If Antifa officially state that they intend to use violence to achieve their goals, should they be officially classed as a terrorist organisation?

Comments (8)
No. 1-8
WestonWhite
WestonWhite

I would tend to disagree, if it can be said to be revolutionary (e.g., mass protesting, civil war, etc.) it cannot be an act of terrorism. Moreover, calling the government to task is crafted into America's spirited Charter and U.S. Constitution. Now certainly, in common verbiage such could be said to be terroristic in nature, but not statutorily--one cannot compare the events of 9/11 to ANTIFA for example. These are violent protestors (whom are seriously misguided), nothing less and nothing more. Now, however, George Soros who (among many other things) is covertly funding and fomenting the acts of these mere useful idiots, he is terrorist (also working in conjunction with Hillary Clinton--a treasonous conspirator at best.) The term 'terrorist' is rather pejorative and in law carries with it damning stipulations that have been invocated into public acts, such as the Patriot Acts, which effectively terminates a citizen's immutable rights, opens them to torture and unlimited detainment in offshore facilities without ever bring charges or granting habeas corpus, authorizing secret kill-orders, etc.

RoamingMillennial
RoamingMillennial

Editor

Absolutely they should. The state of New Jersey has the right idea:

RamsayBolton
RamsayBolton

There was this, though it's Alt Left violence rather than Antifa per se.

Irish
Irish

Oh shit I didn't know.

Nighthawk
Nighthawk

They've already killed someone iirc. Their rhetoric is terroristic in nature.

Irish
Irish

Yeah and also most of them haven't been in a fight before.

LStanfield
LStanfield

Yes. They've already tried to kill people, just haven't had the means/intellect to pull it off. They use violence to achieve their political gains. That makes them, by definition, a terrorist organization?



Konoruck
Konoruck
New Comment
1