Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Rojava Free State]

Why not?

Because AntiFA's not an organization (which is a major component to something being a terrorist organization), it's a social movement made up of numerous individuals, groups, and organizations acting independently or co-dependently under the umbrella goal of opposing Fascism.

Fine, let's label certain organizations within antifa as terrorists then, such as the Rose City Antifa.

[The South Falls]

You can't label the entire group Domestic Terrorists.

Why not?

They're such a broad group. It would be like defining the right aa terrorists.

[Torrocca]

Because AntiFA's not an organization (which is a major component to something being a terrorist organization), it's a social movement made up of numerous individuals, groups, and organizations acting independently or co-dependently under the umbrella goal of opposing Fascism.

Fine, let's label certain organizations within antifa as terrorists then, such as the Rose City Antifa.

Prove they're an organization that commits terrorism and I'll agree.

[Nova Cyberia]

Why not?

Because AntiFA's not an organization (which is a major component to something being a terrorist organization), it's a social movement made up of numerous individuals, groups, and organizations acting independently or co-dependently under the umbrella goal of opposing Fascism.

There are, however, many Antifa organizations that should be classified as terrorist organizations.

Rose City Antifa is one of the biggest perpetrators.

[Nova Cyberia]

Fine, let's label certain organizations within antifa as terrorists then, such as the Rose City Antifa.

Prove they're an organization that commits terrorism and I'll agree.

They commit political violence.

That's all we need.

[Telconi]

Why not?

They're such a broad group. It would be like defining the right aa terrorists.

No, it wouldn't, shitty attempts at analogy are shitty.

[Telconi]

Fine, let's label certain organizations within antifa as terrorists then, such as the Rose City Antifa.

Prove they're an organization that commits terrorism and I'll agree.

Prove Al Qaeda is.

[Ifreann]

Why wouldn't it be self-defence? If we know that fascists are going to hold a rally and we know that there is often violence at such rallies, can we not go to that rally with the intention of protecting people from the fascists?

So the Proud Boys are a self-defense organization then? I really don't think you'll like the logical conclusion of applying this argument consistently.

I'm not making an argument that anyone is a self-defence organisation, and I don't know why you think I am. I'm just saying that people aren't automatically the aggressors, regardless of their behaviour, because of how they dress or what they carry. I think that's absurd.

Beyond that, it's a bad argument. We know that some people associated with Antifa, and probably the majority of the people bringing weapons to demonstrations, intend to engage in violence. They're going with the explicit intention of committing violent felonies. Stop making apologies for it. It's dishonest and evil.

Oh grow up.

For the police, sure.

For the public.

Not really.

Yes, you are classing people as the aggressors not because they are actually instigating violence, but because they are dressed a certain way or are carry weapons. This is absurd.

I'm categorizing people as aggressors because the same group of people, often exhibiting that same sorts of behaviors, have instigated violence in the past and are likely looking to instigate violence again. And I hold that standard universally, whereas you seem to apply it selectively based on whether or not the aggressive group upholds your vague ideology. So quit it.

I'm not holding anyone to be aggressors based on your standard, so maybe quit telling me I'm not applying it consistently when I'm not applying it at all.

Debatable, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that anti-fascists are never the aggressors. I'm saying that you are wrong to characterise them as being the aggressors because of how they dress or the fact that they are sometimes armed.

No, not debatable. At all. If it is, I would like you to demonstrate how Ngo was a credible and immediate threat to the people that accosted and assaulted him. Doxxing someone after the fact doesn't count.

He probably wasn't an immediate threat, but people he doxxes are in danger, so stopping him from doing so protects people. Maybe that defence wouldn't hold up in court, but some of us do not hold the law to be the final arbiter of good and evil.

I'm characterizing people who come looking to start trouble as aggressors. The people at Patriots Prayer were aggressors for the same reason. They should all have been arrested if they had weapons and were acting in a coordinated way to use them or get ready to use them. Otherwise, we could argue the fine people from Patriots Prayer stashing guns on the roof were simply protecting themselves and expressing their 2nd Amendment rights, but that'd be silly.

It would indeed be silly, because they were on a rooftop with guns, they weren't in danger from anyone. Whereas the people on the ground, at a protest, are rather more likely to be in danger. Preparing to address that danger with more than just harsh language doesn't make one the aggressor. It really baffles me that you don't seem to think it matters who starts the fight, only how the participants were dressed and what they were carrying. As if the fight somehow actually started that morning, when someone was at the wardrobe picking out their favourite black hoody.

I wouldn't say that Proud Boys are automatically the aggressors based on how they dress or what they carry either. I would say that they are the aggressors if they are the ones starting fights, which tends to be how they roll. Stop using shit reasoning and I'll stop criticising your shit reasoning. Or, you know, I'll get bored eventually and do something else.

I would categorize the Proud Boys as aggressors too. People who go to protests looking to brawl aren't innocent victims, and you need to quit treating them like innocent victims. You can do something else any time you want.

I'm not saying that anyone is an innocent victim. I told you very clearly what I saying. Maybe try believing me?

It's entirely possible to go to a rally intending to get in a fight because you know that someone else there will start a fight and you plan to get involved to protect people. You know, by hurting the aggressor until they stop hurting other people. Kinda how violence works.

Yeah... I don't trust the motives of people who bring bats to a protest and who conceal their identities. I don't condone street violence in any shape or form. I don't make excuses for it or apologies for those who engage in it. They're thugs at best and terrorists at worst. And the self-defense argument doesn't hold water when the mere presence of weapons on both sides, using the same reasoning, makes everyone there less safe.

Having a weapon and being attacked means that fighting back isn't self defence? Or seeing someone else attacked and intervening? That's now aggression because you have a weapon?

My distrust of the police is based on how they have shown themselves not to be neutral in enforcing the law, but show favour to right wingers. Many law enforcement officers are far-right extremists themselves.

It seems to me their response was neutral. Antifa got to bring their weapons and so did Patriot Prayer. My opinion is that neither of them should get to nakedly flaunt weapons in public because they tend to get frisky with one another when they do.

I'm not aware that the police allowed the anti-fascist rally back then to carry weapons. Any more than they were always allowed to carry weapons anyway.

People organising to do anti-fascism doesn't make antifa an organisation.

Again with the dishonest semantics. Antifa isn't an organization. It's a label. Hence why this bill is silly.

Cool, we're agreed. On that one thing.

That doesn't mean we can't infiltrate Facebook groups, associations, and local organizations that employ that name if they are shown to repeatedly break the law - in much the same way as we do with street gangs, militias, or white nationalist groups.

Sure, whatever.

---

But using violence illegally to achieve the political goal of staying out of prison meets your definition of terrorism whether I do it once or every weekend. Are you saying that a person is only a terrorist if they carry our multiple terror attacks? Because by that logic the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists. They did not habitually fly planes into buildings, they did it once.

Staying out of prison isn't a political goal in the same sense, and you know it. And nobody said multiple violent acts were necessary. The 9/11 hijackers performed their suicide attack in the name of harming America and the West and martyring themselves for Islam. The Antifa groups we're discussing engages in violence with the stated intention of resisting and suppressing Fascism and White Nationalism. If you hit a police officer to protest the prison-industrial complex, as an overt political act and bit of propaganda of the deed, that'd be terrorism. Hitting a cop to benefit yourself? Yeah, not terrorism. You're really not arguing in good faith here.

So it's only big political goals that count. Were the people resisting the Nazis terrorists? They used criminal violence to achieve big political ends. If they were terrorists then clearly sometimes terrorism is good, and you're surely about to say that modern neo-Nazis aren't the same as the actual Nazis in the 40s, and that's true, but the point is that your definition of terrorism includes actions that are good, so you can't just use "they're terrorists" as a criticism, you have to explain why they are bad terrorists.

I don't see what's responsible about making it a crime to dress in certain colours.

It's not a crime to dress in those colors. Affiliation with a criminal organization does, however, suggest that you're a criminal. It's the same logic here.

Not in general. I certainly don't want to confiscate black clothes.

Not what was suggested. It's like you're actively avoiding all context.

It is illegal to wear clothes of known gang affiliation.

Hardly. My point is that the police are already arresting people just for being at an anti-Trump protest, without sufficient evidence of an actual crime.

And they can arrest anyone without evidence if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. If evidence doesn't materialize, you're released. The reason those people were arrested, if you recall, is because some of them were almost certainly instigating violence, spitting at people, and throwing things at people. They were handled in a judicious manner and released because concrete evidence was absent. Sitting in jail or a detention facility for a day or two, while not pleasant, isn't a violation of your fundamental rights in every case.

Actually there were several instances of people being abused by the police. But people were arrested without any more evidence than how they were dressed and their presumed affiliation with rioters and not in one case out of hundreds could an actual crime be proven. But from what you've been telling me actually that should have been enough, those people were all definitely aggressors.

---

I just have great trouble understanding the phrase "it is bad to punch a nazi".
It seems so unamerican.

(Image)

We aren't at war, but whatever.

Only in the technical sense that you don't call them wars any more, just authorised uses of military force. You're involved in the use of military force in multiple conflicts.

[Torrocca]

Prove they're an organization that commits terrorism and I'll agree.

They commit political violence.

That's all we need.

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

I'm sure you're totally happy with deeming ICE and the CBP as terrorist organizations.

Prove they're an organization that commits terrorism and I'll agree.

Prove Al Qaeda is.

Rose City AntiFA committed 9/11?

[The South Falls]

They're such a broad group. It would be like defining the right aa terrorists.

No, it wouldn't, shitty attempts at analogy are shitty.

Distinct groups of antifa are the ones with thebike locks, some of antifa is distinctly online, others are merely peaceful protestors who demonstrate against fascists.

[Rojava Free State]

The people doing the challenging are a far greater threat than any of the "fascists" they're allegedly challenging.

People throwing milkshakes are a far greater threat than people driving cars into counter-protest groups and shooting up churches.

kek.

I didn't know milo yiannopolis did all that.

Or that corner store antifa smashed all the Windows on. Or the garbage cans they lit on fire. Or the car Windows they broke out. You keep saying people throwing milkshakes when antifa does far more than throw milkshakes, including hitting people with bike locks. They aren't a bunch of peaceful left wing anti hate flower children. They're thugs

[Telconi]

They commit political violence.

That's all we need.

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

I'm sure you're totally happy with deeming ICE and the CBP as terrorist organizations.

Prove Al Qaeda is.

Rose City AntiFA committed 9/11?

Are questions now proof?

[Greater Roman State]

1. Hot take: attacking other people is wrong, and attacking people who are at a rally for the purposes of debate (because they've been deplatformed for having ideas others dislike), is not the same as attacking people at a Nazi rally who are all throwing up the Nazi salute and shouting "Heil Hitler, gas the Jews, white power". The difference is that one promotes the flow of ideas, while the other promotes hatred of people different from themselves.

Hot take: violence is contextual, and somebody punching a Fascist because of the Fascism isn't morally equivalent to a Fascist punching somebody because of their Fascism.

Doesn't make it not wrong.

2. How about all the people on the right who criticize incidents of innocent people getting attacked? Oh, yeah, that's right, they don't count, because by being on the right they must tacitly support Nazism.

There's a difference between being a right-winger who merely criticizes those incidents and being a right-winger who uses those incidents to rage against anti-Fascism entirely.

Right-wingers have been on both sides of that in this thread. Those in the former camp are a-okay.

Just like there are left-wingers that condone incidents of violence against innocent people started by ANTIFA. Saying that "there are people who have, and people who haven't" isn't an argument. The same statement could be said about any group. I'm not denying the existence of such people, just saying that the existence of people who condone violence or use incidents of such to bash against their opposing ideology is not exclusive to right-wingers.

3. You did. If I say "ANTIFA is not nice because people who smack others on the head with bike locks and smash up storefronts are not nice" and you respond with "Nazis are not nice because people who drive cars into a crowd are not nice, either" then you are complicit with the fact that ANTIFA and the Nazis have both done morally repugnant things, and are therefore not nice.

Nah.

Good rebuttal, 10/10. Really made your counterpoints known, there.

[Torrocca]

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

I'm sure you're totally happy with deeming ICE and the CBP as terrorist organizations.



Rose City AntiFA committed 9/11?

Are questions now proof?

No. I'm just curious as to why you'd equate Rose City AntiFA to Al-Qaeda.

[Rojava Free State]

No, it wouldn't, shitty attempts at analogy are shitty.

Distinct groups of antifa are the ones with thebike locks, some of antifa is distinctly online, others are merely peaceful protestors who demonstrate against fascists.

Refuse Fascism: not terrorists, peaceful protesters, a-ok with them demonstrating

Rose City Antifa: violent, usually damaging property somewhere, prone to inciting riots

See the difference?

[Telconi]

People throwing milkshakes are a far greater threat than people driving cars into counter-protest groups and shooting up churches.

kek.

I didn't know milo yiannopolis did all that.

Or that corner store antifa smashed all the Windows on. Or the garbage cans they lit on fire. Or the car Windows they broke out. You keep saying people throwing milkshakes when antifa does far more than throw milkshakes, including hitting people with bike locks. They aren't a bunch of peaceful left wing anti hate flower children. They're thugs

But don't you see, they're thugs who hurt people Vassenor hates!

[Telconi]

Are questions now proof?

No. I'm just curious as to why you'd equate Rose City AntiFA to Al-Qaeda.

Both terrorists.

[Nova Cyberia]

They commit political violence.

That's all we need.

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

I'm sure you're totally happy with deeming ICE and the CBP as terrorist organizations.

Prove Al Qaeda is.

Rose City AntiFA committed 9/11?

It's the only qualification needed to classify an organization as terroristic.

It's not my fault such facts irritate you.

[Nakena]

Rose City AntiFA committed 9/11?

Look at my 4chan fridge logic:

The zionists did 9/11. And George Soros is one of them. And Antifa is funded by George Soros...

No not really. But its possible to twist those things.

[Rojava Free State]

They commit political violence.

That's all we need.

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

Who said the government can't be terrorists? Terror states exist worldwide

[Torrocca]

Hot take: violence is contextual, and somebody punching a Fascist because of the Fascism isn't morally equivalent to a Fascist punching somebody because of their Fascism.

Doesn't make it not wrong.

It certainly makes it way less wrong. The world's not black and white, chief.

There's a difference between being a right-winger who merely criticizes those incidents and being a right-winger who uses those incidents to rage against anti-Fascism entirely.

Right-wingers have been on both sides of that in this thread. Those in the former camp are a-okay.

Just like there are left-wingers that condone incidents of violence against innocent people started by ANTIFA. Saying that "there are people who have, and people who haven't" isn't an argument. The same statement could be said about any group. I'm not denying the existence of such people, just saying that the existence of people who condone violence or use incidents of such to bash against their opposing ideology is not exclusive to right-wingers.

Chief, you literally accused me of thinking all right-wingers tacitly support Nazism. Your attempt to play at nuance now is pure bullshit.

[Nova Cyberia]

Doesn't make it not wrong.

It certainly makes it way less wrong. The world's not black and white, chief.

Just like there are left-wingers that condone incidents of violence against innocent people started by ANTIFA. Saying that "there are people who have, and people who haven't" isn't an argument. The same statement could be said about any group. I'm not denying the existence of such people, just saying that the existence of people who condone violence or use incidents of such to bash against their opposing ideology is not exclusive to right-wingers.

Chief, you literally accused me of thinking all right-wingers tacitly support Nazism. Your attempt to play at nuance now is pure bullshit.

You mean you don't?

[Nova Cyberia]

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

Who said the government can't be terrorists? Terror states exist worldwide

Yeah, I mean, we literally call them "terror states".

[Telconi]

If "political violence" is your definition of terrorism, then congratulations, you've just named every government and every governmental organization that commits some form of violence or another a terrorist organization.

Who said the government can't be terrorists? Terror states exist worldwide

TFW the supposed anarchist defends state violence.

[Rojava Free State]

I didn't know milo yiannopolis did all that.

Or that corner store antifa smashed all the Windows on. Or the garbage cans they lit on fire. Or the car Windows they broke out. You keep saying people throwing milkshakes when antifa does far more than throw milkshakes, including hitting people with bike locks. They aren't a bunch of peaceful left wing anti hate flower children. They're thugs

But don't you see, they're thugs who hurt people Vassenor hates!

You can literally be assaulted by antifa just for filming them when they riot (and not being one of them). If they see a person who isn't one of their own filming them vandalizing people's cars, they will often try to attack the camerman/camerawoman. They're thugs. I can't believe anyone would think they aren't