Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Rojava Free State]

First off there are ideologies that don't cause untold mass murder, one of them being liberal democracies like that of Sweden or switzerland.

As I said, this isn't really on topic. So I won't be pursuing that tangent further.

Second, I never defended the proud boys. Just because the other side is bad doesn't mean your side is good. Third, refer to my second point.

I know you only brought up and defended Patriots Prayer, not the Proud Boys, I never said otherwise, but I'm not saying that those groups being bad means that anti-fascists are good. However, consider that those groups have not been subject of a resolution being put forward by Republican Senators. You keep saying that antifa are violent thugs who are just as bad as fascists. But the GOP aren't condemning the Proud Boys and Patriots Prayer. Ted Cruz appeared on Louder With Crowder with the founder of the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes.

So we must ask ourselves, why the different treatment? Could it be, perhaps, that the GOP see political advantage in condemning antifa? Could it be that that label could be applied to any left wing activist? Well then suddenly the entire left are terrorists, or affiliated with terrorists. How advantageous to the right. Left wing protests and rallies could be shut down whether there's unrest or not, for fear of the presence of dangerous terrorists.

Fourth, antifa is a specific movement and tactic, not just being antifascist. I even provided you a link about what it is but you didn't read it I see.

I went back and checked and it looks like you edited those links into your post after I read it. Regardless, I don't really care what Wikipedia has to say.

Fifth, I'm not pro identity politics. I'm not accusing them of being racist or homophobic, I'm just saying the guy they attacked sure doesn't fit the profile of a fascist.

Why not? You do know that fascism isn't exclusively European, don't you? Japan wasn't in the Axis as a liberal democracy.

Sixth, you aren't fighting fascism when you vandalize the young republicans club meeting. You're fighting people for not agreeing with you

Well, no, when you're vandalising property you're vandalising property, not fighting people. But you seem to be under the impression that a Young Republicans Club can't possibly be advancing the cause of fascism. Which is silly. Where else would fascism make in-roads into mainstream politics, if not the GOP?

Oh I almost forgot the part about self defense. It isn't a matter of debate or disagreement. When you go looking for a fight, you aren't defending yourself. Antifa constantly looks to start trouble, they are aggressors

Are they constantly looking for trouble? You say so, but I'm sure they would say otherwise. I ask again why you are right and they wrong. Further, is it necessarily true that people who go looking for a fight are the aggressors? Is it not possible for people to go to a rally or protest, knowing full well that there is a strong possibility of violence breaking out, and still be acting in self-defence when attacked? I will remind you that Andy Ngo was not jumped randomly in the street or attacked in his own home. He went to a rally, and went there with a group he knows are prone to carrying out violent attacks. One could easily say that he was looking for a fight. Maybe you don't think so, but you can no more read his mind and know his true intentions than you can read the minds of any of his unknown assailants.

I believe antifa counts technically as a group of terrorists. It doesn't mean I agree with ted cruz who is trying to silence all anti trump demonstrations and paving the way for government to criminalize any and all anti establishment movements. As for the part about andy ngo being attacked at a rally, it doesn't matter if it's dangerous. Antifa is still wrong for attacking him. Ngo isn't a fascist. He hasn't called for the Us to become an authoritarian country where trump can send whoever he wants to the gulag. I don't agree with him on everything but calling andy ngo a fascist is like saying Nancy pelosi is a communist or calling Bernie Sanders mao zedong

[Fahran]

Are they constantly looking for trouble? You say so, but I'm sure they would say otherwise. I ask again why you are right and they wrong. Further, is it necessarily true that people who go looking for a fight are the aggressors? Is it not possible for people to go to a rally or protest, knowing full well that there is a strong possibility of violence breaking out, and still be acting in self-defence when attacked? I will remind you that Andy Ngo was not jumped randomly in the street or attacked in his own home. He went to a rally, and went there with a group he knows are prone to carrying out violent attacks. One could easily say that he was looking for a fight. Maybe you don't think so, but you can no more read his mind and know his true intentions than you can read the minds of any of his unknown assailants.

People who hide their faces and show up armed with bats wrapped in barbed wire to protests are aggressors. It doesn't matter if they call themselves the Proud Boys, Antifa, or the People's Front of Judea. In past conversations on this subject, you have tended to explain away violence by left-wing groups and oppose any measures that would curb violence, even when those measures would proportionately affect all violent groups.

[Aureumterra]

We don’t seem to agree on that

Disagreeing with both kind of lands you in a contradiction, as violence is sometimes needed to enforce the law (hence why we refer to the state as having a monopoly on violence or the legitimate use of force).

We can certainly argue that the law is not always just. I would say the same for violence, which might sometimes be just.

?

I agree with Fahran

[Duvniask]

Disagreeing with both kind of lands you in a contradiction, as violence is sometimes needed to enforce the law (hence why we refer to the state as having a monopoly on violence or the legitimate use of force).

We can certainly argue that the law is not always just. I would say the same for violence, which might sometimes be just.

?

I agree with Fahran

You quoted two people. I'm talking about what Ifreann said.

[Ifreann]

We seem to be drifting away from the actual subject of the thread. Why are we discussing the ideologies of these organizations and comparing them to determine who is less bad if we all seem to agree to the basic premise that initiating violence is bad and unlawful?

Crimes aren't always bad. Kinda like violence.

We don’t seem to agree on that

You can't really think that all crimes are always bad, can you?

---

What I would like to see is one of these thugs get their ass handed to them when they try to attack a person who has a black belt or its equivalent in any known martial arts.

Sounds like you're a fan of violence.

---

Someone forgot the first lesson in daycare. You don't get to hit people just because they're jerks.

Yep. Radicals (and Ifreann apparently) forget that

I'm aware that violence isn't always allowed. I just have a slightly more complex personal morals and ethics than "Not allowed == bad".

---

As I said, this isn't really on topic. So I won't be pursuing that tangent further.

I know you only brought up and defended Patriots Prayer, not the Proud Boys, I never said otherwise, but I'm not saying that those groups being bad means that anti-fascists are good. However, consider that those groups have not been subject of a resolution being put forward by Republican Senators. You keep saying that antifa are violent thugs who are just as bad as fascists. But the GOP aren't condemning the Proud Boys and Patriots Prayer. Ted Cruz appeared on Louder With Crowder with the founder of the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes.

So we must ask ourselves, why the different treatment? Could it be, perhaps, that the GOP see political advantage in condemning antifa? Could it be that that label could be applied to any left wing activist? Well then suddenly the entire left are terrorists, or affiliated with terrorists. How advantageous to the right. Left wing protests and rallies could be shut down whether there's unrest or not, for fear of the presence of dangerous terrorists.

I went back and checked and it looks like you edited those links into your post after I read it. Regardless, I don't really care what Wikipedia has to say.

Why not? You do know that fascism isn't exclusively European, don't you? Japan wasn't in the Axis as a liberal democracy.

Well, no, when you're vandalising property you're vandalising property, not fighting people. But you seem to be under the impression that a Young Republicans Club can't possibly be advancing the cause of fascism. Which is silly. Where else would fascism make in-roads into mainstream politics, if not the GOP?


Are they constantly looking for trouble? You say so, but I'm sure they would say otherwise. I ask again why you are right and they wrong. Further, is it necessarily true that people who go looking for a fight are the aggressors? Is it not possible for people to go to a rally or protest, knowing full well that there is a strong possibility of violence breaking out, and still be acting in self-defence when attacked? I will remind you that Andy Ngo was not jumped randomly in the street or attacked in his own home. He went to a rally, and went there with a group he knows are prone to carrying out violent attacks. One could easily say that he was looking for a fight. Maybe you don't think so, but you can no more read his mind and know his true intentions than you can read the minds of any of his unknown assailants.

I believe antifa counts technically as a group of terrorists.

According to what technicality?

It doesn't mean I agree with ted cruz who is trying to silence all anti trump demonstrations and paving the way for government to criminalize any and all anti establishment movements.

Good, then we are in agreement that this resolution is bad and shouldn't pass.

As for the part about andy ngo being attacked at a rally, it doesn't matter if it's dangerous. Antifa is still wrong for attacking him. Ngo isn't a fascist. He hasn't called for the Us to become an authoritarian country where trump can send whoever he wants to the gulag. I don't agree with him on everything but calling andy ngo a fascist is like saying Nancy pelosi is a communist or calling Bernie Sanders mao zedong

Andy Ngo might not directly say "I, Andy Ngo, am a fascist and support fascism and want Trump to be sole dictator of America". But by his actions he assists groups like Patriot Prayer. With his journalism, and I use the term very loosely, he defends them and attacks their enemies. People he identifies as being leftist activists are put on far-right hit lists, and have had strangers show up to their homes in the dead of night, armed, to intimidate them. People's lives and the lives of their families are endangered by Andy Ngo learning their names.

---

Are they constantly looking for trouble? You say so, but I'm sure they would say otherwise. I ask again why you are right and they wrong. Further, is it necessarily true that people who go looking for a fight are the aggressors? Is it not possible for people to go to a rally or protest, knowing full well that there is a strong possibility of violence breaking out, and still be acting in self-defence when attacked? I will remind you that Andy Ngo was not jumped randomly in the street or attacked in his own home. He went to a rally, and went there with a group he knows are prone to carrying out violent attacks. One could easily say that he was looking for a fight. Maybe you don't think so, but you can no more read his mind and know his true intentions than you can read the minds of any of his unknown assailants.

People who hide their faces and show up armed with bats wrapped in barbed wire to protests are aggressors. It doesn't matter if they call themselves the Proud Boys, Antifa, or the People's Front of Judea.

Exactly what part of that makes a person the aggressor?

Hiding your face? That's only sensible when being identified might put you and your family in danger. The police routinely hide their faces at protests.

Going armed? Being armed doesn't make one the aggressor, that's ridiculous. And again, the police are also rounteinly armed at protests, and often better armed than most other people present.

Going armed with specific weapons? Well come on, if they took the barbed wire off the bat does that change who is the aggressor? That's just silly.

In past conversations on this subject, you have tended to explain away violence by left-wing groups and oppose any measures that would curb violence, even when those measures would proportionately affect all violent groups.

I'm not inclined to trust the police.

[Maydona]

I like how folks are writing walls of text in here arguing if antifa are terrorists when antifa has no central command, funding or even members.

literally anyone can put on some black clothes and a mask and call themselves antifa, and they'd be antifa because it's not an organization.

[Duvniask]

Disagreeing with both kind of lands you in a contradiction, as violence is sometimes needed to enforce the law (hence why we refer to the state as having a monopoly on violence or the legitimate use of force).

We can certainly argue that the law is not always just. I would say the same for violence, which might sometimes be just.

Yes, but the sort of violence certain left-wingers are advocating here is difficult to characterize as legitimate, moral, or desirable and goes against the trend of the state having a monopoly on violence in most circumstances.

Why is it difficult to characterize as so?

It's also dangerously close to advocating terrorism

Define "terrorism".

and illegal activity to be honest, especially if we follow such arguments to their logical conclusion.

Again, the law is not always right.

Meanwhile, in reality, society generally tolerates it if you have the law on your side.

1. That's not exactly true. You can still get in trouble for being excessive or even for being disorderly.

Which is moving the goalposts of the argument. The point is, your daycare comparison is not applicable to reality, because "being a jerk" (which we can take to mean a multitude of things) in the world of adults is sometimes against the law. Thus, the "first lesson of daycare" isn't something that necessarily applies.

2. Antifa doesn't have the law on its side in many of these cases.

This goes back to what I've already said, so I refer it to my other response.

[Fahran]

Exactly what part of that makes a person the aggressor?

The fact that these people are going to protests with the intention of engaging in violence or bashing the fash.

Hiding your face? That's only sensible when being identified might put you and your family in danger. The police routinely hide their faces at protests.

Yes, and it also conveniently prevents the police or potential victims from identifying you after you've committed a crime. I'm certain Klansmen and alt-righters who cover their faces make the same sorts of arguments. I'm not going to give any of them a pass.

Going armed? Being armed doesn't make one the aggressor, that's ridiculous. And again, the police are also rounteinly armed at protests, and often better armed than most other people present.

Police have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence and tend to employ crowd dispersal weapons before reaching for guns or batons. Bringing a weapon that's function is to inflict severe bodily harm while not killing someone suggests that you might be engaging in violence deliberately.

Going armed with specific weapons? Well come on, if they took the barbed wire off the bat does that change who is the aggressor? That's just silly.

Yeah, nobody believes you're sincere about this. You're acting like an apologist for thugs.

I'm not inclined to trust the police.

Do you have examples of police abusing their power against members of Antifa by tracking down their families? Because I definitely trust the police to safeguard the public interest more than a group of random communists who have a history of violently assaulting people.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

They want antifa labelled domes? Only sneaky dems would want to hide such symbols of terrorism on buildings!

[Fahran]

Why is it difficult to characterize as so?

Do you have the right to hurt someone because they say something? Yes or no?

Define "terrorism".

The use of violence or the fear of violence by a non-state actor to achieve some political, economic, social, or religious end.

Again, the law is not always right.

In this case, the law is right. Unless the answer to the first question is that we can as individuals hurt people for saying things depending on what is said. But that argument rationalizes the Proud Boys just as easily, and society would be much more agreeable if violent thugs were in prison instead of given legitimacy.

Which is moving the goalposts of the argument. The point is, your daycare comparison is not applicable to reality, because "being a jerk" (which we can take to mean a multitude of things) in the world of adults is sometimes against the law. Thus, the "first lesson of daycare" isn't something that necessarily applies.

Saying things is not against the law in this context. You're allowed to advocate for racism, you're allowed to advocate for killing the rich, and you're allowed to advocate for all manner of horrible things in a liberal society. You're not allowed, of course, to do it on this site. The daycare argument is spot on. You and Iffy seem to believe that it's okay to hit people if they say the wrong thing. My question for y'all then is what gives you the right to hit people?

This goes back to what I've already said, so I refer it to my other response.

Then tell me. Where and how is the law wrong here? When is it okay to hit or hurt someone for something they said?

[Strahcoin]

What about the far right movements like the KKK and NSM?

They're alt-right, not right-wing. If they used unlawful violence/intimidation for political gains (which I know the KKK has), then they should also be classified as terrorists.

Fun fact: The KKK was founded by the Democrats.

Just a curious question, why did you censor the word FOX in Fox News?

I am wondering the same. Its the opposite from fair and balanced.

While Fox News does lean center-right, its news are more trustworthy than - oh, let's say - that of CNN. Fox News also draws a distinction between news and opinion.

[Strahcoin]

Why is it difficult to characterize as so?

Do you have the right to hurt someone because they say something? Yes or no?

Define "terrorism".

The use of violence or the fear of violence by a non-state actor to achieve some political, economic, social, or religious end.

Again, the law is not always right.

In this case, the law is right. Unless the answer to the first question is that we can as individuals hurt people for saying things depending on what is said. But that argument rationalizes the Proud Boys just as easily, and society would be much more agreeable if violent thugs were in prison instead of given legitimacy.

Which is moving the goalposts of the argument. The point is, your daycare comparison is not applicable to reality, because "being a jerk" (which we can take to mean a multitude of things) in the world of adults is sometimes against the law. Thus, the "first lesson of daycare" isn't something that necessarily applies.

Saying things is not against the law in this context. You're allowed to advocate for racism, you're allowed to advocate for killing the rich, and you're allowed to advocate for all manner of horrible things in a liberal society. You're not allowed, of course, to do it on this site. The daycare argument is spot on. You and Iffy seem to believe that it's okay to hit people if they say the wrong thing. My question for y'all then is what gives you the right to hit people?

This goes back to what I've already said, so I refer it to my other response.

Then tell me. Where and how is the law wrong here? When is it okay to hit or hurt someone for something they said?

Agreed (except I'm pretty advocating for "killing the rich" would count as incitement).

[Vassenor]

I like how folks are writing walls of text in here arguing if antifa are terrorists when antifa has no central command, funding or even members.

literally anyone can put on some black clothes and a mask and call themselves antifa, and they'd be antifa because it's not an organization.

That's what makes this a transparent attempt to outlaw protests against the government.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What about the far right movements like the KKK and NSM?

They're alt-right, not right-wing. If they used unlawful violence/intimidation for political gains (which I know the KKK has), then they should also be classified as terrorists.

Fun fact: The KKK was founded by the Democrats.

Yeah, back when the Democrats were the deeply conservative right wing party lol.

[Fahran]

I like how folks are writing walls of text in here arguing if antifa are terrorists when antifa has no central command, funding or even members.

literally anyone can put on some black clothes and a mask and call themselves antifa, and they'd be antifa because it's not an organization.

That's what makes this a transparent attempt to outlaw protests against the government.

Not really. You can still protest the Trump administration and call Trump mean names. You just can't hit people who like Trump. That's not really a radical demand.

[Vassenor]

That's what makes this a transparent attempt to outlaw protests against the government.

Not really. You can still protest the Trump administration and call Trump mean names. You just can't hit people who like Trump. That's not really a radical demand.

And those protests totally won't be declared Antifa actions to justify counter-terrorist responses.

[Bear Stearns]

I like how folks are writing walls of text in here arguing if antifa are terrorists when antifa has no central command, funding or even members.

literally anyone can put on some black clothes and a mask and call themselves antifa, and they'd be antifa because it's not an organization.

That's literally how many terrorist movements are structured lol.

Also, in different cities, there are actual local ANTIFA organizers, so there's that.

[Fahran]

I like how folks are writing walls of text in here arguing if antifa are terrorists when antifa has no central command, funding or even members.

You do not need a central command or large degree of funding to be a terrorist organization. Practically all ISIL attacks carried out in the West for instance have been carried out by lone wolves who sympathized with their ideology and who had minimal funding beyond their own personal finances. If you hurt people to accomplish a political goal and you're not a state actor, you're a terrorist. Simple as that.

literally anyone can put on some black clothes and a mask and call themselves antifa, and they'd be antifa because it's not an organization.

Antifa is an umbrella name used by multiple organizations that are usually locally organized. This idea that no organization occurs at all at any level is silly. We know for a fact that coordination and planning occurs - since older radicals have come out and stated that a lack of coordination and planning tends to end badly for Antifa brawlers.

[Fahran]

Not really. You can still protest the Trump administration and call Trump mean names. You just can't hit people who like Trump. That's not really a radical demand.

And those protests totally won't be declared Antifa actions to justify counter-terrorist responses.

Don't wear a mask, bring a weapon, and beat people, and it probably won't. The hysteria here is very insincere.

[Vassenor]

And those protests totally won't be declared Antifa actions to justify counter-terrorist responses.

Don't wear a mask, bring a weapon, and beat people, and it probably won't. The hysteria here is very insincere.

Don't wear a short skirt and don't walk dark streets alone and you probably won't be raped. The hysteria is very insincere.

[Bear Stearns]

Don't wear a mask, bring a weapon, and beat people, and it probably won't. The hysteria here is very insincere.

Don't wear a short skirt and don't walk dark streets alone and you probably won't be raped. The hysteria is very insincere.

It is illegal to wear clothes of known gang affiliation.

[Vassenor]

Don't wear a short skirt and don't walk dark streets alone and you probably won't be raped. The hysteria is very insincere.

It is illegal to wear clothes of known gang affiliation.

Under what statute?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Don't wear a mask, bring a weapon, and beat people, and it probably won't. The hysteria here is very insincere.

Don't wear a short skirt and don't walk dark streets alone and you probably won't be raped. The hysteria is very insincere.

You know those two things aren't even remotely comparable and even attempting to do so is really rather pathetic.

[Bear Stearns]

It is illegal to wear clothes of known gang affiliation.

Under what statute?

It's usually been covered by the RICO Act for higher profile cases, for smaller street gangs it's been governed by city ordinances and laws. Los Angeles has the most comprehensive I believe.

[Fahran]

Don't wear a short skirt and don't walk dark streets alone and you probably won't be raped. The hysteria is very insincere.

You know full well that's a false equivalence. And comparing Antifa brawlers who get arrested for assaulting people and vandalizing property to rape survivors is classless.