Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Police allowed protesters to do their thing outside a courthouse until almost 1 am. People started to vandalize the building and police asked them to move on. The vast majority did but those who remained started to throw bottles and stones

Police then took charge of the situation

And attacking non violent protesters simply isn't justifiable. They did attack protesters who weren't being violent. You just seem intent on dodging the fact. You've got the mom shot in the face, the guy with the boom box requiring facial reconstructive surgery. The police have done a fine job of destroying their reputation even further.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And attacking non violent protesters simply isn't justifiable. They did attack protesters who weren't being violent. You just seem intent on dodging the fact. You've got the mom shot in the face, the guy with the boom box requiring facial reconstructive surgery. The police have done a fine job of destroying their reputation even further.

Where do you get your news? Twitter is it?

I get mine from Reuters

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The issue is that you seem more likely to be attacked by the police than anyone else. For absolutely no reason.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

I don't want to get shot in the face with a rubber bullet, so I don't put myself in a position where that could happen.

These protests have morphed into riots on a consistent basis, to suggest that these people are being attacked "for no reason" is utterly contemptible. You are ignoring the fact that these people know what they are getting involved with when they arrive at these events, they have been warned in advance that the response from authorities will become stricter and they still CHOOSE to go.

The way you are framing things you'd swear that there are Waffen SS troupes on the streets of Portland kicking down people's front doors and dragging them off to never been seen again.

These people are adults who have made a decision to put themselves in harms way, even when they have been warned that there is a possiblity of danger to their person, and yes it is irresponsible for a parent to put themselves in that position.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Where do you get your news? Twitter is it?

I get mine from Reuters

Cool, can you refer me to what this woman was doing?
https://www.newsweek.com/portland-mom-shot-face-protest-1520620

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool, can you refer me to what this woman was doing?
https://www.newsweek.com/portland-mom-shot-face-protest-1520620

I posted the reality of what happened outside the courthouse. The actual facts which you disputed.

I'm not talking about an incident that happened to a woman. Clearly she was hit in the face with a rubber bullet. Nobody is denying that. She knowingly placed herself in a volatile situation. Am I supposed to be shocked or feel sorry for her ?

You are being purposefully obtuse

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

This is complete and utter nonsense.

I don't want to get shot in the face with a rubber bullet, so I don't put myself in a position where that could happen.

These protests have morphed into riots on a consistent basis, to suggest that these people are being attacked "for no reason" is utterly contemptible. You are ignoring the fact that these people know what they are getting involved with when they arrive at these events, they have been warned in advance that the response from authorities will become stricter and they still CHOOSE to go.

The way you are framing things you'd swear that there are Waffen SS troupes on the streets of Portland kicking down people's front doors and dragging them off to never been seen again.

These people are adults who have made a decision to put themselves in harms way, even when they have been warned that there is a possiblity of danger to their person, and yes it is irresponsible for a parent to put themselves in that position.

Eh, since the early days the police have been behaving atrociously. Eg remember the 70 year old who got shoved and got brain damage? I think it's pretty reasonable that the police don't shoot a person in the face with a rubber bullet without a pretty good reason btw.

ExMachina1000

By the way Michael

Your source "newsweek" is rated as a left side biased organisation. Their reporting is rated as "mixed". Ie they aren't very factual. Ie they report fake news

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy"

Find better sources

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

By the way Michael

Your source "newsweek" is rated as a left side biased organisation. Their reporting is rated as "mixed". Ie they aren't very factual. Ie they report fake news

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy"

Find better sources

Here's Reuters, referring to the moms being tear gassed. Once again doesn't claim they were violent. And these events are all well documented so pretending they're made up is a bit silly.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland/trump-portland-mayor-clash-over-causes-of-escalating-unrest-idUSKCN24K0PC

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here's Reuters, referring to the moms being tear gassed. Once again doesn't claim they were violent.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland/trump-portland-mayor-clash-over-causes-of-escalating-unrest-idUSKCN24K0PC

Correct. Why did you leave out the part about a police associated building being set on fire? You are only interested in telling a half story to suit your opinion.

Do you expect anarchy on the streets without police reaction?
Why not tell the full story.

What are your thoughts on Newsweek now that you are aware of who they are?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Correct. Why did you leave out the part about a police associated building being set on fire? You are only interested in telling a half story to suit your opinion.

Do you expect anarchy on the streets without police reaction?
Why not tell the full story.

What are your thoughts on Newsweek now that you are aware of who they are?

No strong feelings on Newsweek since multiple publications reported the story. A building being set on fire does not give carte blanche to attack protesters who are acting peacefully.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eh, since the early days the police have been behaving atrociously. Eg remember the 70 year old who got shoved and got brain damage? I think it's pretty reasonable that the police don't shoot a person in the face with a rubber bullet without a pretty good reason btw.

All the more reason to avoid these events.

What is the endgame here? Martyrdom?
If you value your safety, don't go to the protest.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No strong feelings on Newsweek since multiple publications reported the story. A building being set on fire does not give carte blanche to attack protesters who are acting peacefully.

You have used a building being set on fire and peaceful in the same sentence

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

All the more reason to avoid these events.

What is the endgame here? Martyrdom?
If you value your safety, don't go to the protest.

Cool, so we just ignore that police have been using undue force since day one. You could also apply the same logic to Vietnam protests. The Kent State Massacre victims should just have not gone? Or the civil rights movement protests?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You have used a building being set on fire and peaceful in the same sentence

Did the woman who got the rubber bullet to the face start it? Or the tear gassed woman? They were peaceful.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

No strong feelings on Newsweek since multiple publications reported the story. A building being set on fire does not give carte blanche to attack protesters who are acting peacefully.

Close the thread. We have a winner.

This could be the Antifa motto.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

Close the thread. We have a winner.

This could be the Antifa motto.

You do realise both peaceful people and non peaceful people can be present at the same time? The Reuters piece does not group of women as arsonists or rioters... Did the guy with the boom box with who ended up facially disfigured start it?

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool, so we just ignore that police have been using undue force since day one. You could also apply the same logic to Vietnam protests. The Kent State Massacre victims should just have not gone? Or the civil rights movement protests?

I never said any of those things. It's really nice of you to make assumptions, it really is an endearing trait.

The situation in Portland has been degenerating for a long time now.
People are free to attend protests, but an element of the protestors have caused trouble which has led to an escalation from authorities who were already heavy handed.
So, if you go to a protest in Portland you may well expect to get injured. Personally I don't see the appeal of getting shot in the face with a rubber bullet, so if I lived there I wouldn't attend.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You do realise both peaceful people and non peaceful people can be present at the same time?

Do you realise how this presents a problem for the peaceful protestors? They are standing with the non peaceful protestors, so they are in harms way.

nullzero

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You have used a building being set on fire and peaceful in the same sentence

The building burned peacefully to the ground, several emergency services personnel were peacefully injured.

WrenBoy

*peacefulness intensifies*

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise both peaceful people and non peaceful people can be present at the same time? The Reuters piece does not group of women as arsonists or rioters... Did the guy with the boom box with who ended up facially disfigured start it?

you are wasting your time arguing with people who support Trumps fascist troops. they delight in seeing people getting badly hurt.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

The building burned peacefully to the ground, several emergency services personnel were peacefully injured.

So basically the position that you guys have adopted is rubber bullets to the face for anyone present. Tear gassing everyone is fine. Escalate the situation and injure whoever you want. Anyone innocent was asking for it.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically the position that you guys have adopted is rubber bullets to the face for anyone present. Tear gassing everyone is fine. Escalate the situation and injure whoever you want. Anyone innocent was asking for it.

guilt by association.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are wasting your time arguing with people who support Trumps fascist troops. they delight in seeing people getting badly hurt.

Who here supports Trump?

I certainly don't.

Also the notion that there are "Fascist Troops" associated with the American president is laughable. If Trump was a fascist there wouldn't be an election this year, he would have taken total control of America a long time ago.
Trump may well be an idiot, but he isn't a Fascist.

*Edited post.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

Who here supports Trump?

I certainly don't.

Also the notion that there are "Fascist Groups" associated with the American president is laughable. If Trump was a fascist there wouldn't be an election this year, he would have taken total control of America a long time ago.
Trump may well be an idiot, but he isn't a Fascist.

again with the poor reading comprehension.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So basically the position that you guys have adopted is rubber bullets to the face for anyone present. Tear gassing everyone is fine. Escalate the situation and injure whoever you want. Anyone innocent was asking for it.

I never said any of that.
That's the problem with making assumptions, it's all based on your own bias as opposed to facts.

I don't agree that anyone should be getting brutalised, I think authorities need to take action when situations like this occur, but I certainly don't celebrate people being injured.

However the people know what they're signing up for. You wouldn't walk into a burning building, so why put yourself in these types of situations?

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again with the poor reading comprehension.

What part of "Trumps fascist troops" did I not comprehend properly?

If Trump has "fascist troops" surely the implication is that he is a fascist?
Or does he simply dial "rent a fascist" when he needs to get some dirty work done?

Edited post*

RWCNT

nullzero wrote: »

Who here supports Trump?

I certainly don't.

Also the notion that there are "Fascist Groups" associated with the American president is laughable. If Trump was a fascist there wouldn't be an election this year, he would have taken total control of America a long time ago.
Trump may well be an idiot, but he isn't a Fascist.

The vast, sprawling bureaucracy that is the American government is near impervious to fascist takeover. There's simply too many branches to it - it's a massive plus point of "big government". Trump doesn't have the ability to take total control of America, much to his frustration it would seem at times.

I don't think I'd call him a full blown fascist but he certainly has fascistic qualities - https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characteristics-of-fascist, going through the list of characteristics here he ticks plenty of the boxes.

nullzero

RWCNT wrote: »

The vast, sprawling bureaucracy that is the American government is near impervious to fascist takeover. There's simply too many branches to it - it's a massive plus point of "big government". Trump doesn't have the ability to take total control of America, much to his frustration it would seem at times.

I don't think I'd call him a full blown fascist but he certainly has fascistic qualities - https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characteristics-of-fascist, going through the list of characteristics here he ticks plenty of the boxes.

So he's no a Fascist but he's kind of a fascist, which is it?

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

So he's no a Fascist but he's kind of a fascist, which is it?

He's got fascistic tendencies, realistically the closest politician to him is Berlusconi. But he has consistently declared admiration for leaders that have dictatorial powers. Erdogan, Putin, Duterte to name a few. On top of that he infamously praised the Chinese handling of Tiananmen square and has previously quoted Mussolini. Constitutionally, he simply can't exert that level of power but he clearly has a bit of a fantasy about it.

RWCNT

nullzero wrote: »

So he's no a Fascist but he's kind of a fascist, which is it?

I was very clear, I'm not convinced he's a fascist but I acknowledge he has fascistic tendencies. Simple enough for you?