Crime Antifa gets cancelled

[Streeter]

Antifa serves to lessen the word fascist.

Also true

 

[Fluffernutter]

Is it funded?

Is there a paper trail?

 

[MacGregor]

Even Macron isn't 'far left' enough for antifa.

 

[avenue94]

If there is no right to violence then why support a organization that their mission is violence on people that they disagree with.

They show up prepared and ready to do just that.

I would think terrorist would fit any organization that does that no matter their political leaning.

Because that is protected by the 1st Amendment in about 80% of the instances.

And the terrorism definition could, but you kind of need a clearly defined organization to do that. One which doesn't exist here.

They can be, and their actions. Is the 14 year throwing a Molotov cocktail at someone during a protest? Then yea, he's a terrorist.

Lol at twisting your original argument from "we can identify Antifa by their logo" to now "we need a logo and to see someone throwing a Molotov."

Is that you admitting you that the former plainly isn't enough to categorize someone as a member of a terror group?

You, on the other hand, are arguing that they simply cannot be identified, it's just way too difficult and so nothing should be done.

To be exact, I'm arguing that the definition is too vague to withstand basic constitutional scrutiny. Are you familiar with the constitution and its legal breadth? I wasn't sure since you plainly aren't American.

But that's because it's politically expedient for you to defend them you commie chode.

I'd feel the same way if someone argued that we can designate "Christian nationalists" or "Hindu extremists" or "Muslim extremists" as terrorist groups.

Ah yes, call an American who is probably more in favor of the free market than you a "commie" because you're grasping at straws to string together a coherent argument. Classic.

 

[oldshadow]

Because that is protected by the 1st Amendment in about 80% of the instances.

And the terrorism definition could, but you kind of need a clearly defined organization to do that. One which doesn't exist here.

Lol at twisting your original argument from "we can identify Antifa by their logo" to now "we need a logo and to see someone throwing a Molotov."

Is that you admitting you that the former plainly isn't enough to categorize someone as a member of a terror group?

To be exact, I'm arguing that the definition is too vague to withstand basic constitutional scrutiny. Are you familiar with the constitution and its legal breadth? I wasn't sure since you plainly aren't American.

I'd feel the same way if someone argued that we can designate "Christian nationalists" or "Hindu extremists" or "Muslim extremists" as terrorist groups.

Ah yes, call an American who is probably more in favor of the free market than you a "commie" because you're grasping at straws to string together a coherent argument. Classic.

Violence is not protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[avenue94]

LOL the desperation after getting besmirched like that.

Here's your original argument, where you claim we designate any group promoting white supremacy as terrorists.

SMH, the goal of Christianity is not to actively sow chaos and sow disorder. Conversely, that's specifically what Antifa exists to do. It's their unifying ethos.

White supremacism is an ideology, and we actively designate any groups that adhere to it as terrorists. If they joined a Facebook group titled "White Supremacism", organizing protests from bases like that, and went out with patches that said "White Supremacism" on them, before committing crimes (including battery) and deliberately causing public disorder, or worse, inspired someone to assassinate a major political figure, we wouldn't care if it was a "decentralized network", we would designate it a terrorist group like others that adhere to that ideology, and you would have no issue with it.

Here's the actual example you cited.

"The group promotes violent white supremacism, solicits attacks on perceived adversaries, and provides guidance and instructional materials on tactics, methods, and targets for attacks, including on critical infrastructure and government officials. The group also glorifies those who have conducted such attacks."

Note it was designated for violence, not for white supremacy, as your original claim. If white supremacy alone was enough, Facebook would have purged all the dumbass white supremacy groups that inhabit its platform already.

Do you basic English?

 

[avenue94]

Violence is not protected by the 1st amendment.

Again, what kind of lame strawman is this? I've never argued that, I've been very clear however that most calls to violence are actually protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[avenue94]

Do you think it really matters? Like somebody who pledges allegiance to ISIS, can only be investigated if it's proven they have had contact with the leadership of the group? If they commit violence, are they only gonna be charged with terrorism if they find their ISIS membership card?

It does, that's how ISIS was deemed a terror group, a clear organizational structure that could be investigated and tracked down.

 

[avenue94]

If you organize people together with common cause or purpose then you have become an organization. You have a shared logo, you have branded social media accounts or chat rooms, you have merch... you are a group/organization.

So are the random fans of American football teams an organization then? They meet all the criteria you mentioned.

 

[avenue94]

Even Macron isn't 'far left' enough for antifa.

Macron has been a right-leaning centrist most of his career lol.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Because that is protected by the 1st Amendment in about 80% of the instances.

And the terrorism definition could, but you kind of need a clearly defined organization to do that. One which doesn't exist here.

Lol at twisting your original argument from "we can identify Antifa by their logo" to now "we need a logo and to see someone throwing a Molotov."

Is that you admitting you that the former plainly isn't enough to categorize someone as a member of a terror group?

To be exact, I'm arguing that the definition is too vague to withstand basic constitutional scrutiny. Are you familiar with the constitution and its legal breadth? I wasn't sure since you plainly aren't American.

I'd feel the same way if someone argued that we can designate "Christian nationalists" or "Hindu extremists" or "Muslim extremists" as terrorist groups.

Ah yes, call an American who is probably more in favor of the free market than you a "commie" because you're grasping at straws to string together a coherent argument. Classic.

Took you three days to respond to something reducible to "use some common sense?"

It's simple, see those people wearing black masks causing destruction and that are politically motivated? They are terrorists, treat them as such. This isn't Rocket science.

You're muddying the water to make it seem deeper than it really is because you are sympathetic to their cause.......and because you're dumb.

 

[oldshadow]

Again, what kind of lame strawman is this? I've never argued that, I've been very clear however that most calls to violence are actually protected by the 1st Amendment.

No they are not if it meets the "calls to mminent lawless action" and antifa meets that all the time. Then goes and carries ot out. Their "thing" is violent actions to stop speech they don't like.

 

[avenue94]

Took you three days to respond to something reducible to "use some common sense?"

I was on a work trip, sue me.

It's simple, see those people wearing black masks causing destruction and that are politically motivated? They are terrorists, treat them as such. This isn't Rocket science.

So now it's wearing a black mask and causing destruction is enough to be designated a terror group? Good luck with that not getting laughed out of court once shit hits the fan. Speaking of, can you point to me what law gives the US government the ability to designate a domestic terror group?

You're muddying the water to make it seem deeper than it really is because you are sympathetic to their cause.......and because you're dumb.

What cause do you think I'm sympathetic to? Feel free to also explain how I'm a commie too, while you're at it, I'm quite happy to share my economic views.

 

[avenue94]

No they are not if it meets the "calls to mminent lawless action" and antifa meets that all the time. Then goes and carries ot out. Their "thing" is violent actions to stop speech they don't like.

Most of Antifa's rhetoric wouldn't, at least if all these claims about how big and vast folks like you claim Antifa is. The government would have to prove a direct link between every act of violence and the specific Antifa message (rhetoric alone isn't enough) to surmount the Brandenburg test.

On that topic, what law do you propose using the designate Antifa a terror group? Since you seem convinced it's legal to do so.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I was on a work trip, sue me.

So now it's wearing a black mask and causing destruction is enough to be designated a terror group? Good luck with that not getting laughed out of court once shit hits the fan. Speaking of, can you point to me what law gives the US government the ability to designate a domestic terror group?

What cause do you think I'm sympathetic to? Feel free to also explain how I'm a commie too, while you're at it, I'm quite happy to share my economic views.

Yea? You travel to a different intersection for your squeegee op?

Please stop attempting to reinterpret my position, it's simple. These people assemble, they do organize despite escaping easy classification as a legitimate organization, and they cause property destruction/ political violence. They are terrorists, period.

I don't particularly care what legal pitfalls or obstacles this will encounter, if they've been branded terrorists, then good.

What's the issue you're having with this?

 

[avenue94]

Yea? You travel to a different intersection for your squeegee op?

The PNW is actually quite nice this time of year, you should check it out if you can get a US visa approved.

Please stop attempting to reinterpret my position, it's simple. These people assemble, they do organize despite escaping easy classification as a legitimate organization, and they cause property destruction/ political violence. They are terrorists, period.

Still not enough. Your catchall here describes every American city when they win a championship and riot. Are those folks terrorists too?

I don't particularly care what legal pitfalls or obstacles this will encounter, if they've been branded terrorists, then good.

Yeah, because you aren't American you don't give a shit about its constitutional order and civil rights. Shocking.

Again, how does one go about designating a domestic terror group in the US?

What's the issue you're having with this?

It's unconstitutionally broad and violates a couple of my favorite amendments. Not to mention it's wasting time and energy on frivolous court cases that are almost assured to end in losses for the government.

Not to mention you're proposing a US president rule by dictates since, spoiler, your dumb ass doesn't realize there's no law to designate Antifa a domestic terror group.

 

[SurferH2O]

Fuck Antifa.

On the same day they showed up in Long Beach, Santa Ana, and Santa Monica and trashed the towns and their citizens, I fortunately live in Huntington Beach, and on that same day when they showed up on PCH and Main they got the living shit beat out of them and run off into the sand. Our town did not get trashed. Only when men stand up to these cowards will they stop vandalizing and hurting innocents.

 

[oldshadow]

Most of Antifa's rhetoric wouldn't, at least if all these claims about how big and vast folks like you claim Antifa is. The government would have to prove a direct link between every act of violence and the specific Antifa message (rhetoric alone isn't enough) to surmount the Brandenburg test.

On that topic, what law do you propose using the designate Antifa a terror group? Since you seem convinced it's legal to do so.

Their violence and its obvious goals make them. The same as the KKK.

If the democrats dont believe its legal to classify them as terrorists then by all means they should fight this in court.

 

[avenue94]

Their violence and its obvious goals make them. The same as the KKK.

The KKK isn't a domestic terror group, and it also differs by having a clear structure, organization, and membership.

Want to try again?

If the democrats dont believe its legal to classify them as terrorists then by all means they should fight this in court.

Once again, what law do you think Trump is using to designate Antifa a terror group?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

The PNW is actually quite nice this time of year, you should check it out if you can get a US visa approved.

Still not enough. Your catchall here describes every American city when they win a championship and riot. Are those folks terrorists too?

Yeah, because you aren't American you don't give a shit about its constitutional order and civil rights. Shocking.

Again, how does one go about designating a domestic terror group in the US?

It's unconstitutionally broad and violates a couple of my favorite amendments. Not to mention it's wasting time and energy on frivolous court cases that are almost assured to end in losses for the government.

Not to mention you're proposing a US president rule by dictates since, spoiler, your dumb ass doesn't realize there's no law to designate Antifa a domestic terror group.

You're hung up on this idea that I care whether or not there is a law to designate these people domestic terrorists, counter spoiler, I dont. It's like you took a few days to figure it out and had this eureka moment of "There is no law! That's my comeback!"

I've repeatedly said, they organize,cause destruction, politically motivated violence (not equivalent to your sports team losing) rally around an ideology with insignia to boot, that's good enough to me and most people with common sense. How do they designate domestic terrorists? Do you're own homework geek.

Until then, your entire presence masquerading as the defender of constitutional rights is really just thinly veiled defense for people who routinely set fire to your country the moment people disagree with them.

Spare us your moral grandstanding.