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

nullzero

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I saw a video of the protesters to the anti paedophilia march. Their sound equipment and speakers got destroyed by th looks of it.

Who will pay for replacement speakers and equipment?

To be honest, if you bring expensive equipment to a rally where your only goal is to be disruptive and cause a situation where you expect to be attacked by people, the cost of replacing or repairing your equipment is on you.

Had their equipment been damaged on their own property that's a different situation, I don't believe the equipment should have been damaged but I wouldn't knowingly put something I value in harms way and expect a handout to replace it when it's broken.

RWCNT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So many issues with antifa fans saying accounts are fake , by it nature antifa attracts social introverts who wont upload pictures of themselves which in itself means accounts with weird names and pictures are not likely fake

It's usually very obvious though, in the same way it's obvious that Titania McGrath's twitter account is parody.

storker

sid waddell wrote: »

The problem with the far right is that they call everybody that doesn't agree with them trolls.

Or communists.

Even though the far right's online strategy is actually based on trolling and cloaking its real, abhorrent views.

It's like a sort of creepy, camp performance art.

I'm wasn't saying you're a troll because we're in disagreement, I'm calling you a troll because you persist with the false dichotomy outlined in your original post even though your fallacious reasoning has been outlined quite clearly to you more than once. Of course, it may just be because you're thick...in assuming you're a troll I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and crediting you with some intelligence.

Onshuh

It's interesting how Trump starts incessantly blabbering on, antifa this and antifa that and it manages to infect it's way into people's thoughts. People need to really stop allowing themselves to be so easily influenced nowadays.

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

So The Great Patriotic War as taught in Russian schools is a very different narrative than one we might be used to. EG the Germans didn't totally bugger up the Soviet forces in the early days. No, the Soviets were using a planned tactical retreat to bring the Germans in for a pincer movement.

So cunning and far-seeing a stratagem that the pay-off didn't arrive until 18 months later. Now that's planning.

biko

Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men. <<< you are currently here
Weak men create hard times.

Bonniedog

mynamejeff wrote: »

previous poster has explained in very clear terms

your looking for a argument and im not going to lower myself to your level

His post was actually very interesting and he clearly knows the history. You, not so much.

The view regarding Stalin's role in 1939 - 41 is not one of consensus. There is the neo-Stalinist view that his "genius" enticed Hitler into his web. Quite obviously nonsense even on basis of his personal behaviour. He did trust Hitler and killed agents who were telling NKVD of German plans to invade right up to when tanks were rolling!

Others plausibly argue that Hitler was never going to win anyway and that he made major error in invading Soviet Union. Latter is true but I also think that had Brits been beaten in 1940 that there would have been no American intervention and Nazis would have won.

The question regarding the Soviet Jewish population is interesting one as the documented plans by Stalin to liquidate them at the time of his death and the anti Semitic purges in the occupied countries completely defeat the argument that the Soviets were fighting for Holocaust justice!

Israel was already an enemy state to Moscow by 1950.

But as you say, you are better off not engaging

Wibbs

Overheal wrote: »

I get how Nazis crop up in an Antifa thread but not how the thread became a relitigation of WW2.

Actually O I would contend that we're still playing about in some of the ashes of that conflict and it still informs our politics and thoughts to quite the degree.

joeguevara

Onshuh wrote: »

It's interesting how Trump starts incessantly blabbering on, antifa this and antifa that and it manages to infect it's way into people's thoughts. People need to really stop allowing themselves to be so easily influenced nowadays.

Are you trying to influence people not to be influenced?

Mr. Karate

nullzero wrote: »

To be honest, if you bring expensive equipment to a rally where your only goal is to be disruptive and cause a situation where you expect to be attacked by people, the cost of replacing or repairing your equipment is on you.

Had their equipment been damaged on their own property that's a different situation, I don't believe the equipment should have been damaged but I wouldn't knowingly put something I value in harms way and expect a handout to replace it when it's broken.

"Down with the system!"
"My valuable equipment was damaged while fighting the system. So the system owes me."

RWCNT

Mr. Karate wrote: »

"Down with the system!"
"My valuable equipment was damaged while fighting the system. So the system owes me."

Are they seeking compensation from "the system"?

Bonniedog

RWCNT wrote: »

Are they seeking compensation from "the system"?

They should seen as they are a state Milice. Only thing they do now is act as thugs in support of state policy.

Chris_Heilong

Onshuh wrote: »

It's interesting how Trump starts incessantly blabbering on, antifa this and antifa that and it manages to infect it's way into people's thoughts. People need to really stop allowing themselves to be so easily influenced nowadays.

There was a strong anti-Antifa sentiment long before Trump ever knew about them, If their horrid behavior and deeds were brought out into the public eye everyone would be anti-Antifa.

Annasopra

Mr. Karate wrote: »

"Down with the system!"
"My valuable equipment was damaged while fighting the system. So the system owes me."

Its mad how people who condemn antifa violence are perfectly ok with violence towards antifa

joeguevara

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its mad how people who condemn antifa violence are perfectly ok with violence towards antifa

So firstly you are saying that Antifa exist. Perfect.

Now show me where anyone has said that violence is ok against Antifa (noting that they exist) where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic.

Annasopra

joeguevara wrote: »

So firstly you are saying that Antifa exist. Perfect.

Now show me where anyone has said that violence is ok against Antifa (noting that they exist) where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic.

Ah right. They deserved to be beaten up. Nice Victim Blaming now too.

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

So firstly you are saying that Antifa exist. Perfect.

Now show me where anyone has said that violence is ok against Antifa (noting that they exist) where the people violence was perpetrated against were not antagonistic.

what is antagonistic about standing in public with a speaker?

joeguevara

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah right. They deserved to be beaten up. Nice Victim Blaming now too.

Show me where I said anyone deserves to be beaten up.

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is antagonistic about standing in public with a speaker?

Did I say there was?

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

Did I say there was?

so you are not trying to justify the violence dished out by NP thugs?

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are not trying to justify the violence dished out by NP thugs?

I certainly am not. Did I say such a thing?1

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

I certainly am not. Did I say such a thing?1

perhaps you can define what you mean by antagonistic then.

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

Show me where I said anyone deserves to be beaten up.

Notice the goalpost shift here from “show me where anyone said” to “show me where I said” alongside such silly Pyrrhic victories as “you are saying Antifa exists” (as if anyone claimed the movement was fiction?)

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

Notice the goalpost shift here from “show me where anyone said” to “show me where I said” alongside such silly Pyrrhic victories as “at least you acknowledge Antifa exists” (as if anyone claimed the movement was fiction?)

Well when I am accused of saying something I ask where I said it. Capiche. And yes the whole of yesterday people were saying there was no group called Antifa.

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps you can define what you mean by antagonistic then.

As in what is the defined term in the dictionary.

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

And yes the whole of yesterday people were saying there was no group called Antifa.

Who? Show quotes please

joeguevara

Overheal wrote: »

Who? Show quotes please

well start at post #8091 and work your way forward.

Overheal

joeguevara wrote: »

well start at post #8091 and work your way forward.

I’m in touch so post numbers don’t show up.

ohnonotgmail

joeguevara wrote: »

As in what is the defined term in the dictionary.

so you are saying it is acceptable to assault anybody that opposes you?

joeguevara

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are saying it is acceptable to assault anybody that opposes you?

I certainly didn't say that either. Please stick to what I say exactly. Much easier.