Antifa

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by OUBubba, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  2. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

  3. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Politico reporting DHS and FBI has considered ANTIFA domestic terrorists since 2016.

    Their 2016 assessment clearly painted ANTIFA every bit as vile and dangerous as the neo-nazis and the like and warned of coming trouble.

    Then again, the number of ANTIFA violent mob attacks this year has been ten times more frequent than that of the far-right racist scumbags.

    Now that the Charlottesville dust has settled, DT's supposedly appalling comments were 100% accurate by placing blame on both sides.

    FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

    Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.

    Since well before the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, DHS has been issuing warnings about the growing likelihood of lethal violence between the left-wing anarchists and right-wing white supremacist and nationalist groups.

    Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
    Clean likes this.
  4. I35

    I35 2,500+ Posts

    Now the Dem party is trying to push away from them. It's like feeding a stray dog and expecting him to leave after he has eaten. You own it now Libs, you fed them, they're a part of your party now.
     
  5. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    So does Cohn, Romney, and the other establishment hacks who defended them as freedom defending Americans. :puke:

    It's disgusting how often in the days of Trump Derangement Syndrome the man is bashed for a non-PC, honest, accurate assessment.

    Then the persecutors don't say a peep or suffer an ounce of consequences after their nasty bout of contempt is proven horribly wrong and misplaced.

    It's our job to never forget and deliver the consequences at the polls.
     
    mchammer likes this.
  6. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    My daughter's twitter header says "punch Nazi's". Is she a member of antifa?
     
  7. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    Yes. Even Nazis have constitutional rights. She can move to a less free country if she doesn't like it.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    No, but she's promoting violence against people on the basis of their political beliefs. Accordingly, she's no better than Antifa or Nazis. Furthermore, she'll have no right to complain if someone one day punches her for her political beliefs.
     
  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  10. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    So the nazis were responsible for over 5,000,000 deaths. If they rear their head in the US they should be treated as such. I don't get it.
     
  11. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    I've posted some material from Dr. King. I think the way you judge peoples actions are by their actions. Wow. That was deep. What I mean is this: Dr. King had no problem breaking unjust laws such as being forced to sit on the back of the bus or being unable to eat at a "white's only" restaurant. So he would focus on breaking those laws. But the law against property damage is not an unjust law. The law against assaulting someone is not an unjust law. There may be a grey area in there somewhere but if you go beyond Constitutionally protected peaceable assembly, the it's pretty clear to me. You can't hide behind some judge, jury and executioner power that you have bestowed upon yourself to justify breaking just laws. It's that simple.

    It's like the laws against personal assault. Say someone gropes your wife and you confront them. If your wife is no longer being groped or in danger you are not allowed to assault the guy even if everyone including the cops believes he had it coming. That becomes a crime at that point. It's the same with Antifa. They can't immunize themselves in order to break just laws.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
    Sangre Naranjada and mchammer like this.
  12. Garmel

    Garmel 1,000+ Posts

    Using that logic I should be able to punch out Communists here in America because they're responsible for well over 10x the amount of deaths than what the nazis committed.
     
  13. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    Yes. Stalin was a mass murderer. What about Mao?

    To me the Nazi's were gangsters driven by nationalism. Stalin was a despot. So was Mao. Ultimately, centralized power ALWAYS results in civil rights violations or worse; much worse. I'm still surprised how much the Left trusts centralized power but then again there are people in our history who needed that central power to protect their Constitutional rights. Blacks appear to trust the Federal Government much more than state or local law. They needed that power advocating on their behalf because of the Bull Connors of the world.

    But to assume that absolute power will always benefit you is naive at best.
     
    Sangre Naranjada and Mr. Deez like this.
  14. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    Applicable to any past dispute where there was violence. This is why the law exists - if not then the law of "might makes right" takes over.
     
    Garmel and bystander like this.
  15. Garmel

    Garmel 1,000+ Posts

    Exactly
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Barry, what don't you get? Hitler, Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, and their people are dead (by suicide or execution). They are the ones responsible for millions of deaths (far more than 5 million). Presumably your daughter isn't talking about trying to reconstitute their ashes and punching them. I assume that she's talking about punching people who are living today and had no more to do with those deaths than Antifa had to do with Stalin's victims.

    I'm sure you're smart enough (despite the Switzer fetish) to see that condoning political violence is dangerous and wholly inconsistent with a free society. If you truly disagree, then who decides when violence is ok and upon what criteria? How far should we be allowed to go? Are only minor assaults ok, or can we inflict death or serious bodily injury? Don't you see how this can go horribly wrong?
     
    bystander, Htown77, ShAArk92 and 6 others like this.
  17. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    Suppose I don't like your daughter's politics. Can I wake up one morning and decide I want to target and punch her? Would you be OK with that?
     
    ShAArk92 and mb227 like this.
  18. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    No. The first amendment applies. Free speech. The problem is the extremists on the Left like to stretch the exceptions; inciting a riot comes to mind but a street mob using force because they claim someone incited a riot (ironic; the one's claiming a riot is being incited are rioting) is vigilantism unless there is clear proof they were attacked and even so, it doesn't mean everyone in the "attacked" mob has the right to assault someone. That is taking the law into your hands unless you can prove you were defending someone who was actively being attacked. But you see the complication and like others have asked; who decides what is ok and prudent? Well we know for a fact that power groups cannot be trusted with the truth or that kind of street discretion.
     
  19. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    The movie The American President, while entertaining, comes from a very sanctimonious Liberal point of view (20% reduction in fossil fuels; "I'm gonna get the guns"). But it's very telling that they would have Michael Douglas make a speech about what it means to live in America. A key excerpt below:

    "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."

    Are we seeing that today?
     
    Hollandtx likes this.
  20. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I guess the bigger question is why are we (you, me, et al.) allowing anyone to praise any nazi symbolism. Richard Spencer and his crew were doing the nazi salute in DC with no repercussions. Trump was accepting white supremacists support and acting like he didn't know who David Duke was and not disavowing this support. If we (you, me, et al) don't stand up to this fascism it will flourish.
     
  21. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    First Amendment. These nut jobs can display their Nazi symbols if the assemble peacefully, which seems to be the case until antifa shows up. You get it? I don't like your dumb *** picture of that ******* Switzer that you display on a LONGHORN message board, but it doesn't mean people on here are saying you have to take it down. Get it?
     
    ShAArk92, mb227, Garmel and 1 other person like this.
  22. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    I hate the F'n Nazi's. I've watched those Holocaust documentaries until I was sick to my stomach. But when you say "let them" what does that mean? Is it against the law? Certainly Trump should have said something like this:

    "Let me explain something to everyone before we discuss the opposing forces that are clashing in America. The Nazi's are in a class by themselves. They were vile, heinous, evil human beings who should have been burned alive. As harsh as that may sound it is only to remind you of the horrors they inflicted upon MILLIONS of innocent people during WWII. And ANYONE today who speaks in their name and marches under that banner is either mentally ill or an evil person. There is no doubt about this in my mind. The only benefit of the doubt anyone could give them is that they are idiots who have no idea what they have embraced. I mean what else could it be other than the idea that they are in fact true Nazi's. And if they are then they are a terrorist group and I will pursue a formal declaration OF THAT FACT."
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
  23. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    White nazi supremacists make up, what, 1% of the US population and that is what liberals fear the most. I hear no such consternation with respect to Islamic terrorists, a worldwide threat. This nazi BS is just another manufactured way to undermine Trump. It wouldn't matter what he said against those nut jobs, it would never be enough.
     
  24. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Agree 100%.
     
    bystander likes this.
  25. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Who's been responsible for more terror attacks in the USA over the last decade, Islamic terrorists or white nationalists? Hell, they caught a guy just last month trying to do ANOTHER OKC bombing. The first one killed 168. And, if you've never been to the memorial I would recommend it.
     
  26. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    Don't know and don't care. That isn't the point. You said we should not let nazis display a symbol. That is against what liberals claim to embrace: freedom of speech and expression. Only when it conforms to liberal point of view I guess.

    I guess Trump is a nazi because ehe dint denounce them to lib satisfaction. The same standard never applied to libs when Obama refused to even say the words Islamic terrorism. I guess that makes him an Islamic terrorist.
     
    ShAArk92 likes this.
  27. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    It should be so that they are treated like a pariah and are driven into obscurity. The problem is that they're hiding those views from the main stream and now they call themselves "nationalists" or patriots who go by a number of names and subgroups but they all swim in the same, hateful pool.
     
  28. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    Agree. They should be driven into obscurity. How about the black panthers and black lives matter? They should be too. They are not originations that want racial harmony. They use violence. Why aren't liberals calling for their drive to obscurity?
     
    ShAArk92 likes this.
  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Maybe I'm not a liberal?

    Much like Trump shouldn't be saying the names of Mexican gangs as he does (it gives them power in their communities - and he's been told this), saying the words "radical islamic terror" has a net negative impact as it eats away at moderate islam who is the group that will have to rise to actually blunt the growth of islamic terror. Using the words has no value except to viewers of fauxnews.
     
  30. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    Hmmm, maybe you aren't really a Sooner fan either, but I doubt it.
     
    Garmel and ShAArk92 like this.

Share This Page