Topic: 'Trump Designates Antifa "A Terrorist Organization"' (Read 3247 times)

Hah, nice try. ADL is a state sponsored Zionist movement. They profit from infiltrating the porous minds of emotionally perturbed Americans seeking a sense of belonging and refuge in the confirmation of their political biases -- totally the antithesis of ZeroHedge. George Soros put those bricks there personally months ago, before he orchestrated the spread of covid, the death of George Floyd, the rise of Antifa, and the selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate. It's all part of his master plan to make billions shorting the U.S. dollar into oblivion, taking our society down with it.

Soros also cancelled my bus trip this morning because he takes perverse pleasure in making me stand out in the hot sun. Now I'm somewhat dehydrated and a bit sunburned. What a dick.

When they will learn that they were lied to by the MSM and that another fraud of those traitors (biden/obama etc) has been exposed, I guess Antifa will be activated again !

No wonder they are against Trump. He is destroying their backbone. When this comes out, somebody needs to take Obama and Biden to court for treason... and execution.


Antifa was imported to America from Europe by the Obama-Biden administration to forge domestic terrorism alliance with BLM, new report alleges

I had just naturally assumed that the piles of bricks were used in Antifa and riot organizational leaders who would point to the bricks and shout to the crowd, "Stand to the left, if you are dumber than a pile of bricks!"

Those would then be given stupid things to do, like stand in the middle of a freeway.

Just saw this today and remembered we had discussed one of the piles of bricks mentioned:

"Disinformation: Suspicious piles of bricks"

https://www.adl.org/disinformation-suspicious-piles-of-bricks

Darn, I'm not seeing anyone there that I'd invite to the Trump Victory Party.

.........meanwhile

I can't hear you over the sound of the terrorism and mafia extortion.


"Portland: Antifa Rioters Shift to Attacking People in Their Homes And in The Streets"

www.informationliberation.com/?id=61632

Its been nine weeks since Trump's tweet and Antifa has still not been designated a terrorist organization. It's almost as if he doesn't possess that kind of authority, or else ZeroHedge incorrectly titled the article this thread is based upon. I for one am shocked.

"Louisville: BLM Activists Demand Protection Money From Local Businesses As Black Militia Marches In The Streets"

www.informationliberation.com/?id=61624

I would like to add something here, that this is a much clearer case than the one where the car on the blocked off freeway slammed into the protesters.

Pointing a gun at someone is, in the absence of just cause, "brandishing a firearm." It's considered a serious crime, for several reasons. Where I live it's a felony offense. One is that someone may take it seriously and shoot the one waving the gun around. That appears to be what happened here.

Note this happened in liberal Austin, Texas. But liberal Texas ain't liberal New York.

PS:  The exchange of gunfire is definitely five shots, then three.

https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1288212348780544002/photo/1

Biden released a statement on Antifa without calling them by name. Meh, it's something, albeit hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage too late but whatever works.

Knowing how to do something doesn't mean you do it. Excuse me, but you make shit up in your mind and convince yourself it is real constantly.


The video was inconclusive was it?  Weird how when conclusions don't work with your ideological goals, suddenly things become nuanced and inconclusive. Were the videos about the attacks on Nick Sandman inconclusive? Were the claims by Jussie Smollet inconclusive? Was the video about George Floyd inconclusive? No, of course they were very clearly supporting your conclusions, therefore be careful not to review them TOO carefully, otherwise you might find inconsistencies before you can have a hysterical overreaction.

I don't think you are accurate.

Let me break it down for you. Blocking the road. Illegal. Blocking the road while using loaded fire arms to menace and intimidate drivers. Illegal. Pointing a loaded firearm at some one not engaged in hostilities against you or others? Very illegal. That's called assault with a deadly weapon illegal. The simple fact that the PERPETRATOR (not the victim) raised his rifle at the driver, gave the driver 100% of the legal requisite he needed to use lethal force to end that man's life, end. Victims are people who are acted upon illegally b y other bad actors. This dead guy was the perpetrator, not the victim. You keep defending violent murdering terrorists and casting them as poor victims threatening people with assault rifles and stopping traffic.  

In summary, the man with the rifle is the perpetrator and committed all the crimes he needed to in order to firmly put himself int he offender category instead of the victim category you are so desperate to hide him behind. How does it feel to be on the side of murdering terrorists? I wonder how long it will be until they attack your own family.

I wonder how people can afford to "protest" for two months straight.

We're way, way past George Floyd "protests."

In May and early June there were a lot of people at the various protests who wanted to actually protest (even if under dubious circumstances), and there were some agitators who were causing a lot of violence. This was the opportunity for Democrats to condemn the violence.

BLM tried political violence in September 2016, but it was too late in the election season to have a major effect and the Governor was able to quickly stop it with the National guard. This election season, BLM started the political violence too early. They were able to bully people into a ~70% approval rating, but will eventually face strong backlash with violence levels not seen since the civil war. The left wing media is not going to be able to hide the violence forever.

There is no conversation. Moderates were given the face and empty shell of Biden, that's all.

The schemes to provoke harsh government response, to the innocent little Antifa boys and girls isn't going to work either.

Liberal Media would have loved clips of authoritarian storm troopers of Trump.

Nadler isn't concerned about his election. To use Trump's line, Nadler could shoot someone and still get elected, much less calling Antifa violence a myth.

He's worried about what's gonna happen in November. From what I'm gathering, democrats are reluctant to condemn Antifa's violence because of how closely tied they are to social justice/BLM. I mean, these are extreme far left protesters who aren't voting red so we know who's side they're on. Condemning Antifa would mean democrats would have to own up to the violence or associate their violence to their own party which gives Trump a solid line of attack. Another problem democrats run into is that because Antifa are so closely knitted with BLM, condemning them would create a perception that democrats are not in line with the far left agenda of BLM which is something democrats can't do either. Can't alienate the far left, you need them to win the Presidency.

Moderate democrats are caught in a bad place right now. I can't imagine what type of conversation Biden's staffers are having right now trying to navigate the strategy to capture moderates and leftist when their agendas don't actually align.

No problem, I'm good with waiting to see the facts. Pointed a rifle at him, did they?  That's a no-no. If that was done to a cop he'd be well within his rules of engagement to shoot to kill.

By the way, how's that Theory of Flynn Bad coming along? and the Really Really Impeach Trump This Time strategy?  The Theory of All is Peace and Goodness With Antifa?

Oh.  Well there's no need to do that since I also know how to read.



I don't just make up something in my mind and then convince myself it's real.  There wasn't enough information available when you posted the video.


I don't think this article is accurate.  It's from last night, the video it's based on is 'not conclusive',  it's poorly written and I can't find any reliable source to back it up.  Since last night there have been some updates from police and witness accounts - the driver firing his 9mm 3 times and a third protester shooting at the car as he sped away but no mention of the victim shooting first at all.  When the driver called 911 he said someone pointed a rifle at him, no mention of it being fired.

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, just sharing what I've found.

A person might be safe trying shooting out tires in some place where he could safely assume his opponent was unarmed. Playing big tough guy like on TV?