"Shameless": Antifa back in Atlanta with their "antics"

[bcsapper]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What is "far beyond the principle"? You mean different methods of "fighting"?

No, I mean taking action against people or property that were not directly involved in the specific thing they are protesting.

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Tactics of the far left. When they can't say anything about private property being destroyed or attacks on police, he resorts to gutter low level questions hoping to get a reaction.

Just another one ranting, I highly doubt the US soldiers in WW2 would put up with punks destroying private propery or challenging authority like a 2023 diverse police force. 

What a fanafic from Newsom's land.

There are other avenues than to be a ninja from Maine.

= )

--> As for the name being "anti-fascist" , Kim from North Korea calls himself a democrat but he is nothing off.

I highly EXPECT that US soldiers in WWII would APPLAUD the BOLDED done by the French Resistance because that's exactly the kind of thing they did to the Nazis occupying their country.

As for Kim, the difference is NK has NO DEMOCRACY, but there are a lot of people in the US pushing fascism. Like Trump's insurrection and those who STILL support it.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No, I mean taking action against people or property that were not directly involved in the specific thing they are protesting.

Or is involved in ways you don't understand or agree with.

[bcsapper]

Just now, robosmith said:

Or is involved in ways you don't understand or agree with.

What is there to understand about responding to one event with a violent reaction somewhere else?

[Hodad]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What is the point of your delusional ramblings now?

1) This is a riot in Atlanta afaik, not that big of a deal. 

2) If the MSM is reporting on it in a reasonable manner, good for them. Why should I care if they get one right? 

3) Maybe the MSM suddenly does care about violent riots... If so, then at least something good came from Jan 6th? Right?

If everyone is in agreement that "the riots in Atlanta are bad", that should be a god thing, no? Why are you trying to make this a wedge issue? Who's supposed to hate each other now?

If anyone is a hate cultist, it's you. 

Gee, if you'd read the OP from Sky News you wouldn't have to ask me stupid questions about who is trying to make this a wedge issue. It's right there in the OP. 

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What is there to understand about responding to one event with a violent reaction somewhere else?

You mean setting the cop car on fire during protests about the "one event"?

[bcsapper]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You mean setting the cop car on fire during protests about the "one event"?

I mean setting anything on fire.  Among other things.

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I mean setting anything on fire.  Among other things.

The violence was a DIRECT  RESPONSE to the "one event."

[bcsapper]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The violence was a DIRECT  RESPONSE to the "one event."

So what?  Genuine question.  I'm not being flippant. 

What right did anyone have to set fire to a police car, and surrounding businesses, in response to the "one event."?

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You sure are certain about your FANTASIES. LMAO

Lets just say...I'm fairly certain.

[Contrarian]

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So what?  Genuine question.  I'm not being flippant. 

What right did anyone have to set fire to a police car, and surrounding businesses, in response to the "one event."?

And destroying businesses which are minority owned, yet this group claims to be for racial justice.

I remember watching this video of a black American business owner, the man broke down, 2 or 3 years ago, his business was on fire, and he turned to the skinny punks there and said: "I worked my entire life, why did you do this to me?"

and who is doing it?

Angry people, punks which are not even members of that community.

Domestic terrorists from Maine and Michigan, who funded their trip?

A few of them got bail already.

Did the communist parents flew in to get them out?

Who learns this type of behaviour and travels with the intent to commit destruction?

Edited January 24 by Contrarian

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Yah, okii.

Do you know what I think? I think the left would not have as much extremist element if good men like you would stop beating around the bush and call them of whom they are. 

What kind of logic is this?  So if proud boys tomorrow disband and they get a few lawyers like you to say "we are not an organisation, but an idea," and then they select a random idea, like "cool men", if they show up, under no banner, to an event and start rioting, I am not allowed to call them of whom they are? Because is not academic? What?! 😃

And then, when they get arrested, lawyers like you can come on forums and say: "It was just an idea, those people that got arrested are not Proud Boys, cool men is just an idea". 

Do you know what I also think?

When someone like you looks at the below 2 sets of pictures, you will judge b) more harshly than a). 

Am I right or wrong? 

a) AntiFa Fanatics

b) Proud Boys Fanatics

---> Someone was asking me, how do you see yourself a centrist? Well I am not academic when it comes to words, I said this before, but let's start with something basic, I think a centrist should have zero tolerance towards thugs like Proud Boys / AntiFa and any ilk from left and right fringes. That is my position. 

And I would say...Right on.

[Contrarian]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

And I would say...Right on.

you have zero tolerance for the Proud Boys? Is that you? Nationalist? I need to put my glasses on.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

you have zero tolerance for the Proud Boys? Is that you? Nationalist? I need to put my glasses on.

I have zero tolerance for anyone who uses the right to protest, to generate a street fight. Which is why I think those who do go looking to abuse the right to protest, should be met with MORE than equal force and violence. Then...they should be caged.

[Contrarian]

12 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

And destroying businesses which are minority owned, yet this group claims to be for racial justice.

I remember watching this video of a black American business owner, the man broke down, 2 or 3 years ago, his business was on fire, and he turned to the skinny punks there and said: "I worked my entire life, why did you do this to me?"

and who is doing it?

Angry people, punks which are not even members of that community.

Domestic terrorists from Maine and Michigan, who funded their trip?

A few of them got bail already.

Did the communist parents flew in to get them out?

Who learns this type of behaviour and travels with the intent to commit destruction?

let me correct myself as I don't like propaganda.

I read that wrong. One of the hooligans from Maine was already on bail from the same charge, don't think they are out of bail today, so the communist parents line does not apply yet. 😀

Edited January 24 by Contrarian

[Rebound]

43 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So what?  Genuine question.  I'm not being flippant. 

What right did anyone have to set fire to a police car, and surrounding businesses, in response to the "one event."?

Nobody has a right to light a police car on fire. It is a criminal act. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Gee, if you'd read the OP from Sky News you wouldn't have to ask me stupid questions about who is trying to make this a wedge issue. It's right there in the OP. 

Sky News is pretty legit compared to anything we have in Canada.

If they said it then it's because that's what they witnessed.

Most likely what happened is some news outlets started covering these riots exactly the same way that they covered the riots in 2014, 2015, 2016, the first part of 2017, and the spring/summer months of 2020. 

Who could blame them? They just didn't get the memo.

If you managed to find some MSM news outlets that are covering them with actual journalistic integrity now, that doesn't mean that others weren't covering it the same way that WashPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, ABD, Global, CTV and CBC did over the past decade. Right?

 

 

Hodad: "CNN is covering the news accurately today! EVERYONE NOTICE!!! EVERYONE NOTICE!!! GIVE THEM RESPECT!!!"

Edited January 24 by WestCanMan

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

So what?  Genuine question.  I'm not being flippant. 

What right did anyone have to set fire to a police car, and surrounding businesses, in response to the "one event."?

If you see what you consider to be evil being perpetrated, you might feel it to be justified.

Wouldn't it have been great if someone posed STRONG OPPOSITION to Hitler before it was too late?

I didn't hear about any businesses being set on fire.

 

[WestCanMan]

If nothing else, when leftists are saying "Look, the MSM is reporting something with integrity now", it's an acknowledgement of several years worth of fake news. 

[bcsapper]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

If you see what you consider to be evil being perpetrated, you might feel it to be justified.

Wouldn't it have been great if someone posed STRONG OPPOSITION to Hitler before it was too late?

I didn't hear about any businesses being set on fire.

 

Yes, that could be true.  The article I read said:

A number of businesses were vandalized and a City of Atlanta Police Department Vehicle was set ablaze. 

I should have read more carefully.

However, I find your response disingenuous.  According to the news I read, (If I read it wrong I'm more than happy to be corrected) someone was shot dead after they had shot and wounded a police officer.  I don't see any opposition required to that specific act. 

I do note that it is difficult to find a left leaning news organisation that has given the riots any coverage. 

I did find an article in The Guardian that initially states that there was no evidence to support the claim that the shooting of the police officer was perpetrated by the activist who was shot:

Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday [see footnote].

but a footnote in the article states that:

This footnote was added on 24 January 2023. Between final editing and publication of this article, the GBI released information including a photograph of a handgun that the agency said was in Manuel Teran’s possession. The GBI also said forensic analysis had confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matched this handgun.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/21/protester-killed-georgia-cop-city-police-shooting

Where do you see Hitler in all this?

One of the criticisms often made of Antifa is that they are not so much anti fascist, as simply anti anyone who disagrees with them, and will employ the same tactics regardless.  If you see Hitler in a city building a police training facility in defiance of environmentalists who want the area to remain forested, it's not difficult to see how you arrive at your support for them.

Edited January 24 by bcsapper

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

I can't tell you what Trump "believed," only what he SAYS, 

I'll settle for that, for now. Show me exactly what you're talking about. 

Generally when somebody makes a radical claim like you did they offer a cite but I guess you were too busy patrolling looking for anybody not posting what you want to call "evidence."

[Hodad]

12 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Yah, okii.

Do you know what I think? I think the left would not have as much extremist element if good men like you would stop beating around the bush and call them of whom they are. 

What kind of logic is this?  So if proud boys tomorrow disband and they get a few lawyers like you to say "we are not an organisation, but an idea," and then they select a random idea, like "cool men", if they show up, under no banner, to an event and start rioting, I am not allowed to call them of whom they are? Because is not academic? What?! 😃

And then, when they get arrested, lawyers like you can come on forums and say: "It was just an idea, those people that got arrested are not Proud Boys, cool men is just an idea". 

Do you know what I also think?

When someone like you looks at the below 2 sets of pictures, you will judge b) more harshly than a). 

Am I right or wrong? 

a) AntiFa Fanatics

b) Proud Boys Fanatics

---> Someone was asking me, how do you see yourself a centrist? Well I am not academic when it comes to words, I said this before, but let's start with something basic, I think a centrist should have zero tolerance towards thugs like Proud Boys / AntiFa and any ilk from left and right fringes. That is my position. 

From your hypothetical about the disbanded Proud Boys --> "cool men" above, it implies that you think that Antifa is an organization but is pretending not to be an organization. That's the parallel you're making. I don't think that's the case. I think it's literally not an organization. Literally not "a thing." I don't think you could come up with a platform or shared set of beliefs even. 

Again, you're welcome to share that information if you have it, but AFAIK, it doesn't exist. 

Are hippies an organization? Well, no, but a lot of hippies showed up at the same types of protests as other hippies because a lot of them cared about the same types of issues. People self-identified as hippies. People were accused of being hippies. -- But nobody ever said, "Hey, I'm a member of the Hippies."

 

FWIW, the Proud Boys photos look too much like me to have any affection for them, lol. But I think the photos have- or should have -very little to do with how people react to or judge their actions. I think people are MUCH more likely to (A) condemn any violent protests, and (B) within that blanket condemnation to view the perpetrators more or less favorably based on their beliefs or motivations. 

For example, the Proud Boys are an extremist hate group, anti many things, but muslims, women and "commies" are certainly on the list. If they plan a violent protest I know it is an elective exercise in violence in support of vile goals.

Whereas when violence erupts at a BLM event I know it's likely not organized or coordinated and the protests are born of pain rather than hate.

Yes, legally violent actors from both groups should be prosecuted, but morally I don't think there is an equivalence. Fighting for white male dominance vs lashing out in pain against centuries of systemic oppression.  Both should face legal consequences, but only one will have my sympathy.

 

[Rebound]

This thread is stupid. 
One person in Atlanta did something very stupid. Assuming it’s true that he shot first, it is a good thing that he was the only casualty. We shall see what any investigations reveal.  

The right wing loves nothing more than creating mostly imaginary boogie men that we must fear. We must fear the communists! They’re everywhere! We must fear terrorists! We must fear Antifa! And on and on. Right wing leaders love to create fear and blame groups of people, and “only they” can save us from the evil they’ve created.  
 

One guy isn’t an Antifa.  It’s just another guy with a gun. And that’s a different problem, which the right wing refuses to address.  

[robosmith]

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I'll settle for that, for now. Show me exactly what you're talking about. 

Generally when somebody makes a radical claim like you did they offer a cite but I guess you were too busy patrolling looking for anybody not posting what you want to call "evidence."

Did you NOT hear about the call between Trump and McCarthy DURING THE CAPITOL ATTACK?

I'd thought it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE since it's been REPEATED MANY TIMES.

Quote

In an audio clip, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) described McCarthy talking about calling the White House and getting through to Trump. 

“He said, ‘You have got to get on TV. You’ve got to get on Twitter. You’ve got to call these people off.’” Herrera Beutler said. “You know what the president said to him? This is as it’s happening. He said, ‘Well, Kevin, these aren’t my people. These are, these are antifa.’” 

McCarthy responded that they were Trump’s people, and that his staff was running for cover, Herrera Beutler said.

“And the president’s response to Kevin, to me, was chilling. He said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess they’re more upset about the election theft than you are,’” Herrera Beutler. 

The two then got in a swearing match, she said.

That SWORN TESTIMONY IS ALSO in the the Jan 6th Committee Final Report which you would know if you read it.

Maybe you should actually read it BEFORE ACCUSING ME of not posting EVIDENCE. Duh.

 

[Contrarian]

Some other video from the riot: 

Edited January 24 by Contrarian