Trump's crazy designation of Antifa as terrorist organization

None of the things you mention have anything to do with what I would consider justification.

 

I am no fan of Antifa - and the KKK was not part of my original post - nor the main point of the post you are responding to. It was a simple correction of a comment from another poster.

What do you think was the cause of the massive civil unrest ? - not so much referring to the Floyd thing - more the underlying cause.

 

most of it isnt unrest but allowing animalistic tendency to go unchecked one store gets looted with no consequence and liberals along with thier media making excuses for it encouraged them to continue to go even further
and others not seeing any backlash are inspired to do the same it snow balls then you have professional agitators like AntiFa take advantage of the mob mentality and they make it worse from city to city

 

Terrorism is the use of fear to achieve a goal.

 

You hit the nail exactly on the head, the only difference between AntiFA and Al Qaeda is that one's domestic and the other one is foreign. Make no mistake, the framers wouldn't hesitate to name them enemy combatants, because that's what they are.

 

LMFAO. Sorry George Soros, with the media at a 10% approval rating no one believes left wing messaging anymore. We know all about antifa and its operations.

 

so when do we get to make up or own definition for words then use that made up defintion as the premise to our argument

what your doing is the equivalence as me creating my own defintion of racism then use that made up defintion of racism to prove the KKK weren't racist

 

Yea, this is really crazy man. Like it’s not like ANTIFA is doing anything nearly as bad as that Cliven Bundy cattlerancher with cows munching on grass on public land, whom the Obama Admin labeled as a domestic terrorist.

Burning and looting and harassing old people and in the case of Gov Meathead of NY, actually infecting their nursing homes resulting in thousands of death... well hey .. that’s just the Democrat “new normal”

 

What a ridiculous definition but ... OK - so you see Terrorism everywhere you look then ! The Police are Terrorists as is the Gov't.

 

Sure there is some of that - but it is not the underlying root cause .

When Gov't has little respect for essential liberty and the rule of law - what do you think this teaches our children - who then group up to become adults ?

 

You can make up any definition you like - so long as you are consistent - which is the point of the question. Most folks have definitions that have no basis in reality - definitions that they themselves do not even believe in - because they have not thought things through.

There are many different definitions of terrorism - why are you offended by my asking which one someone is using ?

 

How about the Weather Underground? Or is it only considered a terrorist organization if they don't have a "left wing" title behind their name?

 

and i have asked you to post those definitions they all mean the same some might be worded different but they all come to the same premise

so please enlighten us give us a defintion from a credible source that in any way describes terrorism any differently then what has been provided to you in this thread

or am i right and its just you making a nonsensical attempt to rewrite a defintion to fit a narrative

I dont like AntiFa being labeled terrorist even though they fit the universal defintion of a terrorist so Im going to create my own personal definition so to argue they arent terrorist

 

The fact that these store owners defending their property through iron site of a rifle or shotgun will also be quite justified.

 

No idea who that is - and why are you saying this to me ?

 

Why, pray tell, does a terrorist organization have to be "international" in order to fit the bill?

 

I gave you a simple definition - intentional killing of civilians/ innocents. What on earth would a "credible" source be - and what a nonsense request showing your lack of understanding of the issue.

You are correct that in many cases our Gov't attempts to rewrite definitions to fit into a narrative. If you think intentional killing of innocent civilians is not Terrorism - then do tell us what your definition is.

You claim Antifa fits some "Universal definition" of terrorism. What is this universal definition ?

 

In a different thread I recommended a shotgun .. and agree with you that it is quite justifiable for them to defend their property against a raging mob.

 

It doesn't - where did you get that idea ?

 

do you not read your own thread you created its been given to you multiple times take your partisan blinders off and read them
you are being purposely obtuse at this point

 

Spell check prob.

So, again...

"Why, pray tell, does a terrorist organization have to be "intentional" in order to fit the bill?

By your definition, "collateral damage" by anyone or any entity would be justified.

 

I don't read every post - is only been up for a few hours and is already 5 pages. I do read most though - and I read all of your posts looking for this "universal" definition you are claiming.

All I could find from you is

Is this what you are claiming as the "Universal" definition "or are you being purposely obtuse at this point" ?

 

Some good points, and of course Bush II and Obama - among many other *respected* individuals - are wanton/monstrous terrorists.

Antifa consists of a bunch of LOLibertarian Pepsi conservative pajama boys.

They're among the most ridiculous & pathetic narcissistic jerkwads on the planet, and nobody likes them (not even themselves), but they're being targeted as the imaginary villains in the Lockdown Riots.

The ACTUAL villains - Democrats, Republicans, economic despair, racism, the sociopathic oligarchy, enforced poverty - no one is really willing to grapple with, so they put a bunch of names of preposterous things to blame in a hat, and pulled out Antifa.

It was either that or the Hamburglar I guess.

Just more proof that we have ZERO leadership.

 

My bad .. a total misread on my part

So the question you are asking is why intent matters - to a legal definition of terrorism. As this is what we are talking about - the "Legal Definition" .. as opposed to something you might find on goggle dictionary.com.

1) first comment is - obviously the legal definition is going to be different in different nations - the UN definition perhaps being a default position - or some nation say the US. I will say more on this later.

2) Second comment is with respect to "Intent".

Not sure about what goes on in the Somalian court system - but in the US .. to be convicted of a criminal charge - the prosecution must prove 2 things.

Actus Rea - the defendant must have committed the crimes
Mens Rea - the defendant must have "intended" it.

I did a quick google "UN - Legal definition terrorism" and grabbed the first link that looked interesting.

Could it be any more general, broad, and at the same time vague ? Holy Carp - Mafia were terrorists - US Gov't -

any group that committed a criminal act is a terrorist org under this definition.

Note however that both elements Mens Rea, and Actus Rea are present.

So yes .. my definition includes intent - Intent to to cause severe harm. which already differs from the above definition "Arson" being eliminated in some cases .. and perhaps hostage taking/kidnapping. Although I do not negate these as possible terrorist acts

For example - I don't think lighting a car on fire - with no one in it - constitutes "Terrorism" - setting off a car bomb --different story.

For me - crime needs to be of a more heinous nature - a level above other criminal activity - and it better be because the next clause includes almost every organized political group .. fear being the main currency these days - on both sides of the fence.

ii) intent to spread fear among the population "war on terror" "war on drugs" are fear exercises - "Global Warming" - "Corona"

In each case you have various interests trying to capitalize on this fear. "generally entails the creation of public danger" - this is way to vague - utilitarian gibberish.. "who sets that bar" ? Who every happens to be governing.

then you have the final clause

iii) when the act involves a "transnational element" -- !? interesting. all of a sudden - there are very few terrorist groups - as the act itself (not the group) has to involve a transnational element"

So Antifa would not qualify under that particular definition. I guess home grown terrorism does not count as per this definition.

The Pentagon on the other hand -- Massive terrorists.

So choose what ever definition you like - but be consistent.

No clue how that follows from anything I said. I call non sequitur !!