Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Kassaran]

It's an interesting litmus test of the opposing ideologies to see how they protest to certain policies of presiding administrations. I almost suspect that they're projecting how they would treat such legislation if they got a hold of it, even if it wasn't built to do so.

On the topic of suppressing dissent, that could have been done by simply having the police arrest journalists and personalities believed to be betraying the state. It would be interesting to note how the tone changes once the left gets into power, such as how much more civil liberties of American citizens are curtailed in favor of surveillance and moral authoritarianism.

[Necroghastia]

So you don't. Thanks for confirming your opinion is nothing more than hot air.

Er... Hot electrons?

You asked me to prove something I never claimed.

We already do. The issue here is that this resolution labels the entire Antifa movement as a terrorist group.

Well, it kind of is.

Go on, lie some more.

[Nova Cyberia]

You asked me to prove something I never claimed.

Well, it kind of is.

Go on, lie some more.

A terror group doesn't need to have most of its members be actively committing terrorism in order to be considered a terror group.

Try harder.

[Kubra]

Go on, lie some more.

A terror group doesn't need to have most of its members be actively committing terrorism in order to be considered a terror group.

Try harder.

Sure, but it first has to be a group.

[Fahran]

Go on, lie some more.

A terror group doesn't need to have most of its members be actively committing terrorism in order to be considered a terror group.

Try harder.

Hezbollah comes to mind.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A terror group doesn't need to have most of its members be actively committing terrorism in order to be considered a terror group.

Try harder.

Sure, but it first has to be a group.

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

[EastKekistan]

Sure, but it first has to be a group.

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

The Klan wasn't really a terrorist group.

[Fahran]

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

The Klan wasn't really a terrorist group.

Yes. Yes, it was.

[Nova Cyberia]

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

The Klan wasn't really a terrorist group.

How the fuck was it not?

It's entire modus operandi was terror.

[Nova Cyberia]

A terror group doesn't need to have most of its members be actively committing terrorism in order to be considered a terror group.

Try harder.

Hezbollah comes to mind.

Indeed.

[Kubra]

Sure, but it first has to be a group.

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

Sure, but there is generally connecting threads between them. One klan group is generally as good as another, apart from personal differences.
The integrity of "antifa" groups is a transient thing, much like the popular frontism it originates from. It's a diverse cast, yo.

[Strahcoin]

Well, it kind of is.

So being opposed to fascism is terrorism? So much for it actually requiring terrorism to be a terrorist.

Because you're incapable of defining it.

You're free to lie to yourself if you want, I'm a better authority on myself and what I can define than you are.

1. No. Why would the GOP label itself "terrorists"?
2. And yet, who said you were right? I'll provide some definitions from Merriam-Webster.
Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" - Merriam-Webster
Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change [...] specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage) - Merriam-Webster
So apparently, fascism favors collectivism, while conservatism leans toward individualism. If you have a better definition, feel free to repost it.

You asked me to prove something I never claimed.

Well, it kind of is.

Go on, lie some more.

I don't think Nova Cyberia was lying. He/she was merely stating facts.

I'm not lying, either.

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

The Klan wasn't really a terrorist group.

I'm pretty sure it was. Similarly to Antifa, the KKK attacked and intimidated innocents with different political ideologies.

[Fahran]

Sure, but there is generally connecting threads between them. One klan group is generally as good as another, apart from personal differences.
The integrity of "antifa" groups is a transient thing, much like the popular frontism it originates from. It's a diverse cast, yo.

It really depends actually. Some people treated the Klan more as a social club than a terrorist cell apparently.The general thrust and message of the Klan as a movement, however, was that they would engage in terror and violence to maintain racial hierarchies and systems of racial persecution. There's an argument to be made that Antifa is best known at the moment for actively engaging in terror and violence to silence fascist and white nationalist voices.

I'd still prefer a more nuanced approach, one perhaps employing similar tactics to those used by law enforcement to engage in surveillance and infiltration of street gangs and motorcycle gangs. In the case of particular chapters of Antifa, it's probably more warranted than it is with other groups. The issue with that at the moment is that a lot of Antifa activists tend to identify law enforcement officers with relative ease because they won't know anyone else present at these rallies and because they probably stick out like a sore thumb. So we need to tailor efforts at infiltration of violent groups so that we avoid those problems.

[The Greater Union of Man]

Any group that propogates violence is a bad group.

[Rojava Free State]

Not particularly. Pretty much everyone is fine with considering "the Klan" and anyone who identifies as a Klansmen to be a terrorist even though there hasn't been a single Klan group since the 1940's. It would be no different for Antifa.

The Klan wasn't really a terrorist group.

Considering that they bombed churches, burned people's homes down and hung black men from trees for any old reason, I would call them domestic terrorists

[Fahran]

Considering that they bombed churches, burned people's homes down and hung black men from trees for any old reason, I would call them domestic terrorists

^ Also, this.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

You asked me to prove something I never claimed.

Well, it kind of is.

Go on, lie some more.

"Lie some more" Are you brain dead or something?
terrorism
[ˈterəˌrizəm]

NOUN
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"


ANTIFA is the definition of terrorism

[Highever]

Go on, lie some more.

"Lie some more" Are you brain dead or something?
terrorism
[ˈterəˌrizəm]

NOUN
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"


ANTIFA is the definition of terrorism

Which does nothing to address their point that ANTIFA is not some sort of centralized and standardized group that all share exactly common tactics, ideas, and methods. Some organizations that use the ANTIFA label may very well be guilty of violent acts, while others have not done anything of the sort.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

I just got reported XD viewtopic.php?f=16&t=469116

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I just got reported XD viewtopic.php?f=16&t=469116

You should say something in your own defense.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

I just got reported XD viewtopic.php?f=16&t=469116

You should say something in your own defense.

Nah. 5th time being reported for something stupid. I am done debating with mods, they never listen. If I get a ban, then so be it. I asked, "Are you brain dead" after they claim that a friend of mine is lying. Which they have claimed repeatedly. I don't care anymore.

[Page]

You should say something in your own defense.

Nah. 5th time being reported for something stupid. I am done debating with mods, they never listen. If I get a ban, then so be it. I asked, "Are you brain dead" after they claim that a friend of mine is lying. Which they have claimed repeatedly. I don't care anymore.

It is a lie though.

[Vassenor]

Go on, lie some more.

"Lie some more" Are you brain dead or something?
terrorism
[ˈterəˌrizəm]

NOUN
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"


ANTIFA is the definition of terrorism

So you admit that the Proud Boys and groups like them are terrorists?

[Kaltovar]

We are not currently embroiled in a war in afghanistan to obtain resources. There are none worth mentioning. And in any case, territorial wars are inherently political.

I ain't touching the rest.

Yes, we are. The modern conflict in Afghanistan started in 1979, ultimately over an oil pipeline the Soviets wanted. At this point we armed forces the CIA called Mujahideen, which splintered into many groups that include the modern Afghan Government and Al-Qaeda after defeating the USSR's encroachment there with massive help from us, KSA, Pakistan and Israel. Al-Qaeda does NOT fight for resources, but for politics and religion. It is an asymmetric war in this and many other regards, but OUR primary reason to be there to this day is actually to deny Russia easy access to an oil pipeline that would enrich them. This is why we will not leave unless we can ensure a puppet government in the region, because any independent Afghan nation would be immensely vulnerable to Russian pressure and thus ultimately become a Russian satellite which would be very valuable for them.

Just because you consider it political doesn't mean that most people do, and politics are a subjective concept created by humanity (as you well know) -- It is meaningless to debate what is and is not political, as we can choose to define anything we like as being political. Really, absolutely anything.

Sometimes one caveman just bashes the other one because he wants the hunk of meat, though. And the ones who listen to their justifications and seriously consider their motivations "political" are just as fooled and tool-like in the hands of their masters as the ones who support them.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

We are not currently embroiled in a war in afghanistan to obtain resources. There are none worth mentioning. And in any case, territorial wars are inherently political.

I ain't touching the rest.

Yes, we are. The modern conflict in Afghanistan started in 1979, ultimately over an oil pipeline the Soviets wanted. At this point we armed forces the CIA called Mujahideen, which splintered into many groups that include the modern Afghan Government and Al-Qaeda after defeating the USSR's encroachment there with massive help from us, KSA, Pakistan and Israel. Al-Qaeda does NOT fight for resources, but for politics and religion. It is an asymmetric war in this and many other regards, but OUR primary reason to be there to this day is actually to deny Russia easy access to an oil pipeline that would enrich them. This is why we will not leave unless we can ensure a puppet government in the region, because any independent Afghan nation would be immensely vulnerable to Russian pressure and thus ultimately become a Russian satellite which would be very valuable for them.

Just because you consider it political doesn't mean that most people do, and politics are a subjective concept created by humanity (as you well know) -- It is meaningless to debate what is and is not political, as we can choose to define anything we like as being political. Really, absolutely anything.

Sometimes one caveman just bashes the other one because he wants the hunk of meat, though. And the ones who listen to their justifications and seriously consider their motivations "political" are just as fooled and tool-like in the hands of their masters as the ones who support them.

Honestly the US hasn't entered a just war since world war II.