Would the rise of alt right terrorism occurred under Hillary

Post Reply New Topic

You obviously didn't read the link i just posted to VegetableMan.

And why are you repeating things i have already debunked? You can't go round bombing countries because of a YouTube video by Al Qaeda. Trump would have been hung at Nuremberg for that so interesting you support such an act.

No one believes that cr*p. The US wanted to create a failed state for Israel as the Clinton emails show.

I must admit that I don't follow what you're saying. Maybe it's too high-brow for me but I don't really see how those cables are relevant to whether WWIII would have begun if Clinton had won. They outline the strategic risks and benefits of bringing down Assad in 2015 (including reducing the risk of Israel attacking Iran) but that is after Clinton had left the State department, and the situation had changed dramatically by 2017. It's also only one side of the argument - I find it hard to imagine that there weren't similar internal documents weighing up other aspects.

I've been opposed to Clinton and abortion since day one. Does that mean I'm Alt Right?

Here a couple of articles that explain why a no-fly zone in Syria would have been very dangerous.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssia-syria

https://www.newsweek.com/no-fly-zone-syria-no-no-394046

Thanks Vman. I like discussing with people with different opinions so long as they're respectful about differences. I consider you to be in that group. You bring a perspective that I'm unfamiliar with.

Back on topic. I think there are two alternative situations of note:

1) If Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump in an election.

2) If Donald Trump never becomes a major candidate.

I think scenario 1 might result in the most alt-right activity. The alt-right feels emboldened by Trump's rise, but embittered that he didn't win, feel they need to step up their game to get over the finish line. Scenario 2 probably results in less alt-right activity as they don't have a major mainstream candidate.

Another point that should probably be considered is how both "sides" handled the election and aftermath.

At present you have one party which won the election, and the other (with the assistance of most media outlets) which is doing everything to demonise the winner and their supporters. This reaction is likely a major contributing factor to the current situation, where a large portion of the population (the right) are made to feel like outcasts, and a tiny minority (alt-right) feel they have to take these actions as they see no other way for their voice to be heard or their issues (real or imagined) to be recognised.

Additionally, when motives behind words\actions are assumed, rather than being taken at face value, this further marginalizes people. My belief is that if the left were to try and work constructively with the right rather than be obstructive and demonizing them, there is a good chance this recent violence wouldn't have occurred (in much the same way "islamic terrorism" is considered by some to be caused by the treatment they receive).

Based on the amount of paranoia some posters show regarding Hillary Clinton it seems likely there would be an uptick in violence from the right going on, just like occurred under her husband. The increase in violence from the right seems like it would have been inevitable.

For scenario 1 it would have depended on how much Trump lost by. In both scenarios there would be violence due to the other pre existing conditions I mentioned. If he lost a close one like he intimated during the campaign he would challenge the results and the "deep state" stole the election theory would have agency and that would have been a lot of trouble.

If you read all 3 it shows they want to attack Iran either way, as that's what Israel wants. It planned to get Syria out of the way first and Iraq before that. Under Clinton she could have pushed Russia too far and then it's over. If she was in charge when they tried to set Iran up she would have launched the attack, then it's over. You're also ignoring the fact that the US has no right to remove elected leaders of foreign states.