quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Thanks for fixing it Bama

OK, here it is http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/anarchists_assault_5_at_san_fr.html

The interesting thing is that here, they are referred to as Anarchists, not AntiFA.

Yours was the only one I had seen calling them antiFA which may or may not be correct.

We must realize that AntiFA has a long history and it is not necessarily peaceful. They arose in Europe as a counterpoint to Naziism and they have risen and fallen as a counterpoint to neo-Nazis.
They fought as part of the Underground during WWII and were necessarily not peaceful then as well.

Because when fighting Nazis, perhaps peace isn't the way to go.

Is the US at fault for not being peaceful in World War II?

They are as bad as the Nazis. This attack wasn't against Nazis just people they disagreed with.
Like you everyone they disagree with is a Nazi. Sounds like the way Nazis think.

If you're just going to make up my thoughts for me, have this discussion in your head instead of publicly.

It is a shame you took that personally, I didn't say you think like the Nazis, I say antifa did, you aren't a spokesman for antifa are you.

If you're replying to me, and you use the word "you," it's not surprising to figure you're talking to me.

It's a shame you chose to be snotty about it besides.

I don't think Antifa thinks like Nazis either. I think their motivation is entirely different. One is attacking people who didn't attack; the other sees itself as defending against an active evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If you're replying to me, and you use the word "you," it's not surprising to figure you're talking to me.

It's a shame you chose to be snotty about it besides.

I don't think Antifa thinks like Nazis either. I think their motivation is entirely different. One is attacking people who didn't attack; the other sees itself as defending against an active evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
I forgot to add earlier that they arose in the mid 1930's. A very old group. It's strange that all of a sudden we have few people apoplectic over them like they're brand new or something. isn't it ironic that the same group that fought alongside our grandfathers to rid the world of a great evil is now called 'leftist' by certain people for basically fighting the same thing?

quote:

What does the movement want?

The primary goal is to stop neo-Nazis and white supremacists from gaining a platform rather than to promote a specific antifa agenda. The antifa groups are decidedly anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-homophobia, but also by and large socially leftist and anti-capitalist.
...
Is antifa violent?

Members pointedly do not eschew violence but rather see themselves as engaging in "self-defense," protecting other protesters and primarily confronting neo-Nazis and white supremacists to deny them a platform to publicly spread their views.

"We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy,” Rose City Antifa’s Facebook page reads. “Anti-fascism is, by nature, a form of self-defense: the goal of fascism is to exterminate the vast majority of human beings.”

quote:

Bray says the rise of fascism in the 1930s demonstrates that it was a mistake to allow such groups to air their views in hopes that public opinion would blunt their growth. "We should be wary of those who are more distressed about alleged violations of the speech of fascists than the actual violence they perpetrate," he says.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
From the L.A. Times...hopefully I can get the link to appear right. Sounds like it was pretty chaotic and the violence is absolutely unacceptable. The Bay Area has been fired up recently. I know there were protests yesterday further in towards Frisco I believe from what I gathered.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-protests-20170827-story,amp.html

They attack these groups, and then we are supposed to feel sorry for them when someone gets angry and fights back then one of them gets hurt or killed
They use bats and poles with nails in them. They launch balloons with urine and feces and acid and other noxious agents at not only peaceful demonstrators but also at the police
They put explosive devices in wine bottles and throw them into crowds, pelting demonstrators with explosions of glass shards
They should be designated a terrorist organization and locked up for conspiring to violation civil rights

Please note that I read the article before I posted, so I know its being reported that the Antifa/anarchists (article used both terms) were attacking Trump supporters. And I said that the violence is unacceptable because it absolutely is unacceptable in my humble opinion. I said nothing about feeling sorry for them. I dont. They were flat out abso-fucking-lutely WRONG!
Im speaking of Berkeley only. No other city or violent incident. Just Berkeley
As for the terrorist designation, I dont know which department would determine that....but this group as a whole should be investigated for sure. I imagine it would be similar to perhaps investigating eco-terrorist groups maybe. If they can figure out the names of the players to begin investigating, by all means Im totally for it. Im assuming the FBI does this?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Thanks for fixing it Bama

OK, here it is http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/anarchists_assault_5_at_san_fr.html

The interesting thing is that here, they are referred to as Anarchists, not AntiFA.

Yours was the only one I had seen calling them antiFA which may or may not be correct.

We must realize that AntiFA has a long history and it is not necessarily peaceful. They arose in Europe as a counterpoint to Naziism and they have risen and fallen as a counterpoint to neo-Nazis.
They fought as part of the Underground during WWII and were necessarily not peaceful then as well.

Because when fighting Nazis, perhaps peace isn't the way to go.

Is the US at fault for not being peaceful in World War II?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
The Justice department recently pulled a search warrant for the server that hosts the Antifa group. It's estimated they'll get a list of 1.3 million users that went to the site including names, addresses and other personal information. That's a tad scary to me. I'm sure a lot of people that went to the site were just curious and are now on the DOJ list. I do hope they have methodology for winnowing the curious from the activists.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


You are correct, I was not posting in opposition to Danemora

However, I am dead serious about listing antifa as a terrorist organization (right along with the KKK)

From Wikipedia:

Second Enforcement Act of 1871

The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, or Third Ku Klux Klan Act, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacy organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

This legislation was asked for by President Grant and passed within one month of the president's request for it to Congress. Grant's request was a result of the reports he was receiving of widespread racial threats in the Deep South, particularly in South Carolina. He felt that he needed to have his authority broadened before he could effectively intervene. After the act's passage, the president had the power for the first time to both suppress state disorders on his own initiative and to suspend the right of habeas corpus. Grant did not hesitate to use this authority on numerous occasions during his presidency, and as a result the first era KKK was completely dismantled and did not resurface in any meaningful way until the first part of the 20th century.[1] Several of its provisions still exist today as codified statutes. The most important of these is 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
From the L.A. Times...hopefully I can get the link to appear right. Sounds like it was pretty chaotic and the violence is absolutely unacceptable. The Bay Area has been fired up recently. I know there were protests yesterday further in towards Frisco I believe from what I gathered.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-protests-20170827-story,amp.html

They attack these groups, and then we are supposed to feel sorry for them when someone gets angry and fights back then one of them gets hurt or killed
They use bats and poles with nails in them. They launch balloons with urine and feces and acid and other noxious agents at not only peaceful demonstrators but also at the police
They put explosive devices in wine bottles and throw them into crowds, pelting demonstrators with explosions of glass shards
They should be designated a terrorist organization and locked up for conspiring to violation civil rights

Please note that I read the article before I posted, so I know its being reported that the Antifa/anarchists (article used both terms) were attacking Trump supporters. And I said that the violence is unacceptable because it absolutely is unacceptable in my humble opinion. I said nothing about feeling sorry for them. I dont. They were flat out abso-fucking-lutely WRONG!
Im speaking of Berkeley only. No other city or violent incident. Just Berkeley
As for the terrorist designation, I dont know which department would determine that....but this group as a whole should be investigated for sure. I imagine it would be similar to perhaps investigating eco-terrorist groups maybe. If they can figure out the names of the players to begin investigating, by all means Im totally for it. Im assuming the FBI does this?

I don't think Bosco replied to your post in opposition to you. I think he did so to add to what you had posted.

At a distance, I don't know that either group qualifies for a terror designation. That seems a bit far fetched, and likely is called on more for dramatic impact that it being factual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Thanks for fixing it Bama

OK, here it is http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/anarchists_assault_5_at_san_fr.html

The interesting thing is that here, they are referred to as Anarchists, not AntiFA.

Yours was the only one I had seen calling them antiFA which may or may not be correct.

We must realize that AntiFA has a long history and it is not necessarily peaceful. They arose in Europe as a counterpoint to Naziism and they have risen and fallen as a counterpoint to neo-Nazis.
They fought as part of the Underground during WWII and were necessarily not peaceful then as well.

Because when fighting Nazis, perhaps peace isn't the way to go.

Is the US at fault for not being peaceful in World War II?

They are as bad as the Nazis. This attack wasn't against Nazis just people they disagreed with.
Like you everyone they disagree with is a Nazi. Sounds like the way Nazis think.

If you're just going to make up my thoughts for me, have this discussion in your head instead of publicly.

It is a shame you took that personally, I didn't say you think like the Nazis, I say antifa did, you aren't a spokesman for antifa are you.

If you're replying to me, and you use the word "you," it's not surprising to figure you're talking to me.

It's a shame you chose to be snotty about it besides.

I don't think Antifa thinks like Nazis either. I think their motivation is entirely different. One is attacking people who didn't attack; the other sees itself as defending against an active evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
One is attacking people who don't attack; the other is attacking people exercising the right of controversial free speech.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
One is attacking people who don't attack; the other is attacking people exercising the right of controversial free speech.

Did the white supremacist groups attack first in Charlottesville? I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've seen claims both ways, making it all the more difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
One is attacking people who don't attack; the other is attacking people exercising the right of controversial free speech.

Did the white supremacist groups attack first in Charlottesville? I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've seen claims both ways, making it all the more difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
One is attacking people who don't attack; the other is attacking people exercising the right of controversial free speech.

Did the white supremacist groups attack first in Charlottesville? I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've seen claims both ways, making it all the more difficult.

quote:

Did the white supremacist groups attack first in Charlottesville?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
One is attacking people who don't attack; the other is attacking people exercising the right of controversial free speech.

Did the white supremacist groups attack first in Charlottesville? I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've seen claims both ways, making it all the more difficult.

The rightest scheduled their rally, then the leftist showed up to break up the rally. Intifa and company were there to create violence
as MM said when they are opposing the Klan it is ok to commit violence. I will repeat that both are scum.

quote:

I will repeat that both are scum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I will repeat that both are scum.

And yet you continue to make excuses for only one of the two scums. I guess that makes you a scum sucker.