Everything ANTIFA thread

[oldpink]

Oh well, yet another missed opportunity...

 

[T.Lex]

Real quick note on what makes anti-FA more like terrorists and less like the Minute Men/Founding Fathers: attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Generally, the Minute Men, while employing early forms of guerilla tactics, did so against military targets (or targets that were dual-use, such as grain stores and stables). The anti-FA appear to target police (which, I will concede could be considered paramilitary in this context), and civilians to accomplish political goals.

That's what makes at least some of them closer to terrorists.

 

[jamil]

Real quick note on what makes anti-FA more like terrorists and less like the Minute Men/Founding Fathers: attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Generally, the Minute Men, while employing early forms of guerilla tactics, did so against military targets (or targets that were dual-use, such as grain stores and stables). The anti-FA appear to target police (which, I will concede could be considered paramilitary in this context), and civilians to accomplish political goals.

That's what makes at least some of them closer to terrorists.

East India Company was a military target?

 

[T.Lex]

East India Company was a military target?

State owned. (Basically. Its shareholders were the monarchy and political insiders.)

Plus, they basically had private armies and legal autonomy in ways that we can't even really relate to.

And, really, even if we want to count that as an attack on non-military property, it was isolated and served no military benefit.

It would be comparable in the modern age (IMHO) to breaking the gates on BLM land and refusing to leave. Busts up the gates, but doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Bill of Rights]

State owned. (Basically. Its shareholders were the monarchy and political insiders.)

Plus, they basically had private armies and legal autonomy in ways that we can't even really relate to.

And, really, even if we want to count that as an attack on non-military property, it was isolated and served no military benefit.

It would be comparable in the modern age (IMHO) to breaking the gates on BLM land and refusing to leave. Busts up the gates, but doesn't hurt anyone.

Or the Federal Reserve.

 

[jamil]

State owned. (Basically. Its shareholders were the monarchy and political insiders.)

Plus, they basically had private armies and legal autonomy in ways that we can't even really relate to.

And, really, even if we want to count that as an attack on non-military property, it was isolated and served no military benefit.

It would be comparable in the modern age (IMHO) to breaking the gates on BLM land and refusing to leave. Busts up the gates, but doesn't hurt anyone.

So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.

 

[T.Lex]

So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.

Well, I think the case could be made that it was, but there's also room for reasonable people to disagree on that.

But, in the larger scheme, the Boston Tea Party was not designed to change political behavior through fear and intimidation. It struck fear in no one. It intimidated no one. It was a low-risk (relatively) display.

Now, the East India Company's response.... that could be argued to be terrorism, if you accept they were not a government actor. (Which, IMHO, would be a difficult case to make.)

 

[HoughMade]

Too in the weeds.

Antifa's goal is to create a place where no one can disagree with them publicly and where their own view of the world is enforced with violent consequences for resistance (ironically).

How does that compare to the founders?

 

[T.Lex]

Too in the weeds.

Antifa's goal is to create a place where no one can disagree with them publicly and where their own view of the world is enforced with violent consequences for resistance (ironically).

How does that compare to the founders?

The founders had better costumes.

 

[HoughMade]

The founders had better costumes.

I'm quite sure that there are Antifa members who don powdered wigs, stockings and knickers on a regular basis.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm quite sure that there are Antifa members who don powdered wigs, stockings and knickers on a regular basis.

Or Milo in a powdered wig.

 

[HoughMade]

Or Milo in a powdered wig.

Well that​ goes without saying.

 

[BugI02]

So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.

Well shucks. Here all this time I thought terrorism was done because there is never a shortage of people who enjoy hurting, maiming and killing others and who will latch onto any cause that gives them the freedom to indulge their proclivities

 

[T.Lex]

I'm quite sure that there are Antifa members who don powdered wigs, stockings and knickers on a regular basis.

Awkwardly for the modern era, I was thinking more along the lines of the Boston Tea Party....

 

[jamil]

Well, I think the case could be made that it was, but there's also room for reasonable people to disagree on that.

But, in the larger scheme, the Boston Tea Party was not designed to change political behavior through fear and intimidation. It struck fear in no one. It intimidated no one. It was a low-risk (relatively) display.

Now, the East India Company's response.... that could be argued to be terrorism, if you accept they were not a government actor. (Which, IMHO, would be a difficult case to make.)

The founders had better costumes.

I don't think that the founders were terrorists. I don't think that the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is semantically accurate. Terrorism is a specific tactic. Terrorists employ terrorism to accomplish their goals. If the founding fathers beheaded everyone who disagreed with them, I would not call them terrorists and not freedom fighters.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think that the founders were terrorists. I don't think that the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is semantically accurate. Terrorism is a specific tactic. Terrorists employ terrorism to accomplish their goals.

Oh I figured this was more of an intellectual exercise. There really isn't much (if any) daylight between our views.

 

[jamil]

I ain't got no time for intellect.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Too in the weeds.

Antifa's goal is to create a place where no one can disagree with them publicly and where their own view of the world is enforced with violent consequences for resistance (ironically).

How does that compare to the founders?

^^^Nailed it^^^

 

[IndyTom]

Not sure if this was one of the links in here or one I followed (dern rabbit holes), but around 18:30, they have to start a new chant so that they know how to walk (language at times, be mindful of volume if that is a concern):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WQS7_2J37Y (decided not to embed, just in case)

 

[AmmoManAaron]

OMG, Sylvain that is horrible. Had not heard of that before.

We had a whole thread on it, but a couple of the pictures were incorrectly attributed:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ay-day-paris-leftists-attacking-molotovs.html

In a better time, we used to stack communists like cordwood.

Exactly. Like I said in the linked thread, the only good commie is a dead commie. Americans have been righteously fighting and killing authoritarians of all stripes for over 200 years. Marxists, Leninists, National Socialists (Nazis), Fascists (actual fascists), Imperialists (British and Japanese), and most recently Islamo-fascists - the names and details change, but the basic thing being fought against remains the same. The sad thing is that while everyone was standing guard watching for Russians to parachute from the skies, and our soldiers were off fighting in foreign lands, the communists at home were running for office and becoming tenured professors. The fight against the commies isn't over and now they are openly operating inside the wire. It just took the shock of this past election to get them to come out and show their true colors (both figuratively and literally).