I can't believe anyone listens to this guy.
Most criminals prefer they not be called criminal.
I don’t see Antifa growing in numbers. If they do, it will be temporary.
Problem is, “social revolution” and “terrorist group” are synonyms. They sure have some short straws to grasp at.
I prefer “Fascist Terrorist Group” to me more accurate in their true nature and intentions.
I can't believe anyone listens to this guy.
I prefer ‘yet another craven scam funded from the coffers of George Soros aka György Schwartz’.
They probably prefer to not be called smelly weak-minded lunatics either.
Of course, those blocks may be ignored quite easily if you creeps want to push things.
Commie pussies.
Well, gee, I prefer flamethrowers and fragmentation grenades to rubber bullets and tasers in police department battles against Antifa gangs. So what’s his point?
still terrorists
still terrorists
He’s a momma’s boy.
I just realized that most of these nerds are just too pathetic to shoot.
Someone please show ANTIFA the definition of fascist because they apparently don’t know what it means.
^Yeah, I’m just slightly husky not fat.
This guy is not qualified to teach history if he thinks that nazi and KKK are anything other than leftist groups. Is he not aware that Antifa has its roots in 1930s Germany, as a rival to the nazi thugs?
For the last hundred or so years, only two groups are responsible for the bulk of terrorism. Islam and the radical left. The left kind of held back after 9/11, but it looks like they are rearing their heads again.
I prefer extermination them but I know we will not exterminate terrorist especially domestic ones
By this professor’s definition, there are no terrorists.
Radical Islam consists of a variety of organizations, as well as lone wolves, spontaneously arising, sometimes rivals of each other and sometimes cooperating, with memberships that are difficult to determine. So, that makes them a social movement.
The extreme right, too, includes many different groups, Nazis, KKK, skinheads, Aryan Nations, as well as lone wolves. Aren’t they, also, just another social movement?
What makes identifies terrorist organizations is not the integrity of their membership lists, but their willingness to use violence to pursue political ends. By this definition there is, out there, not one or two, but many sources of terrorism.
Furthermore, these terrorist organizations aren’t really opposites, but are rivals. The opposite of a terrorist is somebody who is, outside of compelling circumstances, unwilling to use violence to pursue political ends. Even when that line has to be crossed, as in a revolutionary war, non-terrorists such as George Washington adhere to the laws of war.
As to whether antifa is merely smart enough to know you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, a small “d” democrat would say law enforcement should protect those who exercise their rights to assemble and so forth, as well as the public at large. As far as antifa and its friends in the capital “d” Democratic party are concerned, the police are part of the problem. Democrats like the Governor of Virginia order the cops to go to the donut shop and allow nature to take its course with regard to antifa.
Antifa is geared to confront and resist law enforcement. That is why they hide behind masks, even gas masks, have shields and clubs, and throw bottles of urine, rocks and firecrackers at law enforcement.
Furthermore, it is not “defensive” to deface and vandalize statues and blow up police stations and other targets. The purpose is to display the will to power and, therefore, to terrorize the public at large.
For a scholar to deny these obvious facts means he is either so sold out to antifa that he has lost all judgment, or is an operative of antifa, deliberately trying to fool the public. If you’re willing to use violence to achieve political ends, what’s the big deal about using deception?