Nadler: Antifa violence is a myth

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct - It is not my place to officially ask, but I still think it would be a good idea.



Incorrect. As I noted....

Note, this was IN CONGRESS, and with the unanimous consent of the whole United States (such as it was then), after struggles had already taken place...

Your less than artful dodge is duly noted....

Those perceived grievances are what led to your declaration. Therefore those need to be considered in context. Otherwise you are attempting to put that proverbial wagon before the horse.

[Cow Poke]

Those perceived grievances are what led to your declaration. Therefore those need to be considered in context. Otherwise you are attempting to put that proverbial horse before the wagon.

And, the dodge continues --- what are the contemporary grievances? What is it these anarchists which to be redressed?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And, the dodge continues --- what are the contemporary grievances? What is it these anarchists which to be redressed?

From what I have read there are long-standing grievances about the treatment of ethnic minorities by various government agencies. You also need to define your term "anarchists" because clearly not all those protesting are anarchists, anymore than all those who held grievances against their British government in the 1760s and 1770s went out rioting, beating up and intimidating fellow citizens, and vandalising.

Edit. If you want a serious historical exchange terms need to be defined.

[Cow Poke]

From what I have read there are long-standing grievances about the treatment of ethnic minorities by various government agencies.

So, you should be able to articulate their grievances. I did with regards to the American Revolution.

You also need to define your term "anarchists" because clearly not all those protesting are anarchists, anymore than all those who held grievances against their British government in the 1760s and 1770s went out rioting, beating up and intimidating fellow citizens, and vandalising.

No, I don't need to define my term "anarchist", because it's well established what an anarchist is, and somebody who is trying to burn down buildings and destroy federal courthouses would easily fit into that definition.

I am WELL AWARE that there are "peaceful protests", but no legitimate peaceful protest is going to "peacefully protest" in a riot zone.

Edit. If you want a serious historical exchange terms need to be defined.

No, you just need to provide the list of grievances, and more than just "From what I have read".

[Sparko]

The assertion by Nadler was that Antifa violence in Portland was a myth, not that Antifa was never involved in any kind of violence.

JimL, CP was talking about the protests in PORTLAND. His orignal quote was:

"Demonstrators in Portland, including some who identify as antifa,"

And Nadler said that Antifa violence IN PORTLAND was a myth.

Then you had to stick your nose in and say:

"No, that wasn't the claim, CP, thats just the usual spin that you employ in your arguments in order to support your narrative."

And now after we pointed it out to you, you say the above, which basically agrees with what we said in the first place?

Go back to sleep.

[Cow Poke]

JimL, CP was talking about the protests in PORTLAND. His orignal quote was:

"Demonstrators in Portland, including some who identify as antifa,"

And Nadler said that Antifa violence IN PORTLAND was a myth.

Then you had to stick your nose in and say:

"No, that wasn't the claim, CP, thats just the usual spin that you employ in your arguments in order to support your narrative."

And now after we pointed it out to you, you say the above, which basically agrees with what we said in the first place?

Go back to sleep.

I think he's mad at me, so he frequently lashes out without thinking.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, I don't need to define my term "anarchist", because it's well established what an anarchist is, and somebody who is trying to burn down buildings and destroy federal courthouses would easily fit into that definition.

It therefore follows that the mobs that attacked British government buildings and the crowds of men and women who rioted, damaged property, and intimidated and injured customs officials as well as anyone they perceived was violating their boycotts on British goods were likewise "anarchists" [by your definition].

[Sparko]

It therefore follows that the mobs that attacked British government buildings and the crowds of men and women who rioted, damaged property, and intimidated and injured customs officials as well as anyone they perceived was violating their boycotts on British goods were likewise "anarchists" [by your definition].

They were rebels. They were at war and were treated as traitors by the British. Ultimately the British lost. Are you saying the US government should treat the protesters as enemy combatants and traitors? Should we dispatch the US Army to shoot them dead?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They were rebels.

Rebelling against their lawful government.

The only difference between the actions of American colonists that led to the declaration of independence and the British response, and today's protesters is that most Americans today see that eighteenth century rebellion as a justifiable means to an end and the result [i.e. the creation of the US] as a benefit.

Those same Americans today view the current protests with [at least judging by comments on these boards] the expression of opinions that would have been recognised and endorsed by the British in the 1770s.

[Cow Poke]

It therefore follows that the mobs that attacked British government buildings and the crowds of men and women who rioted, damaged property, and intimidated and injured customs officials as well as anyone they perceived was violating their boycotts on British goods were likewise "anarchists" [by your definition].

That's beautimous, but how bout the grievances?

The American Revolutions did a fantastic job spelling out their grievances.

Please provide such a document for the contemporary anti-American anarchists.

[Cow Poke]

Rebelling against their lawful government.

The only difference between the actions of American colonists that led to the declaration of independence and the British response, and today's protesters is that most Americans today see that eighteenth century rebellion as a justifiable means to an end and the result [i.e. the creation of the US] as a benefit.

No. These anarchists are not just "protesting" against "America", they are looting and burning and causing mayhem, and many of them don't even have a clue why they're doing it. Which, I suspect, is why you can't seem to articulate their grievances.

Those same Americans today view the current protests with [at least judging by comments on these boards] the expression of opinions that would have been recognised and endorsed by the British in the 1770s.

You're really working hard to avoid the question, H_A. The grievances?

[JimL]

JimL, CP was talking about the protests in PORTLAND. His orignal quote was:

"Demonstrators in Portland, including some who identify as antifa,"

And Nadler said that Antifa violence IN PORTLAND was a myth.

Then you had to stick your nose in and say:

"No, that wasn't the claim, CP, thats just the usual spin that you employ in your arguments in order to support your narrative."

And now after we pointed it out to you, you say the above, which basically agrees with what we said in the first place?

Go back to sleep.

No, the claim by Nadler in the OP was that Antifa rioting in Portland was a myth and CP's claim was then that Nadler asserted that the idea that Antifa was ever involved in riots was a myth. You see the spin. You did the same in the Title of the OP. So, I had to correct both him and you because you have a tendency to only see what you're looking for. Nadler in your OP was specifically refering to Antifa with respect to Portland.

Wake up.

[rogue06]

Rebelling against their lawful government.

The only difference between the actions of American colonists that led to the declaration of independence and the British response, and today's protesters is that most Americans today see that eighteenth century rebellion as a justifiable means to an end and the result [i.e. the creation of the US] as a benefit.

Those same Americans today view the current protests with [at least judging by comments on these boards] the expression of opinions that would have been recognised and endorsed by the British in the 1770s.

Why are you intentionally avoiding his question about whether or not they should be treated as rebels by the government since you keep insisting they are no different than the Founding Fathers?

[Ronson]

The only difference between the actions of American colonists that led to the declaration of independence and the British response, and today's protesters is that most Americans today see that eighteenth century rebellion as a justifiable means to an end and the result [i.e. the creation of the US] as a benefit.

The founders of this country had some brains; they knew what they wanted - and they (and their descendants) built the most powerful country in the world.

The rabble today can't formulate a single thought, much less get organized and build a country. So that's a huge difference.

[Cow Poke]

No, the claim by Nadler in the OP was that Antifa rioting in Portland was a myth and CP's claim was then that Nadler asserted that the idea that Antifa was ever involved in riots was a myth. You see the spin. You did the same in the Title of the OP. So, I had to correct both him and you because you have a tendency to only see what you're looking for. Nadler in your OP was specifically refering to Antifa with respect to Portland.

Wake up.

It would help a lot if you would use actual quotes, because, quite honestly, I don't trust a single thing you say.