You've got some obvious assigned talking points to "defend ANTIFA."

My question is, why? And to what purpose? (Of course I already know, but am interested in how you defend your stand)

However my opinion is you're abusing and misrepresenting the documents you posted by Gottlieb. Let's take one or two things she said, to illustrate.

However my opinion is you're abusing and misrepresenting the documents you posted by Gottlieb. Let's examine a bit of her thinking.

...By scaling these programs to ripple out and touch as many people in as many locations as possible, Creating the Future will model its work after successful movements for change (vs successful organizations). That is our plan of action. And a major first step in that plan is to ensure that the organization’s structure is built and maintained as a support to those ripples....

https://creatingthefuture.org/our-plan/

Nothing there that supports your narrow attempt to re-define movement vs organization in support of your radical extremist support of Antifa, is there? You made that up.

Why, you are exactly repeating what someone else said! What nice sock puppetry! But look at my post?

Asshats aiding and abetting the precisely synchronized, orchestrated waves of violence, who now may confront FBI agents asking about their actions as part of Antifa, can  now stand down the agents by arguing "Antifa is not an organization."

Don't you feel good, knowing that little white boy, proud Antifa in mom's basement can argue "Antifa is not an organization" to the not-Friendly FBI agents who have knocked on his door to discuss his terrorist operations with the Antifa Organization?

I gotta give you a hint how that's going to turn out. Those FBI agents are not going to be friendly.

I got it now, believe me. Asshats aiding and abetting the precisely synchronized, orchestrated waves of violence, who now may confront FBI agents asking about their actions as part of Antifa, can  now stand down the agents by arguing "Antifa is not an organization."

Sure am glad we all got that figured out!

Something is screwed in the quotes above. Here's what I had to say about the entire fiasco.

It's reasonable to point out that the victim was, in fact, a bad guy.

But this remains an incident where the bad guy, being arrested, should have been treated with respect.

It's reasonable to point out that the victim was, in fact, a bad guy.

But this remains an incident where the bad guy, being arrested, should have been treated with respect.

No I wouldn't particularly care. Because Antifa is now designated a terrorist ORGANIZATION.

So what exactly do you want to argue? That's wrong?

Interesting history of Antifa.

https://americanmind.org/essays/the-real-history-of-antifa/

Figured that's what you'd do. You did in fact read that "somewhere on the Internet" and believed it. Next you'll be arguing that your idea on what "loosely organized" is includes near simultaneous flash mobs at specific locations organized by cells using disposable burn phones, again across the USA.

Curious how the propagandists create moral equivalency and credible doubt, isn't it?

Nice redirection and reframing of the arguments.How do you like the path you are being led down, the narrative you are told to argue for or against?

I recently watched a mainland China documentary about Mao's takeover of the mainland. The tactics used, including large networks that were rigidly organized into three person cells. Those in each had limited knowledge of any outside of their own cell. The protests, the provocators in the protests, the reactions, were weirdly identical to current American events.

So please layoff the condescending "You realize how network works," nobody here is that stupid.

As for XYZ being a "loosely affiliated network that doesn't have a head" how about if you want to assert that, you have the burden of proving it? Let me guess, you read that somewhere on the Internet and believed it?

Or do you think that because a couple liberals here agreed with you that you are right? It doesn't work that way. What's ACTUALLY going to come down on this is now with a designated TERRORIST label on these sick puppies, in very short order we'll have all the facts on what and who is behind them.

Well if there were machines/robots, they should be able to tell us the brand/make/model/serial number and date of manufucture

Am I missing something, or does nothing you said have anything to do with the phrase and use of "nano"?

Whether the subject is 911, 5G, or vaccines, the word "nano" is sacred to the myth of a government conspiracy of evil.

Mother Jones now?

You must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

That's not even a point.

I did check with/about Andreas Kalcker.

Here's his diploma.

https://archive.vn/K7lsD/f3cdcce97b1f110d98d3b603f45f6311010759c6.jpg

Here's the "University."

http://transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=8374.0

The use of cells at the higher organizational level of an attempted communist takeover is well documented. This was done by those agents of the Communist party under Mao in organizing the "student protests" in China that led to the takeover in 1949.

Huh?

The "weak gestures" are from liberal governors who let cities burn.

Trump said if they wouldn't stop it, he would.

Your very twitter link, says "He had an alibi..."

The page on Antifa by the Southern Poverty Law Center is quite interesting. It's obviously they are pushing the lie and backing the violent anarchists/communists.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/01/designating-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization-dangerous-threatens-civil-liberties

I don't see a reasonable chain of logic in the law you propose.

Crime A allows or assists in Crime B therefore all involved in Crime A should be charged with Crime B.

No...