a proven nuisance and there is preexisting regulations for how the government should handle monuments that are nuisances which have all been followed to the letter? HrmPGT Beauregard, sure he has a strong connection to the area. He was the proximate officer in charge when the first shots of the civil war were ordered. He introduced the infamous Confederate Battle Flag and fought for its general adoption. A notable local person, for sure - but perhaps a figure who also might draw attention. Lee was the rallying place for Duke's KKK riot, but Beauregard's connection to the flag has meant the monument is already being defaced. Protecting and maintaining it will probably cost New Orleans more money than moving it. Fortunately, there are laws in place that nobody has previously objected to for many many years, for how the government should deal with situations like this as they arise. Those laws were peaceably followed with judicial oversight. Fascists.Jefferson Davis was of course President of the Confederacy, championing slavery and being a terrible President. I can see historical significance of the person, but he was terrible so why have a statue of him? Same principles above about its removal.Liberty Monument, memorialising White Supremacist insurrectionist/terrorists killing their way into overthrowing. A monument which was raised by the very white supremacists the original white supremacists wanted in power when they went on their murder spree. A monument which in the 1930s was inscribed by yet more racists who wanted everyone to know what a gigantic 'fuck you' the monument was meant to be to black people, with the following:

quote:

---

McEnery and Penny having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).

​

United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.

---

The monument which has been vandalised, costing money, for decades and decades, one which Mr Duke has also tried to incite a riot, sorry 'organize a KKK rally in downtown New Orleans'. One that has already been declared a nuisance decades ago and was moved to a less prominent location and had its racist inscription removed? This monument: Yeah, I see why that one's on the list too.