No sign of Antifa in civil unrest cases...

[tall73]

Definition of GROUP

Notice anything there? There's nothing about top-down organizational structure.

: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship

Now, Antifa regularly assembles together....but the unifying relationship between it's members is membership in Antifa.

It's entirely appropriate to call Antifa a group because by definition, Antifa is a group.

This is honestly one of the most bizarre threads I've seen on CF. You know what doesn't matter? If Antifa has a strong centralized heirarchy. You know what does matter? They're violent left wing extremists.

I have noted antifa groups throughout the thread. They are people assembling together.

But the reason Rose City Antifa has to invite other groups to sign on to their statement is because they are not all one group with one membership.

They are individual groups who have their own membership locally, and cooperate with other groups who have their own membership locally. It doesn't mean they are all members of one group.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My my...why all the energy around Antifa? [yes, I get it, Trump needs a named target....but of course the people who have committed violent acts are a mix of races, identities, political affiliations and personal motives - does anyone really dispute that - seriously?].

Getting back to the actual report filed in court :

Of the cases brought so far, 20 involve allegations related to arson; 16 involve the illegal possession of a firearm, more often than not by a felon; another eight people face charges related to inciting a riot or civil disorder.

The single instance in which an extremist group is mentioned in court documents is a case against three Nevada men. Federal prosecutors allege the trio belong to the right-wing Boogaloo movement that wants to bring about a civil war. The men have been charged with plotting violence during Las Vegas protests.

....can we discuss real investigative findings or are we going to continue having a conversation based on false premise asserted by the POTUS and his AG?

This is a great point....let's get back to the article. What does it say, what is the information therein...let's take a look....

federal court records show no sign of so-called antifa links so far in cases brought by the Justice Department.

NPR has reviewed court documents of 51 individuals facing federal charges in connection with the unrest. As of Tuesday morning, none is alleged to have links to the antifa movement.

If we're talking about who is causing damage and breaking the law.....why are we looking at 51 federal cases and not the thousands and thousands of state and local arrests? Does that make any sense to anyone?

If 10,000+ people have been arrested by state and local authorities in connection to the riots and looting....why would we look at 51 federal arrests to get a picture of who is involved? Is it too much work for NPR to actually look at 99.99% of the arrests?

There's really only one explanation....this isn't news, it's narrative driven propaganda. It's for the simple minded to read and buy into the idea that 51 federal arrests somehow reflect the the thousands of state and local arrests.

The real question here is "Why does NPR engage in propaganda?" or perhaps "How foolish and ignorant does NPR think it's readers are?"

 

[wing2000]

This is a great point....let's get back to the article. What does it say, what is the information therein...let's take a look....

federal court records show no sign of so-called antifa links so far in cases brought by the Justice Department.

NPR has reviewed court documents of 51 individuals facing federal charges in connection with the unrest. As of Tuesday morning, none is alleged to have links to the antifa movement.

If we're talking about who is causing damage and breaking the law.....why are we looking at 51 federal cases and not the thousands and thousands of state and local arrests? Does that make any sense to anyone?

If 10,000+ people have been arrested by state and local authorities in connection to the riots and looting....why would we look at 51 federal arrests to get a picture of who is involved? Is it too much work for NPR to actually look at 99.99% of the arrests?

There's really only one explanation....this isn't news, it's narrative driven propaganda. It's for the simple minded to read and buy into the idea that 51 federal arrests somehow reflect the the thousands of state and local arrests.

The real question here is "Why does NPR engage in propaganda?" or perhaps "How foolish and ignorant does NPR think it's readers are?"

NPR reviewed 51 cases. As to why they didn't review more, well, that takes resources for starters...an who knows, maybe they have reviewed more cases by now. I have not checked frankly.
Ana the 1st - you're more than welcome to present more cases here....unless of course, you are happy writing off NPR as propaganda...

 

[wing2000]

I'll repeat....
.....but of course the people who have committed violent acts are a mix of races, identities, political affiliations and personal motives - does anyone really dispute that - seriously?

 

[Ana the Ist]

NPR reviewed 51 cases. As to why they didn't review more, well, that takes resources for starters...an who knows, maybe they have reviewed more cases by now. I have not checked frankly.

If NPR doesn't have the resources to review more cases....then the tone and message of the article should have been vastly different.

Ana the 1st - you're more than welcome to present more cases here....unless of course, you are happy writing off NPR as propaganda...

I already presented other cases....but I think you're missing the point...

NPR deliberately misled it's readers. Look at the posts on this thread. There's a whole other thread on the exact same topic. You have people completely duped into thinking that Antifa played no part in any looting or rioting and everyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Duped. Why? Because left wing media outlets like NPR deliberately misled them.

Well why would they do that? I don't think NPR is actually dumb enough to believe 51 cases somehow represent the majority of looters and rioters. So why would they mislead their readers? Why write this article at all?

 

[wing2000]

NPR deliberately misled it's readers. Look at the posts on this thread. There's a whole other thread on the exact same topic. You have people completely duped into thinking that Antifa played no part in any looting or rioting and everyone who says otherwise is wrong.

To be clear, I think some participants were influenced by Antifa ideology. However, only some. What I find objectionable is the sole focus on Antifa - a narrative that clearly the White House is asserting (and reflected in multiple threads here).

I expect we will find a mix of actors including:
- angry protesters lashing out who felt violence was justified
- anti-capitalist looting businesses
- opportunist who wanted to steal
- chaos agents who wanted to give BLM a bad name
...and probably others...

I don't think NPR is actually dumb enough to believe 51 cases somehow represent the majority of looters and rioters. So why would they mislead their readers? Why write this article at all?

Does the NPR article state that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have noted antifa groups throughout the thread. They are people assembling together.

But the reason Rose City Antifa has to invite other groups to sign on to their statement is because they are not all one group with one membership.

They are individual groups who have their own membership locally, and cooperate with other groups who have their own membership locally. It doesn't mean they are all members of one group.

They're sort of like some "autonomous" 1% motorcycle clubs... they all fly the same banner, yet, individual charters make most of their own rules. A lack of a national leadership officer position wouldn't make them viewed as any less problematic.

My main issue with them is their "bait & switch" style name. Anti-fascism may be one of their goals, but their name doesn't indicate any of the other views that people who identify as members also promote.

Many (if not most) are anti-capitalism and anarchist...two problematic ideologies, that just so happen to lead to a person thinking it's morally justifiable to destroy a business. However, when those kinds of activities are criticized, the typical rebuttal is "oh, so you're against Antifa???? that must mean you're pro-fascism then!"

Reminds me of the Parks and Rec episode where they're dealing with the cult that named themselves "The Reasonable-ists", and did so, so that when anyone criticized them, they could accuse them of criticizing reason lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To be clear, I think some participants were influenced by Antifa ideology. However, only some.

Sure...there's probably a handful of extremists from either side in the mix, taking advantage and whatnot.

What I find objectionable is the sole focus on Antifa - a narrative that clearly the White House is asserting (and reflected in multiple threads here).

I don't really find that objectionable. The White House is currently right wing...and they blame the left wing extremists. If you look at left wing politicians....

Dueling claims: Trump blames Antifa for riots, Minnesota officials point fingers at white supremacists and cartels

They blame white supremacists and other "agents" as the cause.

That's not really surprising or shocking at this point , is it? I'd understand if you find it disappointing...but both sides have a tendency to blame the other at times like these.

I expect we will find a mix of actors including:
- angry protesters lashing out who felt violence was justified
- anti-capitalist looting businesses
- opportunist who wanted to steal
- chaos agents who wanted to give BLM a bad name
...and probably others...

I suspect the opportunists are the biggest group. Covid and it's resulting unemployment has left a lot of people in a lurch...and a one time chance for free stuff is tempting to some. Honestly, when I look at local arrests...it's a lot of young criminals aka people who already have a record.

Does the NPR article state that?

Before I elaborate on what I mean by "deliberately misled" or "propaganda"...can we start on some common ground?

You agree that 51 cases is simply too small a number of people to hold any significance....by far. Major cities like Chicago and New York have racked up thousands of arrests themselves...if you add up every arrest in every city and town, 51 isn't going to amount to 0.1%.

So when I say it holds no significance....I mean even if every single arrest was a card carrying member of Antifa, that would still be far too small of a number to hold any meaning. No one would be able to say Antifa had a meaningful impact on the riots or looting.

Do we agree on that much at least?

 

[Ana the Ist]

They're sort of like some "autonomous" 1% motorcycle clubs... they all fly the same banner, yet, individual charters make most of their own rules. A lack of a national leadership officer position wouldn't make them viewed as any less problematic.

My main issue with them is their "bait & switch" style name. Anti-fascism may be one of their goals, but their name doesn't indicate any of the other views that people who identify as members also promote.

Many (if not most) are anti-capitalism and anarchist...two problematic ideologies, that just so happen to lead to a person thinking it's morally justifiable to destroy a business. However, when those kinds of activities are criticized, the typical rebuttal is "oh, so you're against Antifa???? that must mean you're pro-fascism then!"

Reminds me of the Parks and Rec episode where they're dealing with the cult that named themselves "The Reasonable-ists", and did so, so that when anyone criticized them, they could accuse them of criticizing reason lol.

IMO this is similar branding as Black Lives Matter. It's part and parcel for extremists of any stripe. A simple rule for identifying extremists of this type is to ask if they permit open debate or dialogue. If the group has a sentiment of "agree with us or you're part of the problem" then they don't engage in debate or dialogue and they are almost certainly extremists.

 

[wing2000]

="Ana the Ist, post: 75078488, member: 302807"


Before I elaborate on what I mean by "deliberately misled" or "propaganda"...can we start on some common ground?

You agree that 51 cases is simply too small a number of people to hold any significance....by far. Major cities like Chicago and New York have racked up thousands of arrests themselves...if you add up every arrest in every city and town, 51 isn't going to amount to 0.1%.

So when I say it holds no significance....I mean even if every single arrest was a card carrying member of Antifa, that would still be far too small of a number to hold any meaning. No one would be able to say Antifa had a meaningful impact on the riots or looting.

Do we agree on that much at least?

Yes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes.

Ok...so, allow me to quickly distinguish between bias and propaganda in news media, imo. I'm not trying to minimize bias either....bias is bad journalism and it distorts the truth. In reality, nothing is completely free from bias....but "news" has an ethical responsibility to attempt to minimize bias.

I think Fox News in particular is guilty of abandoning that responsibility. I doubt you would disagree with me when I say that the majority of their content, while likely factual, is presented in such a way as to present conservative viewpoints or positions as more favorable than liberal viewpoints. This is done in a variety of ways...but the most prevalent is the omission of contrary factual information.

Propaganda on the other hand is information given in direct service of a particular narrative. It's the difference between "don't these flowers smell nice?" (bias) and "here's the proof you like the smell of these flowers" (propaganda).

Getting back to the article...there's no need for the inclusion of the 51 cases. They could have simply said "Here's what the president claims....we found no evidence to support it" That's not exactly a great story because, after all, that happens a lot these days.

That's not what they did though....they basically said "Here's what the president claims....and these 51 cases prove him wrong." Now, they may not have used those words specifically....but that is the tone and message of the article. They know just as well as you and I do...those 51 cases don't prove anything about the riots or looters at large. I have to believe they intended to mislead their audience in direct service of a narrative....because their audience was definitely misled. Take a look at post #19 on a thread about the NYT version of the exact same story....

Federal Arrests Show No Sign that Antifa Plotted Protests

Pretty clearly misled.

This is a trend in left wing media that I honestly am starting to find really disturbing. That's mainly because the narrative they're pushing is one that seems to protect a violent extremist group like Antifa from criticism or scrutiny. Antifa has seriously hurt people....they use violence against any political views they disagree with. That's not really a good thing, and it's troubling to see the media directly attempting to minimize the problems they cause by misleading their audience.

I don't like bias....I like propaganda even less....but propaganda in the service of violent extremists? I can't even think of a Fox News story that did that.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

The Anti Defamation League disagrees...
Who are Antifa?

Interesting article. Critical of Antifa, but balanced and rational. But there was this tidbit late in the article:
"Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders."
*

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's not what they did though....they basically said "Here's what the president claims....and these 51 cases prove him wrong." Now, they may not have used those words specifically....but that is the tone and message of the article. They know just as well as you and I do...those 51 cases don't prove anything about the riots or looters at large. I have to believe they intended to mislead their audience in direct service of a narrative....because their audience was definitely misled.

People can be misled by anything. They have their own biases that color their perceptions, they misread articles, they read a few sentences - or even just the headline - and form a conclusion. The fact that one person misunderstood a news article does not mean that it was intentional. Moreover, citing someone's misunderstanding of one article as proof that a different article is propaganda is the strangest bit of reasoning I've seen all week.

The significance of pointing out the lack of cases against anyone connected to Antifa highlights the propaganda (actual propaganda this time) being put out by Barr and Trump. If the AG and the President are so certain that Antifa is behind this, what do they base it on? Because it's clearly not arrests, and they haven't provided anything to back up their claims when asked.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting article. Critical of Antifa, but balanced and rational.

I thought they were pretty generous.

But there was this tidbit late in the article:
"Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders."
*

That's interesting....because I'm not sure what exactly constitutes a "Antifa related murder" in their book.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People can be misled by anything. They have their own biases that color their perceptions, they misread articles, they read a few sentences - or even just the headline - and form a conclusion.

Why do you think the article included reference to 51 cases?

The fact that one person misunderstood a news article does not mean that it was intentional.

Whoa....

I promise it's not just one person lol. If everyone else understood that the central premise of those articles was blatantly false....they would have pointed it out before I did.

Moreover, citing someone's misunderstanding of one article as proof that a different article is propaganda is the strangest bit of reasoning I've seen all week.

It's the same premise in both articles....51 cases trotted out as if they're proof of something.

The significance of pointing out the lack of cases against anyone connected to Antifa highlights the propaganda (actual propaganda this time) being put out by Barr and Trump.

See? You got duped too....

Antifa members have been arrested for looting. They aren't federal cases because 99%+ of these cases are state or local.

 

[KCfromNC]

One instance?

I also posted a link from the ADL claiming that Antifa is in favor of political violence. There's plenty of instances of them beating people on video, plenty of injured victims, multiple arrests....

And yet all we have posted here is one example from a year and a half ago.

Kind feels like if we went police killings vs. "antifa" violence the police killings would win.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And yet all we have posted here is one example from a year and a half ago.

How many incidents of violence would it take to prove Antifa is "violent" in your opinion?

Give a reasonable number and I'll start posting more incidents.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

How many incidents of violence would it take to prove Antifa is "violent" in your opinion?

Give a reasonable number and I'll start posting more incidents.

That may not be exactly the right question. Maybe the clearer establishment of a baseline of "What, exactly, are we talking about?" might be a good idea.

Allow me to quote again from that ADL article that came up earlier. ADL does in fact agree with you that antifa advocates violence, but they also say this:

Another concern is the misapplication of the label “antifa” to include all counter-protesters, rather than limiting it to those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries. It is critical to understand how antifa fit within the larger counter-protest efforts. Doing so allows law enforcement to focus their resources on the minority who engage in violence without curtailing the civil rights of the majority of peaceful individuals who just want their voices to be heard.

and then, just for comparison's sake, there is this, still from ADL:

That said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. Antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders.
Who Are Antifa?
-

 

[Ana the Ist]

That may not be exactly the right question. Maybe the clearer establishment of a baseline of "What, exactly, are we talking about?" might be a good idea.

Allow me to quote again from that ADL article that came up earlier. ADL does in fact agree with you that antifa advocates violence, but they also say this:
-

I don't know if you read the responses from other posters Evan....but they disagree with Antifa being characterized as violent.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I don't know if you read the responses from other posters Evan....but they disagree with Antifa being characterized as violent.

I know, but facts are facts. Antifa does advocate "fighting fire with fire." Anybody who denies that is mistaken. But the opposition of some to everything that Antifa stands for is an unfair exaggeration, and I am suspicious of some of the particular accusations made against antifa. Especially that "training" video. I've looked into it, and cannot find persuasive evidence that it is genuine and not fake. I am waiting for more information.
-