3 minutes ago, candide said:

So one killing in 2020 by an antifa guy. However does it make the whole antifa a terrorist organisation?

Are you now trivializing the death of two people at the hands of ANTIFA?   Wherever ANTIFA shows up, riots happen. 

8 minutes ago, TedG said:

Are you now trivializing the death of two people at the hands of ANTIFA?   Wherever ANTIFA shows up, riots happen. 

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

A few isolated single cases from people describing themselves as antifa are not showing that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

 

Organisations previously considered as terrorist (ex. Al Qaida, RAF, etc...) are known for organising (often mass-) killings. Nothing of the sort about antifa.

1 minute ago, candide said:

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

A few isolated single cases from people describing themselves as antifa are not showing that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

 

Organisations previously considered as terrorist (ex. Al Qaida, RAF, etc...) are known for organising (often mass-) killings. Nothing of the sort about antifa.

The goal of ANTIFA is to terrorize people.  Why did the left feel the need to defend ANTIFA?   

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

The goal of ANTIFA is to terrorize people.  Why did the left feel the need to defend ANTIFA?   

The question is not about defending Antifa or not. It's about the relevance of calling it (them) a terrorist organisation.

Just now, candide said:

The question is not about defending Antifa or not. It's about the relevance of calling it (them) a terrorist organisation.

A terrorist is an individual or group that uses or threatens violence for political, religious, racial, or ideological aims, intending to intimidate the public and coerce a government or civilian population into a desired action or policy. 

40 minutes ago, TedG said:

A terrorist is an individual or group that uses or threatens violence for political, religious, racial, or ideological aims, intending to intimidate the public and coerce a government or civilian population into a desired action or policy. 

Source?

 

Actually there is no domestic terrorism statute in the U.S. However, according to the FBI, domestic terrorism could be defined as:

 

In using the term Domestic Terrorism, DHS looks to the Homeland Security Act definition of 
terrorism, 6 U.S.C. 101(18), which is substantially similar but not identical to the title 18 
definition. That provision defines terrorism as any activity that: 
• Involves an act that:
o Is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key
resources; and
o Is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other
subdivision of the United States; and
• Appears to be intended:
o To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
o To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or
kidnapping.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-definitions-terminology-methodology.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjSgfqNpOePAxW4Q6QEHXsmDrYQFnoECEsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2hB-IutzYBjWp5yWQY4j-g

 

It hardly fits Antifa as a whole, in particular as it is not an organisation. It may fit a few individuals or groups. It may also fit extreme right-wing groups.

 

So right-wing groups doing much worse than Antifa, in particular in terms of homicides, were never called terrorist, but now Antifa (which is not an organisation) should be considered as terrorist. This is clearly political! 🤣

2 minutes ago, candide said:

 

 

So right-wing groups doing much worse than Antifa, in particular in terms of homicides, were never called terrorist, but now Antifa (which is not an organisation) should be considered as terrorist. This is clearly political! 🤣

What group?

21 minutes ago, TedG said:

What group?

Not necessarily groups, you're right. Concerning groups, Atomwaffen, Aryan nation, or Boogaloo comes to mind

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Not necessarily groups, you're right. Concerning groups, Atomwaffen, Aryan nation, or Boogaloo comes to mind

Who are the leaders of the Boogaloo's? 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

Who are the leaders of the Boogaloo's? 

Who are the leaders of antifa?

 

You just confirmed my point. Bogaloo and Antifa have a similar structure (or absence of structure). Antifa is called terrorist, but not Bogalooo.

 

Nor the proud boys who they assaulted the Capitol. Actually the assault of the Capitol seems to fit quite well the definition of terrorism on all criteria! 🙂

33 minutes ago, candide said:

Who are the leaders of antifa?

 

You just confirmed my point. Bogaloo and Antifa have a similar structure (or absence of structure). Antifa is called terrorist, but not Bogalooo.

 

Nor the proud boys who they assaulted the Capitol. Actually the assault of the Capitol seems to fit quite well the definition of terrorism on all criteria! 🙂

I'm glad you agree that ANTIFA are terroists. 

Can we do the same with MAGA?

22 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Can we do the same with MAGA?

 

   Didn't you already do that a long time ago ??

Speaking of WWII vets (ie. ANTIFA).  This woman (Queen Elizabeth II) served more time in the British Army than all three Trump generations.

 

 

4 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Speaking of WWII vets (ie. ANTIFA).  This woman served more time in the British Army than all three Trump generations.

 

 

I agree. and AFAIR she was a volunteer.

 

She served her country which is far more than Trump has ever done.

 

Nor did she try to claim an exemption for "bone spurs".

15 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Speaking of WWII vets (ie. ANTIFA).  This woman (Queen Elizabeth II) served more time in the British Army than all three Trump generations.

 

 

Why would you compare her to ANTIFA thugs? 

1 hour ago, TedG said:

I'm glad you agree that ANTIFA are terroists. 

You are putting words in my mouth again! 🙂

14 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Speaking of WWII vets (ie. ANTIFA).  This woman (Queen Elizabeth II) served more time in the British Army than all three Trump generations.

 

 

 

  Sid and Johnny would disagree with you .

Wasn't she head of the fascist regime ?

25 minutes ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

 

😄

 

I suppose you could do the same with MAGA and any other entity if you can prove they are terrorists.

 

Pardon my using Chat GPT 5 but it really provides the same ideas I want to express but does it within a microsecond. I appreciate your patience.

 

A terrorist is an individual or group that uses violence, intimidation, or the threat of violence to achieve specific political, ideological, or religious goals, often targeting civilians or non-combatants to instill fear or coerce governments or societies into adopting certain changes. The violence typically aims to disrupt public order, create fear, and gain attention for the perpetrator's cause.

Key Elements of Terrorism:

1. Violence or Threat of Violence: Terrorists often use or threaten violence, which can include bombings, shootings, kidnappings, or other forms of physical harm.

2. Political, Ideological, or Religious Motives: Terrorists generally have a specific agenda, whether political (e.g., overthrowing a government), ideological (e.g., promoting a certain belief system), or religious (e.g., enforcing religious laws or spreading religious beliefs).

3. Targeting Civilians or Non-Combatants: Terrorist acts often deliberately target civilians, public figures, or symbolic locations (such as government buildings, markets, or religious sites). The goal is to create widespread fear and draw attention to their cause.

4. Psychological Impact: A significant element of terrorism is the psychological effect. Terrorists aim to create a sense of insecurity, terror, and instability within the broader population, often going beyond the immediate victims of violence.

5. Intended Political or Social Change: The ultimate goal of terrorism is typically to influence political or social outcomes. This could involve things like policy changes, regime change, societal shifts, or the promotion of a particular cause.

---

Definitions by Key Authorities:

• U.S. Department of State: The U.S. defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets, usually intended to influence an audience."

• FBI: The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

• United Nations: The UN defines terrorism as "criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons, for political purposes."

---

Types of Terrorism:

1. Domestic Terrorism: Acts of terrorism that are carried out by individuals or groups within their own country, against their own citizens or government.

   • Example: Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing (1995).

2. International Terrorism: Terrorism that involves actors, networks, or operations across international borders, often targeting foreign governments or populations.

   • Example: Al-Qaeda attacks, including 9/11.

3. Religious Terrorism: Terrorism motivated by religious beliefs, often intended to force a society or government to adopt certain religious laws or principles.

   • Example: ISIS and their attacks in the Middle East and abroad.

4. Left-wing or Right-wing Terrorism: Left-wing terrorism is usually motivated by Marxist, socialist, or anti-capitalist ideologies, while right-wing terrorism is motivated by nationalist, fascist, or racist ideologies.

   • Example: The Weather Underground (left-wing) or The Proud Boys (right-wing).

5. State-Sponsored Terrorism: When governments sponsor or directly engage in acts of terrorism, often against their own population or foreign targets.

   • Example: Iran’s support for Hezbollah or Syria's support for Palestinian militant groups.

---

Important Distinctions:

• Not all violence is terrorism: While violence is a key element of terrorism, not all violent acts (e.g., criminal activities or acts of war) are considered terrorism. The intent, target, and goal behind the violence differentiate terrorism from other forms of violence.

• Terrorism vs. Insurgency: Insurgents typically aim for territorial control or overthrowing a government through military means. While terrorism may be a tactic used by insurgents, insurgency often involves direct military action against the state.

---

Common Methods Employed by Terrorists:

1. Bombings: Often target civilian areas like markets, buses, or airports.

2. Hostage Taking: To extract political concessions or make a statement.

3. Assassinations: Targeting high-profile individuals (e.g., politicians, leaders) to send a political message.

4. Cyberterrorism: Attacks on information systems, infrastructure, or networks to cause disruption and panic.

5. Hijackings: Using seized transportation (airplanes, ships) as a platform for demands or as a weapon.

---

Conclusion:

A terrorist is someone who uses violent or threatening acts to try to force political, ideological, or religious change, with the goal of creating fear and coercing individuals or governments. Whether it’s through bombings, assassinations, or other tactics, terrorism is primarily about manipulating emotions and creating psychological terror in order to bring about a desired outcome.

 

So I reckon if MAGA bombs places, takes hostages, assassinates someone, does cyber terrorism or hijacks airplanes, ships, etc. they'd be a terrorist organization. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you condemning any terrorist org.

 

Grandma’s Knitting Circle Officially Designated Terrorist Organization, Authorities Say

By Staff Reporter

WASHINGTON — In a move hailed by lawmakers as “a decisive victory against extremism,” federal authorities announced yesterday that Nana’s Neighborhood Knitting Class has been formally added to the national terror watchlist. The decision follows a months-long investigation into the weekly gathering of grandmothers, who met every Thursday afternoon at the Methodist church basement to knit scarves, mittens, and—allegedly—subversive plots. “These so-called ‘purl and stitch’ patterns are nothing more than coded messages,” said Deputy Director Frank Mulligan of the Department of Homeland Security. “We believe they were planning to unleash a wave of handcrafted blankets across the nation. And let me be clear: not the kind of blankets you can trust.”

Neighbors expressed shock at the arrests. “She made me a sweater for Christmas,” said local resident Diane Reynolds. “I thought the design was reindeer, but maybe it was… propaganda?”

Lawmakers wasted no time praising the crackdown. Senator Clive Burnham (R—Everytown) declared, “We’ve finally drawn the line against the scourge of weaponized knitting needles. For too long, we’ve ignored the radicalization happening in bingo halls and church basements.” Agents confiscated more than 40 skeins of yarn, five tins of shortbread cookies, and a suspiciously large teapot. “We neutralized the entire supply chain,” said Mulligan. “Without access to fresh wool, their operation is finished.”

Despite the charges, the accused grandmothers remained defiant. Speaking from her holding cell, 82-year-old ringleader Martha Jenkins insisted, “You can take away my needles, but you’ll never unravel freedom.”

The government has urged citizens to be vigilant and report any suspicious activity, including crocheting in public parks, unusual tea service, or “blankets with designs that don’t quite look right.

 

All the best to you.

The January 6 assault seems to fit quite well the definition of terrorism...

57 minutes ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

The following comes from a search in Chat GPT 5.

 

Things to consider about the Antifa terrorist designation. After reading negative articles about it, I wanted to see if there are reasonable explanations that support Trump's decision.

 

Antifa as an Ideological Movement, Not a Single Organization

 

Clarifying the Term: While it's true that "Antifa" (short for "anti-fascist") isn't a centralized, formal group with a clear structure, it functions more as an umbrella term for a loose network of individuals or activists who share anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-authoritarian beliefs. The term itself has been used by various radical left-wing groups globally to describe opposition to far-right ideologies.

 

Unconventional Warfare: Antifa adherents often engage in direct action or protests, which may include property destruction, violence, or clashes with right-wing groups. While there’s debate over whether these actions represent “terrorism,” Trump could be arguing that the tactics employed by some Antifa-related activists meet the definition of terrorism.

 

Defining Terrorism

 

Terrorism as a Strategy: According to the U.S. State Department, terrorism is the use of violence or threats to create fear, coerce, or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. Trump’s designation could be defended as recognizing that some Antifa-related factions have used violent tactics (e.g., riots, property damage, and physical confrontations) to influence political and social outcomes.

 

Past Actions: There have been specific incidents, particularly during protests in places like Portland, Oregon, where Antifa activists were involved in violent clashes. While not everyone associated with Antifa uses violence, those incidents could be framed as terrorism by some. Trump's focus could be on these extreme cases rather than the broader movement.

 

Law Enforcement and Security Concerns

 

Supporting Law Enforcement: Trump’s designation could be defended as an attempt to empower law enforcement agencies to crack down on groups or individuals that threaten public safety. Even if Antifa isn't a formal organization, Trump might have viewed the designation as a way to address the violent elements associated with it.

 

Rhetoric of National Security: In an era of increasing political polarization and protests, labeling Antifa as a “terrorist” group could be seen as a way to categorize them alongside other threats to national security, even if they don’t fit neatly into a traditional definition of terrorism.

 

Political Messaging

 

Appealing to Supporters: The designation could also be seen as a political move aimed at appealing to Trump’s base, particularly those who were alarmed by the violence during the protests, including looting, destruction of property, and physical attacks by some individuals claiming affiliation with Antifa. By framing Antifa as a "terrorist group," Trump was tapping into concerns over law and order, appealing to voters who felt that such actions were undermining civil society.

 

Global Context

 

Antifa and International Movements: Some may argue that Antifa is not just a domestic issue but part of a broader global resistance to rising far-right movements. Trump's designation could be defended as recognizing that Antifa-inspired actions were being carried out in various countries, including Europe, where some Antifa groups were involved in violent clashes with right-wing extremists.

 

Precedent for Designating Movements/Individuals Instead of Organized Groups

 

Designating Groups or Ideologies: Historically, the U.S. government has designated movements or individuals as terrorist threats without them being a formal, hierarchical group. For example, the U.S. has labeled certain individual extremists or loosely organized movements as terrorist threats as follows.

 

Ku Klux Klan (KKK): Although the KKK is not a single organized group but rather a collection of loosely affiliated chapters and factions, the U.S. government has treated its violent actions as terrorism. Several Klan members have been prosecuted for acts of terrorism, and the government has used various legal tools to target the group's violent factions.

 

Black Lives Matter (BLM) (Certain Factions): Certain factions of BLM and other radical left-wing movements have been accused of using violence and destruction of property during protests. In 2020, some politicians (notably from the Trump administration) sought to label certain elements of BLM as domestic terrorism, especially in the context of the violence that erupted during protests.

 

The Proud Boys: While not officially labeled as a "terrorist organization" by the U.S. government, the Proud Boys—a far-right, male-only extremist group—have been linked to various violent acts and domestic terrorism. The U.S. government has labeled members of the group as individuals who pose threats to national security, particularly in relation to their role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

 

The Oath Keepers: Similar to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers are a far-right, anti-government militia group. The organization promotes a "patriot" ideology that opposes federal authority. Key members of the Oath Keepers were charged with conspiracy and seditious acts related to the January 6 Capitol riots, although the group itself has not been officially designated as a terrorist group.

 

Hamas: A Palestinian militant group that has been responsible for numerous attacks against Israeli civilians, Hamas was designated by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997. Although Hamas is a formal organization, certain radical individuals within the movement can also be designated as terrorist threats, especially those that carry out violence independently or in coordination with other groups.

 

Hezbollah: Another group that has both a formal organizational structure and individuals operating independently, Hezbollah has been classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. since 1997. The U.S. also targets individual members of Hezbollah for sanctions and terrorism designations, particularly when they engage in independent or decentralized actions.

 

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP): While Al-Qaeda as a whole is a well-established terrorist group, AQAP has also seen certain individuals designated as terrorists due to their direct involvement in terrorist plots and attacks. Some AQAP operatives act with relative autonomy or within small cells.

 

ISIS/ISIL: Like Al-Qaeda, ISIS is a highly organized group, but specific ISIS operatives, even those acting alone or in small cells (often referred to as "lone wolves"), have been designated as terrorists. Some individuals who joined ISIS and carried out attacks in the West have been targeted by U.S. sanctions and designations.

 

Timothy McVeigh, responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, was never part of a formal organization but was considered a domestic terrorist.

 

Dylan Roof, who carried out the 2015 shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, motivated by racist beliefs, was another example of a lone-wolf terrorist who was not affiliated with any group but was treated as a domestic terrorist.

 

 

 

Trump's designation could be defended on this basis—labeling a movement, even if not a structured organization, as a threat to national security or public order.

 

Countering the "Antifa Doesn’t Exist" Argument:

Existence vs. Organization: Words used to describe Antifa: Clandestine, covert, diffuse, decentralized, shadowy, anonymous and elusive. One way to defend Trump's stance is to clarify the distinction between "existence" and "organization." Critics may claim that Antifa doesn’t exist as a formal group, but this misses the point that even without a central structure, there is a decentralized movement of individuals and factions that operate under a shared ideology, which can still pose threats in the form of violence or civil unrest.

 

The Concept of "Leaderless Resistance": This concept, popularized by some militant movements, suggests that an ideological movement doesn’t need a formal structure to engage in organized actions. In this case, Antifa could be viewed as a network that, even without centralized leadership, still collectively contributes to violence or destruction in the name of anti-fascism.

 

Summing it up...

 

Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization can be defended as a response to violent tactics used by some individuals within the broader Antifa movement, even if it isn't a formal organization. The designation could be seen as a way to empower law enforcement and address public safety concerns, rather than an attempt to criminalize all anti-fascist activists. However, the key challenge in defending it is balancing the line between the actions of violent extremists and the broader ideology they claim to represent.

 

Just an aside... I don't know of any criminal organizations that advertise their whereabouts or publicize their staff... I'm just sayin'. 🤨

Another shorter way to analyse it, is to observe that there isn't any other organisation which has been designated as a terrorist organisation, so it's purely a biased political initiative.

 

Actually there is no legal way to design a domestic group as a terrorist organisation, only foreign groups can be designated as terrorist organisation. And there is no domestic terrorism criminal statute (at least at the federal level). There is no possibility to empower law enforcement as such a designation has no legal significance.

 

Some crimes can be "classified" as act of terrorism, but they are prosecuted under other criminal statutes (murder, hate crimes, conspiracy, weapons charges, etc...), not under a “terrorist organization” designation.  

The left loves to riot, that’s why they love antifa. 

 

Spaghetti-armed punks dressed up like ninjas and beating up old ladies in MAGA hats. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, candide said:

The January 6 assault seems to fit quite well the definition of terrorism...

Does this apply to the 2020 summer of love?

13 minutes ago, TedG said:

Does this apply to the 2020 summer of love?

No, that was left-wing, they don’t count as violence.

just a reminder here people

 

"Yes, he is making a very profound philosophical point which is going to be too deep for most people." 

 

worn with maga pride

 

 

 

 

Land of the free ...

Not alone these days. The President, MTG and Ted Cruz each have been courageous of late and hopefully that continues.

On 9/19/2025 at 4:53 PM, shdmn said:

A terrorist symbol.

 

 

I appreciate your support for the Bolsheviks, as they played a crucial role in defeating the Germans. Your stance highlights that the Bolsheviks stand in stark contrast to Nazis and capitalists, showcasing their commitment to progress and justice.

13 hours ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

The following comes from a search in Chat GPT 5.

 

Things to consider about the Antifa terrorist designation. After reading negative articles about it, I wanted to see if there are reasonable explanations that support Trump's decision.

 

Antifa as an Ideological Movement, Not a Single Organization

 

Clarifying the Term: While it's true that "Antifa" (short for "anti-fascist") isn't a centralized, formal group with a clear structure, it functions more as an umbrella term for a loose network of individuals or activists who share anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-authoritarian beliefs. The term itself has been used by various radical left-wing groups globally to describe opposition to far-right ideologies.

 

Unconventional Warfare: Antifa adherents often engage in direct action or protests, which may include property destruction, violence, or clashes with right-wing groups. While there’s debate over whether these actions represent “terrorism,” Trump could be arguing that the tactics employed by some Antifa-related activists meet the definition of terrorism.

 

Defining Terrorism

 

Terrorism as a Strategy: According to the U.S. State Department, terrorism is the use of violence or threats to create fear, coerce, or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. Trump’s designation could be defended as recognizing that some Antifa-related factions have used violent tactics (e.g., riots, property damage, and physical confrontations) to influence political and social outcomes.

 

Past Actions: There have been specific incidents, particularly during protests in places like Portland, Oregon, where Antifa activists were involved in violent clashes. While not everyone associated with Antifa uses violence, those incidents could be framed as terrorism by some. Trump's focus could be on these extreme cases rather than the broader movement.

 

Law Enforcement and Security Concerns

 

Supporting Law Enforcement: Trump’s designation could be defended as an attempt to empower law enforcement agencies to crack down on groups or individuals that threaten public safety. Even if Antifa isn't a formal organization, Trump might have viewed the designation as a way to address the violent elements associated with it.

 

Rhetoric of National Security: In an era of increasing political polarization and protests, labeling Antifa as a “terrorist” group could be seen as a way to categorize them alongside other threats to national security, even if they don’t fit neatly into a traditional definition of terrorism.

 

Political Messaging

 

Appealing to Supporters: The designation could also be seen as a political move aimed at appealing to Trump’s base, particularly those who were alarmed by the violence during the protests, including looting, destruction of property, and physical attacks by some individuals claiming affiliation with Antifa. By framing Antifa as a "terrorist group," Trump was tapping into concerns over law and order, appealing to voters who felt that such actions were undermining civil society.

 

Global Context

 

Antifa and International Movements: Some may argue that Antifa is not just a domestic issue but part of a broader global resistance to rising far-right movements. Trump's designation could be defended as recognizing that Antifa-inspired actions were being carried out in various countries, including Europe, where some Antifa groups were involved in violent clashes with right-wing extremists.

 

Precedent for Designating Movements/Individuals Instead of Organized Groups

 

Designating Groups or Ideologies: Historically, the U.S. government has designated movements or individuals as terrorist threats without them being a formal, hierarchical group. For example, the U.S. has labeled certain individual extremists or loosely organized movements as terrorist threats as follows.

 

Ku Klux Klan (KKK): Although the KKK is not a single organized group but rather a collection of loosely affiliated chapters and factions, the U.S. government has treated its violent actions as terrorism. Several Klan members have been prosecuted for acts of terrorism, and the government has used various legal tools to target the group's violent factions.

 

Black Lives Matter (BLM) (Certain Factions): Certain factions of BLM and other radical left-wing movements have been accused of using violence and destruction of property during protests. In 2020, some politicians (notably from the Trump administration) sought to label certain elements of BLM as domestic terrorism, especially in the context of the violence that erupted during protests.

 

The Proud Boys: While not officially labeled as a "terrorist organization" by the U.S. government, the Proud Boys—a far-right, male-only extremist group—have been linked to various violent acts and domestic terrorism. The U.S. government has labeled members of the group as individuals who pose threats to national security, particularly in relation to their role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

 

The Oath Keepers: Similar to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers are a far-right, anti-government militia group. The organization promotes a "patriot" ideology that opposes federal authority. Key members of the Oath Keepers were charged with conspiracy and seditious acts related to the January 6 Capitol riots, although the group itself has not been officially designated as a terrorist group.

 

Hamas: A Palestinian militant group that has been responsible for numerous attacks against Israeli civilians, Hamas was designated by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997. Although Hamas is a formal organization, certain radical individuals within the movement can also be designated as terrorist threats, especially those that carry out violence independently or in coordination with other groups.

 

Hezbollah: Another group that has both a formal organizational structure and individuals operating independently, Hezbollah has been classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. since 1997. The U.S. also targets individual members of Hezbollah for sanctions and terrorism designations, particularly when they engage in independent or decentralized actions.

 

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP): While Al-Qaeda as a whole is a well-established terrorist group, AQAP has also seen certain individuals designated as terrorists due to their direct involvement in terrorist plots and attacks. Some AQAP operatives act with relative autonomy or within small cells.

 

ISIS/ISIL: Like Al-Qaeda, ISIS is a highly organized group, but specific ISIS operatives, even those acting alone or in small cells (often referred to as "lone wolves"), have been designated as terrorists. Some individuals who joined ISIS and carried out attacks in the West have been targeted by U.S. sanctions and designations.

 

Timothy McVeigh, responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, was never part of a formal organization but was considered a domestic terrorist.

 

Dylan Roof, who carried out the 2015 shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, motivated by racist beliefs, was another example of a lone-wolf terrorist who was not affiliated with any group but was treated as a domestic terrorist.

 

 

 

Trump's designation could be defended on this basis—labeling a movement, even if not a structured organization, as a threat to national security or public order.

 

Countering the "Antifa Doesn’t Exist" Argument:

Existence vs. Organization: Words used to describe Antifa: Clandestine, covert, diffuse, decentralized, shadowy, anonymous and elusive. One way to defend Trump's stance is to clarify the distinction between "existence" and "organization." Critics may claim that Antifa doesn’t exist as a formal group, but this misses the point that even without a central structure, there is a decentralized movement of individuals and factions that operate under a shared ideology, which can still pose threats in the form of violence or civil unrest.

 

The Concept of "Leaderless Resistance": This concept, popularized by some militant movements, suggests that an ideological movement doesn’t need a formal structure to engage in organized actions. In this case, Antifa could be viewed as a network that, even without centralized leadership, still collectively contributes to violence or destruction in the name of anti-fascism.

 

Summing it up...

 

Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization can be defended as a response to violent tactics used by some individuals within the broader Antifa movement, even if it isn't a formal organization. The designation could be seen as a way to empower law enforcement and address public safety concerns, rather than an attempt to criminalize all anti-fascist activists. However, the key challenge in defending it is balancing the line between the actions of violent extremists and the broader ideology they claim to represent.

 

Just an aside... I don't know of any criminal organizations that advertise their whereabouts or publicize their staff... I'm just sayin'. 🤨

Very good Chatgpt. Now what do you call all these people obfuscating this issue.?  ^^° And also these people obfuscating the use of Chatgpt. Chatgpt has trained on the entire information online. Pathetic to try and strawman/ dismiss this as "what it's fed" 

31 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I suggest your post is a gish gallop of half-truths, biased framing, and illogical reasoning.

Right from the get-go you’re guilty of an illogical appeal to authority by waving ChatGPT like proof — when it only reflects what you feed it, like any other text editor.

If you were really serious, you’d use AI to run a high-level fact-check alongside a logical fallacy and biased framing analysis, and keep going until you have something that holds up.

Until then, you’re just quoting yourself.

Thanks for your reply.

 

I simply wanted to see if there are reasonable explanations that support Trump's decision. I heard from one side's argument and wanted another perspective. I disagree my simple motive of hearing alternative arguments is biased framing. If anything, I wanted to prevent biased framing by selecting Chat GPT 5.

 

Thinking about it, I don't think I posted the actual query in the Chat GPT question box and that might allow for miscommunication. Sorry for that.

 

I see people in the left and the right living in an echo chamber passing the same simple messages that reaffirm their viewpoints; people sitting in an echo chamber, listening only to themselves. Same with politicized websites.  Hence I dared to see what Chat GPT 5 may offer hopefully outside the encountered bias I couldn't avoid.

 

I never waved Chat GTP 5 as an authority. I just posted the fresh perspective from Chat GPT 5. Not sure how you can say I had an "illogical appeal to authority by waving ChatGPT like proof — when it only reflects what you feed it, like any other text editor".

 

"If you were really serious, you’d use AI to run a high-level fact-check alongside a logical fallacy and biased framing analysis, and keep going until you have something that holds up."

 

You obviously have much more training in search methods than I and I respect that.

 

 "Until then, you’re just quoting yourself." Well, I disagree.  I'm guilty of quoting Chat GPT 5.

 

Thanks. All the best to you.

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

I suggest your post is a gish gallop of half-truths, biased framing, and illogical reasoning.

Right from the get-go you’re guilty of an illogical appeal to authority by waving ChatGPT like proof — when it only reflects what you feed it, like any other text editor.

If you were really serious, you’d use AI to run a high-level fact-check alongside a logical fallacy and biased framing analysis, and keep going until you have something that holds up.

Until then, you’re just quoting yourself.

Yes, only the left is allowed ti use chat GTP as “proof”