Discussion in 'Mainstream News Stories' started by rynner2, Oct 16, 2007.
FWIW, Hitler was a vegetarian himself. So, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Disputed in the Mythconceptions column in FT a few years ago. If l remember correctly his favourite dish was squab.
I didn't know what a squab was until I encountered it with Indy.
Ah! l was Googling your (initially) confusing response before my spacky Internet connection coughed up your graphic. All is now clear.
According to William L Schirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, he became one (vegetarian) after his niece died, if memory serves, in the late 1920's or the early 1930's. I admit that I can't recall them, but I have seen this asserted in other works on Hitler as well.
I've often seen Hitler's vegetarianism stated as a fact, and would have concurred with your statement had it not been for the Mythconceptions article.
Here's the Wikipedia page on the subject:
So then there seems to be conflicting statements as to whether or not he was. My point was that simply because the shooter at youtube was a vegetarian, it does not show that she was not an admirer of Hitler. Charles Manson was an admirer of Herr Schickelgruber as well and it was well-known that he (Manson) was vegetarian.
That is implied by the terms vegan Hitler fan. Hitler was, after all, both vegetarian and an animal lover.
Perhaps the phrase "he liked German Shepherds" was misconstrued.
Interesting book review.
The Surprising Roots of Recent White Extremism
By Joseph Darda
... Belew, a history professor at the University of Chicago, counters the treatment of white terrorists as “lone wolves” by tracing the contours of an organized white power movement that connected radical white extremists from Greensboro, North Carolina, to Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and from Waco, Texas, to Oklahoma City. From 1978, when Pierce published his novel, to 1995, when McVeigh bombed the Murrah building, white supremacists banded together like never before, forming alliances through early computer networks, intermarriage, survivalist and paramilitary groups, and literature. But they also hid these connections by adopting the cell structure of Pierce’s fictional resistance movement.
Belew does the hard work of restoring those connections, revealing how white supremacists built a coalition of rural survivalists, urban skinheads, and anti-Semitic Christian Identity believers. The unified white power movement coalesced around stories not of triumph but of defeat. Klansmen and neo-Nazis set aside their differences — some Klan leaders held strong anti-Nazi feelings stemming from their service in World War II — to defend a white race that they believed to be under siege by black radicals, Jews, feminists, global elites, and a federal government that had left good white men for dead in Vietnam. ...
Bring the War Home
The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America
By Kathleen Belew
Harvard University Press
I've read a few accounts ('testimonies') by former and 'open' right-wing U.S. extremists and militiamen of various flavours and Ruby Ridge is almost always cited a either the trigger that set them on the road beyond mainstream conservatism or as a significant milestone that showed them how far down the 'wrong path' the federal government had gone and caused them to commit more seriously to their cause.
Same argument here:
Latest shooting, naked gunman tackled by hero.
A 29-year-old man is being hailed as a hero after he single-handedly disarmed a gunman inside of a Tennessee Waffle House Sunday morning during a deadly attack that left four people dead and two others injured.
James Shaw Jr. said he was dining at the restaurant near Nashville with a friend when suspected gunman Travis Reinking, armed with an AR-15, opened fire at people outside and then inside the establishment just before 3:30 a.m.
Shaw said he jumped behind a nearby door and suffered a minor gunshot wound to his arm in the process. As he waited to see if he would live or die, Reinking’s gun appeared to jam, giving him a chance to charge.
Shaw tackled Reinking and grabbed the gun’s barrel with his bare hand, an act that badly burned him in the process.
Shaw said he didn’t feel the metal’s scorching heat on his skin. Instead, he continued to grip the firearm before tossing it over a counter. He then proceeded to physically remove Reinking out of the restaurant. Reinking disappeared on foot and remained at large as of late Sunday afternoon. ...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/waffle-house-hero-james-shaw_us_5adcd90ee4b075b631e6d148?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__042318&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__042318 CID_5293534aa54bad48ac7267e1ae6dc113&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=has been hailed&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__042318
Bizarrely the suspect Reinking was arrested while armed near the White House but was released and the guns were returned. Also other strange incidents.
Reinking was arrested last July after he allegedly tried to cross a security barrier near the White House in an attempt to meet Trump, authorities said. Following the encounter, he was forced to surrender four firearms, but officials said the guns were returned to Reinking’s father. He gave them back to his son, police said.
In 2016, Illinois police officers were called to a CVS parking lot in 2016 where Reinking threatened to kill himself, per police reports obtained by both ABC 7 Chicago and WKRN. Deputies’ reports indicated that Reinking claimed that singer Taylor Swift had been stalking and harassing him. Reinking said at the time that he believed Swift hacked his phone and Netflix account, adding that she asked him to meet at a Dairy Queen, according to ABC 7. ...
Wow what was his dad thinking giveing his son guns back when he's bloody well knows his son is mentally ill.
Shifting a point from the Toronto van massacre discussion. These are my posts.
it seems obvious to me that if you are dealing with a suspect who may be armed - that is, anyone in the US over the age of about 12 - then sudden movements are more likely to cause you to fire your weapon than a relatively static situation even if it involves the suspect holding a gun.
Having been stopped by police in the US I can assure you that you do not make any sudden movements until the officer has established you are harmless. And incidentally I found the police in the US to be unvaryingly polite and helpful once they were satisfied you weren't about to shoot them
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the cops in the US. It's not like the UK, they simply don't know if someone they pull over for speeding or whatever is going to be armed and drunk or high on something and blow them away. And of course if you are in the US, it doesn't take long to realise that , unless you have a death wish, you treat the cops accordingly.
Roughly two US cops are shot to death each week in the line of duty. So it's not like the police are overreacting. They are genuinely under threat.
My point was not that the police never overreact. Obviously sometimes they do, they are human like the rest of us. My point is that any US resident with functioning brain cells does not make sudden movements when stopped or confronted by the police. They've all watched shows like Cops even if they have no direct personal involvement.
There are many reports on this thread of police officers shooting people without just cause. These reports are by official Federal, State and Municipal/County authorities as well as civil rights groups.
The penalty for a sudden movement should not be death.
Just take a look back over this thread, ignore the reports by rights groups, just look at the official ones. Many unjustified killings have been carried out by LEA officers,
People are people, even cops. I doubt they are all fearless. And yes, you can end up getting killed for a sudden movement, and everyone living in the US knows it. More likely the cop will order you to freeze and then order you to get on the ground slowly. If you do so you won't be shot. If you ignore the instructions, well, you are rolling the dice.
It's not like the UK (although I dare say the difference isn't going to last much longer)
What I certainly don't defend are the - frequently lame - cover stories when a cop has shot without any sort of provocation, and I know there are some such incidents earlier on here. I mentioned all the above blather because of the discussion about hand movements etc. in the Toronto case - Canadian cops aren't that much different to US ones, I should think, and that makes the guy's actions seem very much like suicide by cop to me.
But police are supposed to be trained to use reasonable force. They are supposed to protect the public, not kill them. The sentence for not obeying a police officer should not be death. There are many cases listed where police officers were not under any threat yet resorted to deadly force.
I doubt very much if ordinary people in the UK would accept it as being ok for an armed police officer to shoot someone who didn't obey instructions. Different if the person poses a clear danger of causing death or serious injury to the officer or others.
Well, its happened and no-one took very much notice. Wearing a suspicious rucksack was the offence, I seem to recall. With having a foreign name to be taken into consideration.
There have been a couple of cases where someone was thought to have a gun and didn't, as well. We are well on the way to the American model.
A lot of people did take notice actually. Such incidents do not occur regularly in the UK. Even when use of deadly force was justified, in one case ir resulted in wide scale riots.
I do not think the British Public would go quietly into the night if bobbies started acting like some uS LEA officers do.
Their was about as much notice taken as there is of the typical protest in the US - and there have been riots there too. I believe the senior officer was Cressida Dick - doesn't seem to have harmed her career.
I'm sad to say I'm no longer sure what the British public will put up with.
Anyway, as I say. my point was (and why I originally raised it in the other discussion) was that they guy appeared to be deliberately making movements with a gun that would provoke the average US or Canadian cop to shoot, not least in order to protect other citizens from getting shot as well.
Where someone has something in their hand and turns towards to the police as if threatening them then I cansee how the shooting could be justified. But there are many documented cases where LEA officers were not under threat yet shot people.
I'm not disputing that. I might slightly quibble with the 'many' but I don't want to get into an argument about statistics - no-one can win those
Of course in an ideal world even one would be too many.
This is entirely reasonable. I remember one time when I lived in Seattle, a cop had a guy stopped and he pulled out a cigarette lighter that looked like a pistol. The cop shot him and it was ruled justifiable. The cop had a reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger and the coroner's jury so ruled.
There was no criminal prosecution, either.
Perhaps Max could be hired as BB gun instructor.
Three injured during gun safety demonstration
A Florida man has accidentally shot three girls during a gun safety demonstration. Police say the man was teaching them the difference between a BB gun and a real pistol, when the pistol discharged once, hitting all three girls. The mothers of two of the girls have told deputies they thought it was an accident, and didn’t want the man to get into trouble.
Well, strictly speaking it could be said that he succeeded...
I'm surprised stuff like this flies with all the massacres these past few years. No, not 'shocked', 'offended' or 'outraged', just surprised.
Here is a former CBS News reporter's perspective on the way the media downplays Black-on-Black homicide.
Goldberg, I will hasten to point out, is not a conservative and he is sharply critical of Trump in many areas, but he does see a definite liberal/progressive bias in much of the major media.
That's a fairly generous description of the man. There's no doubt where his sympathies lie.
Separate names with a comma.