Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Kaltovar]

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

In Grenada, they still celebrate the US intervention with a national holiday. They call it "Thanksgiving Day". Despite the fact that the world is a dark and disgusting place ... Every once in a while it works out.

http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around ... iving-day/

[Thermodolia]

Would you care to explain what fascism actually is?

I already have, I do not care to repeat myself.

No you haven’t. You’ve called people who definitely aren’t fascists fascist while claiming that being racist means your fascist

[Kaltovar]

I already have, I do not care to repeat myself.

No you haven’t. You’ve called people who definitely aren’t fascists fascist while claiming that being racist means your fascist

Fascism is actually a specific system that has very little to do with race. The National Socialist German Workers Party cared about race ... Plenty of Fascist nations in South America though couldn't give two shits about race, and many modern-day people who call themselves Fascists disown racial politics but prefer to view the world in primarily cultural (ultimately, MEMetic rather than GENetic) terms. Rome was Proto-Fascist at points and was remarkably culturally diverse for it's time, possibly more than any other place outside the Arab World during it's Golden Age (and even then it's a contest that I think Rome wins because they were a lot more free about appointing minorities to high offices)

Saying that Racism = Fascism completely undermines thousands of years of far more pragmatic arguments against Fascism, such as "It sucks balls to be beaten by the police for holding the wrong political views" (which isn't even a formal aspect of Fascism, just a common result of it.)

It also gives up a GREAT opportunity to make actual racist Nazis feel like idiots. Telling them that Daddy Rome loved cultural diversity and would laugh at their pathetic, pale imitation of ancient Roman systems of government.

Edit: Edited to say Rome was Fascist AT POINTS, not "Rome was Fascist" as if I was denying The Republic.

Edit2: Edited to say PROTO Fascist, because really Fascism as we know it today was invented in Italy in the late 18 and early 1900s.

[Thermodolia]

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.

What is Korea and the Gulf War?

[Vassenor]

>complains about whataboutism

>engages in whataboutism

This thread isn't discussing the designation of the Proud Boys...

You brought that subject up. Answer the question. Should we designate Antifa or certain Antifa groups as domestic terrorist organizations? We can discuss other groups after we arrive at an answer to that question.

What does designating them as terrorists actually accomplish outside of giving the government a vaguely worded stick to use against anti-trump protesters?

[Thermodolia]

This thread isn't discussing the designation of the Proud Boys...

You brought that subject up. Answer the question. Should we designate Antifa or certain Antifa groups as domestic terrorist organizations? We can discuss other groups after we arrive at an answer to that question.

What does designating them as terrorists actually accomplish outside of giving the government a vaguely worded stick to use against anti-trump protesters?

The last time I checked the majority of anti-Trump protestors aren’t Antifa nor violent. So I really don’t know why you’d bring up this point

[Fahran]

What does designating them as terrorists actually accomplish outside of giving the government a vaguely worded stick to use against anti-trump protesters?

It's not vaguely worded. Should we treat Antifa groups that engage in political violence as terrorist groups or not? And why?

[The South Falls]

I'd think that that's kinda fun, though depending on the level of toxicity of where you go (r/politics, r/T_D and all the HAES places) coming to mind, it'll wear on ya.

I might actually need to take a serious break from that and find some communities that are less radical and exclusionary, but I'll admit that a lot of the time it really is pretty fun! I spend an inordinate amount of time laughing my ass off and being terrified, and neither of those are boring.

I don't think you're a Nazi. While I disagree with you on points 6 and 13, you still have the freedom to want what you want or consider anything legal. Those who label you a Nazi for such small, personal things either don't know what "Nazi" means or are doing something morally/ethically wrong (including the Republican mentioned in point 13, unless if there's more to the story).

Thanks! And there really wasn't more to that story, but that person isn't a good representation of Republicans either. I was including that story to have an example of a right-wing person also doing it, to hopefully show the people who are more likely these days to use the term Nazi what it feels like to be called one for totally absurd reasons. Although hilariously, I've also had left-wing people call me sexist for saying Bernie Sanders was a better candidate than Hillary despite the fact their politics are completely different and gender is literally the last thing I would rank them on (and him having a higher ratio of female and minority supporters than most candidates makes the whole "Bernie Bro" myth even more absurd)

It absolves one of their faith in humaity.

[Vassenor]

What does designating them as terrorists actually accomplish outside of giving the government a vaguely worded stick to use against anti-trump protesters?

It's not vaguely worded. Should we treat Antifa groups that engage in political violence as terrorist groups or not? And why?

Well that's a sign that you've not actually been paying attention because we've been over how vague it is.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What does designating them as terrorists actually accomplish outside of giving the government a vaguely worded stick to use against anti-trump protesters?

The last time I checked the majority of anti-Trump protestors aren’t Antifa nor violent. So I really don’t know why you’d bring up this point

Fearmongers gotta fearmonger

[Fahran]

Well that's a sign that you've not actually been paying attention because we've been over how vague it is.

Yes, and that was a weak argument. I even offered you an out by agreeing that the current proposal is a touch to broad and that we should only designate Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct. You're still not answering the question, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because your position isn't tenable and/or breaks the rules.

[Vassenor]

Well that's a sign that you've not actually been paying attention because we've been over how vague it is.

Yes, and that was a weak argument. I even offered you an out by agreeing that the current proposal is a touch to broad and that we should only designate Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct. You're still not answering the question, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because your position isn't tenable and/or breaks the rules.

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

[Fahran]

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

I mentioned two actually. Rose City Antifa has been mentioned numerous times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa

[Kaltovar]

Yes, and that was a weak argument. I even offered you an out by agreeing that the current proposal is a touch to broad and that we should only designate Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct. You're still not answering the question, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because your position isn't tenable and/or breaks the rules.

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

The chosen post is actually the least informative. Scroll down to find many MANY videos of innocent people being attacked by Antifa.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-vid ... protesters

[Vassenor]

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

The chosen post is actually the least informative. Scroll down to find many MANY videos of innocent people being attacked by Antifa.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-vid ... protesters

Oh hey, so much loaded language in that article. That totally bodes well for those videos not being miscontextualised at all.

[Kaltovar]

The chosen post is actually the least informative. Scroll down to find many MANY videos of innocent people being attacked by Antifa.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-vid ... protesters

Oh hey, so much loaded language in that article. That totally bodes well for those videos not being miscontextualised at all.

That's not an article, it is a quora thread. And I specifically said that the chosen answer (the first one) is the least informative and worst, to pre-empt that criticism, because I AGREE that that particular answer is full of loaded language. You chose to attack me as if I was touting that comment as good information though, as if that fact hadn't already been acknowledged and you hadn't been warned not to take that particular post seriously.

You've been given evidence and choose to dismiss it as false without even looking at it - Rather you make assumptions based on the metadata which surrounds it. That really speaks for itself.

Edit: Dafuq is my grammar today?

[Fahran]

Oh hey, so much loaded language in that article. That totally bodes well for those videos not being miscontextualised at all.

The article I posted include direct quotes from an Antifa-affiliated group and articles from journalists who tend to sympathize with them. Beyond that, I don't think videos of kids hitting old people can be taken that out of context, especially when these people stated that they would be "unapologetic" about employing "physical militancy" to oppose fascism and Trump.

[Kaltovar]

This might sound sarcastic but it's not. I'm actually impressed with the general level of maturity of everyone here when compared to if this same discussion were to take place on a different forum.

There haven't been any calls for death from either side yet, and nobody has been accused of being a secret clone of Hitler or part of a deep-cover KGB plot to nuke Washington!

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yes, and that was a weak argument. I even offered you an out by agreeing that the current proposal is a touch to broad and that we should only designate Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct. You're still not answering the question, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because your position isn't tenable and/or breaks the rules.

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

Even the ADL acknowledge that Antifa is uses violent means. Y'know the "Fighting hate for good" people.

[Gormwood]

And you couldn't provide examples of "Antifa organizations that have a history of violent and criminal conduct".

Even the ADL acknowledge that Antifa is uses violent means. Y'know the "Fighting hate for good" people.

Because peaceful means will get hardcore fascists and neoNazis that only respect power and strength to see the errors of their ways.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Even the ADL acknowledge that Antifa is uses violent means. Y'know the "Fighting hate for good" people.

Because peaceful means will get hardcore fascists and neoNazis that only respect power and strength to see the errors of their ways.

I dont give a fuck, if you misbehave in society, you get punished by society. If ANTIFA members want to misbehave, then they will get punished for their behavior. ANTIFA is not above the law.

[Fahran]

Because peaceful means will get hardcore fascists and neoNazis that only respect power and strength to see the errors of their ways.

I dont give a fuck, if you misbehave in society, you get punished by society. If ANTIFA members want to misbehave, then they will get punished for their behavior. ANTIFA is not above the law.

^ This. I have no problem with spanking all of them if they're going to act up at recess.

[Kubra]

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.

and why do we deny Russia a pipeline
Why do we not do so by other means

[Kubra]

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 only thing that unites disparate "Antifa" groups is being left wing. The trots are there, the anarchists are there, there's the tut tutting bookchinites, the tankies, the dudes into crystal healing, you get the picture.

[Fahran]

the only thing that unites disparate "Antifa" groups is being left wing. The trots are there, the anarchists are there, there's the tut tutting bookchinites, the tankies, the dudes into crystal healing, you get the picture.

They all sound like people who would have been deported from Ellis Island.

Anyhow, I'm aware. Hence my opposition to a resolution that isn't more nuanced in its approach. That said, the argument about loose affiliation applies to a good many groups that we presently, and rightly, tend to call terrorist organizations in our popular parlance - such as the Klan. My issue with some of the opposition to this policy is that a lot of people seem to believe that it's morally acceptable to hit people for saying bad things. They seem to be dancing around the point because they know that the same argument justifies throwing leftists out of helicopters, unless they specify that people should merely be allowed to punch leftists, and might cross the line into violating site rules by advocating criminal activity. That's what the "terrorism isn't automatically bad" and "government isn't the ultimate source on moral authority" arguments lend themselves to anyway. Both arguments are, of course, true, but they don't excuse hitting people for words.