Antifa attacks journalist in Portland

a reply to: operation mindcrime

My toes are fine; thank you for your concern. I am quite satisfied with my academic success as well.

Not everyone will accept... not everyone will be capable of accepting... the post you seem to have gotten stuck in your craw. I knew that when I made it. It's not really there for you; it's there for those who can see what's coming. I had hoped you would be one who could see, but alas... call me a dreamer. Knowledge is funny like that... things that are crystal clear to some are completely opaque to others, and one never knows who will "get it" and who will not.

You don't get it... so sad, too bad.

As for your presence in this thread, it's an open board. You can post in any thread you like. If you leave a thread, it's your decision, no one else's.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No I got the message from your post, it was just that your comparison struck me as extremely ironical because you took an example of where violence actually was the only option.

But this isn't about the french revolution it's about antifa.

We already concluded that the antifa that we know from it's origins has little to no resemblence to what is walking around Portland. As I already pointed out a bunch of triggered leftwing supporters have adapted the trademarks of this movement and are inspired by the concept of protest and using violence to get their point across.

This is antifa:









This last picture is particulary interesting because mr. Ngo can be seen in this photo assaulted along with the person who assaulted him...

This also antifa



Or maybe Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA), or Skinheads, both RASH and SHARPs can't really tell...

And I know the police is ignoring the assaults on mr.Ngo because everytime he got a milkshake thrown at him he reportered to the police and they did nothing...must have been to busy eating donuts or are on the side of antifa who were busy chanting "all cops are bastards".

I am still not saying mr.Ngo should have been beaten but I am also not one to join the bandwagon of people saying antifa is the problem. Not the ameicn version of antifa anyway.

We don't have that much violent protests where I come from but we got football and it resembles this situation in that you have a team, which has supporters. There re always these pricks who actually care less about football and more about picking a fight with the pricks from the other team. They get seperate blocks and after the match are send in different directions to avoid direct confrontation.

Mr.Ngo has the problem of being viewed by one side as a hooligan supporter for the other team. I'm not saying he did that to himself but if you are aware of this fact and you insist on standing in that block isn't that a bit foolish?

You could argue that the whole supporters base should cease to exsist or banned but that won't solve the problem. You could also say that you then have to arrest all those hooligans but as long as they aren't actually violating any laws you are violating their rights to be hooligans.

So basically you have to wait till they actually do something that is illegal. Twist in this story is the fanbase likes to wear same clothes and cover their faces.

How are you going to respond?

Ban face covering. I'm all for that!!

But in Portland this doesn't seem to be mandatory just yet so what do you expect law enforcement to do when somebody is deadset on finding trouble?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Hey Gambler,

I'm aware that we are on different timetables and I'm affraid that we aren't going to have much time to play...

So if you allow me to answer my post in your honor I can get on with this and you just fill in what I didn't get right.

*hey Mindcrime, your post is absolute irrelevant jibberish and you fail to adress the main issue here that you are condoning violant acts upon an innocent reporter.

What you are doing us victim blaiming and it is disgusting. It is people like you would say to a rape victim that they had it coming because they wear a short skirt.

Yeah I got that the first 4 times but what I am trying to point out is that the term victim needs a little closer examination.

If I was enjoying the nice scenic view in some national park and a grizzlybear was circling my car, damaging my paintjob.

The parkranger said if such an event occured that I should stay in the car for my own safety but I was convinced that treehugging parkranger hippy was on the side of the grizzlybear and ignored the warning to step out of the car to give the bear a piece of my mind.

It is a free country and no one can tell me to stay in my car. But if the grizzlybear was not open for discussion and attacked me, would I be:

A: the victim of a bear attack
Or
B: responsible for my injuries for inciting a bear

You see I can't get over the fact that a rape victim does not willfully expose herself to a certain danger but mr.Ngo seems to do just that.

Is the only reply to that "because he should be free to do so"...I am free to engage in a conversation with a grizzlybear but that doesn't make it a smart move.

Doesn't freedom come with the responsibility to use your freaking common sense?

Peace

When you have nothing but excuses for terrorists, infest thread with inane garbage until people throw their hands up and say, F@#$ this.

a reply to: BoscoMoney

I'm really going to have to ask you to be a bit more coherent there Bosco (if I may call you Bosco, it feels like I have known you for so long).

We are 26 pages deep into this thread and you can't just post a 3 line answer without hitting the reply button or referencing to a specific question.

I would really hate for your valuable contribution to go unnoticed and so far you're the only one here. I guess the rest is still asleep...

Peace

Double post

Ahhh fiddlestick...double post

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: operation mindcrime

Hey Gambler,

I'm aware that we are on different timetables and I'm affraid that we aren't going to have much time to play...

So if you allow me to answer my post in your honor I can get on with this and you just fill in what I didn't get right.

*hey Mindcrime, your post is absolute irrelevant jibberish and you fail to adress the main issue here that you are condoning violant acts upon an innocent reporter.


What you are doing us victim blaiming and it is disgusting. It is people like you would say to a rape victim that they had it coming because they wear a short skirt.

Yeah I got that the first 4 times but what I am trying to point out is that the term victim needs a little closer examination.

If I was enjoying the nice scenic view in some national park and a grizzlybear was circling my car, damaging my paintjob.

The parkranger said if such an event occured that I should stay in the car for my own safety but I was convinced that treehugging parkranger hippy was on the side of the grizzlybear and ignored the warning to step out of the car to give the bear a piece of my mind.

It is a free country and no one can tell me to stay in my car. But if the grizzlybear was not open for discussion and attacked me, would I be:

A: the victim of a bear attack
Or
B: responsible for my injuries for inciting a bear

You see I can't get over the fact that a rape victim does not willfully expose herself to a certain danger but mr.Ngo seems to do just that.

Is the only reply to that "because he should be free to do so"...I am free to engage in a conversation with a grizzlybear but that doesn't make it a smart move.

Doesn't freedom come with the responsibility to use your freaking common sense?

Peace

The trouble with that analogy is that we have to view an anti fascist movement as comparable to an aggressive animal that can't be reasoned with.

Whether this is Antifa or some faction that has hijacked the movement for it's own violent agenda the fact that a man gets severely beaten for walking into the wrong group is deserving of condemnation. People who resort to that kind of violent tribalism on the right or left deserve to be called out.

a reply to: fastzombie

I agree...but condemnation of who?

The beating I understand but who do we condemn for that?

You said it well when you hinted at a fraction of antifa but which fraction?

I guess the only answer could be the actual people injuring mr.Ngo.

Let's condemn them...but who are they?

Are the people "shooting" sillystring at a reporter also guilty? Or the milkshake throwers?

Or the actual people hitting mr.Ngo?

In all fairness, in my opinion, the last group should be incarcerated. But you can't recognise them...

Almost like a wild animal which can't be reasoned with...which bring me back to my grizzlybear.

Ban facemasks and identify the actual enemy but untill that is done shouldn't people rely a little bit more on their own judgement and common sense?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

No I got the message from your post, it was just that your comparison struck me as extremely ironical because you took an example of where violence actually was the only option.

If someone is threatening you and the police refuse to respond, exactly what are your options? Stand there and let it happen? Sorry, that's just not reasonable. A reasonable person will initially attempt to get help if possible, but then defend themselves if not. Andy Ngo was physically outmatched and overpowered, so he had little chance to do so, but eventually they will pick an armed target.

If the police had stepped in to break it up, I would be calling for prosecution of those directly involved in the attack. But the police did not, apparently on orders from Portland city leaders. That establishes Antifa as a dangerous entity.

We already concluded that the antifa that we know from it's origins has little to no resemblence to what is walking around Portland.

No, we didn't. I actually see many parallels between the German version and the American version. Both are quite content to use violence in their protests and both are promoting the Communist agenda.

This is antifa:

Still photos taken during relatively peaceful interludes do not counter video showing a violent attack. There is no one in the history of the country, including Charles Manson himself, that did not have peaceful moments. Does that exonerate him? No!

It is also a fact that it is extremely difficult and inaccurate to detect someone's propensity toward violence based on what they look like.

And I know the police is ignoring the assaults on mr.Ngo because everytime he got a milkshake thrown at him he reportered to the police and they did nothing...must have been to busy eating donuts or are on the side of antifa who were busy chanting "all cops are bastards".

The problem with the police appears to originate at higher levels. If the police are told to not interfere at risk of their job, they will likely not interfere.

I am still not saying mr.Ngo should have been beaten but I am also not one to join the bandwagon of people saying antifa is the problem. Not the ameicn version of antifa anyway.

Antifa are the ones who beat him. By definition, the ones who committed the assault are the problem. The fact that no one has come forward from Antifa saying the attack was wrong indicates that the group as a whole is OK with it.

If I see any group consistently committing violence like this, I will call them out. That includes any group, not just Antifa. The fact that Antifa are the ones doing the majority of reported violence at this point in time is not a bias against them; it is a bias against violence. I will proudly admit to having that bias.

We don't have that much violent protests where I come from but we got football and it resembles this situation in that you have a team, which has supporters.

Hoss, I am in Alabama. The rivalry between Alabama and Auburn is the hottest one in the nation. Many years ago, Alabama State Troopers were assigned to the Iron Bowl game to prevent the deaths of fans who stormed the field after the game.

A few years back, a group of (assumed) Alabama fans poisoned an ancient tree on the Auburn campus that had great sentimental meaning to those in Auburn. The response was swift. Almost to the man, every Alabama fan I know denounced the act, and some were actually so angry it is probably a good thing they never caught who did it. Auburn did not have to ask for Alabama to denounce anything. It was automatic. Someone went too far and they were immediately denounced.

If we were treating those who attacked Ngo (or anyone else) the same way we treated the fools who attacked Auburn, I would be calling for those individuals to be prosecuted. But we're not. You are making excuses for them and trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation, as are some others. No one in Antifa has come forward to denounce the attacks. That is the problem.

So basically you have to wait till they actually do something that is illegal. Twist in this story is the fanbase likes to wear same clothes and cover their faces.

The police were on site when the attack happened. They simply didn't interfere. The attack against Ngo was illegal, and arrest could (and should) have been made right there, using whatever force was necessary. This was not some white-collar crime where you simply write down the name of the perpetrator and show up later at their home to quietly arrest them. This was a violent attack by an unruly mob and demanded immediate, decisive action to break it up.

Ban face covering. I'm all for that!!

Ironically, I am not.

But in Portland this doesn't seem to be mandatory just yet so what do you expect law enforcement to do when somebody is deadset on finding trouble?

I expect them to intervene, right then and right there. That's what police are supposed to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with you that police should be doing their job but what exactly was their job?

It would seem to me their prime objective is keeping a volitile situation in check. I know people are saying the cops are corrupt and on the side of antifa but I need a little more proof for that.

Mr.Ngo was "assaulted" earlier that day with a milkshake and demanded police arrest the person responsible.



If I was a cop there I probably wouldn't run into the antifa crowd to tackle a milkshake thrower because that would probably escalate an already volitile situation in a big hurry. They made up a report and continued securing the area.

After mr.Ngo got cleaned up he, later that day, got assaulted with an other milkshake..



Again an attempt was made to make the cops arrest the person responsible but again nothing was done for the same reason.

I saw the video of the actual physical attack and it happened pretty quick. I fail to detect a cop standing right next to it and allowing it.

Are you suggesting that police should have concentrated more on mr Ngo instead of keeping two rival groups seperated?

I can understand police should have arrested the person hitting mr.Ngo but if you insist on playing chicken little after each milkshake or sillystring attack are you not equaly responsible them not looking out too closely for you?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

I agree with you that police should be doing their job but what exactly was their job?

Their job is to keep the peace and enforce the law. That's simple.

They were informed twice that the crowd was unruly. At that point, they should have shut the protest down. At the least, they should have increased their presence to assure that no other attacks were imminent. They did not. Had they simply increased their presence, there would have likely been no attack. Even if there had been, there would have been help right there.

What if it weren't Andy Ngo? I know, you think he deserves a good beating, but what if it had been your father? Your son? Your friend? Do they deserve some sort of protection form an unruly mob?

You see, I cannot discount this action because of who was attacked. I believe everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If I start beating up some guy in public, even if he "deserves it," I will be arrested. If someone else is not arrested for doing what I would be arrested for, that someone else is a danger to the very concept of equal under the law. If I am attacked, if someone I care about is attacked, I want the police to do their job. Therefore, if Andy Ngo is attacked, I want the police to do their job.

That is the basic problem I have with your position. I know (and so do you if you'll be honest about it) that if I found myself in the middle of an unruly mob, I would expect police to show up and handle the situation. Your statements indicate that either you would be fine with being beat up and not expect the police to do anything (which I do not believe for one second) or you have no issue with the police protecting only the right people. I vehemently disagree with that, and I always will.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think what we got here is a failure to commincate. I agree that the police should always protect the rights of the innocent and act when violence accures.

Shutting the protest down would only negatively influence the cause of the only legite protest that was there that day...it wasn't an antifa protest. "Antifa" was there without any permit to protest.

How should they go about arresting an entire group of people that just happen to exercise their right to come to a protest and express how they feel about it. You know how that's going to end up right? That's a hornets nest you don't want to stick your hand in.

Police was there to assure the protest that was being held could be held unobstructed. Their main objective wasn't arresting people throwing milkshakes. I don't condone it but before you know it you're running around chasing people throwing confetti because somebody doesn't like it.

Andy didn't deserve being beaten up but andy also didn't "find himself in an unruly mob", andy was looking for an unrurly mob...there is a big difference.

I would expect the cop to protect my rights just as much as the next guy but I am also not expecting thè cops to follow me around like some babysitter.

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime


The minute banning anything comes into the equation someone will start howling about fascists while continuing to act in a fascist manner.

Most of the points - good ones - you raise I believe come down to how well policed the event was. My personal opinion is that anyone marching around with masks on should be told to surrender them or carted off to the nick if they refuse.

If a gay asian man is putting himself at risk by mingling with anti-fascists, then I have to question how anti fascist they truly are.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Shutting the protest down would only negatively influence the cause of the only legite protest that was there that day...it wasn't an antifa protest. "Antifa" was there without any permit to protest.

Then arresting those responsible for the beating would not have interfered with the legitimate protest.

There comes a point where a counter-protest can become a denial of the right to protest. Everything I have seen tells me that Antifa has crossed that line.

Police was there to assure the protest that was being held could be held unobstructed. Their main objective wasn't arresting people throwing milkshakes. I don't condone it but before you know it you're running around chasing people throwing confetti because somebody doesn't like it.

If Antifa did not have a permit, but their opposition group did, then the police were certainly not there to make sure a legitimate protest could continue unabated. Their inaction was accomplishing the opposite: allowing the unpermitted opposition free reign.

What you're telling me is: Patriot's Prayer had a permit to hold a planned protest. Antifa did not, but showed up in larger numbers than Patriot's Prayer for the express purpose of shutting down Patriot's Prayer's legal protest. In the process Antifa beat up a reporter they disagreed with. The police did nothing to impede Antifa during all this.

That is just wrong. Antifa should all then be arrested for violating the right of Patiot's Prayer to hold their protest.

I would feel the same way if back in the 70s a Civil Rights march were held and the KKK showed up to disrupt them and in the process beat up a reporter. It's the same thing, but here again you appear to be making excuses for the disrupters... in that example, the KKK.

Andy didn't deserve being beaten up but andy also didn't "find himself in an unruly mob", andy was looking for an unrurly mob...there is a big difference.

I would expect the cop to protect my rights just as much as the next guy but I am also not expecting thè cops to follow me around like some babysitter.

So you admit that Antifa was an unruly mob... but do not admit the police should have shut them down? Do you not see where that is encouraging unruly mobs to exist?

The fact that a group of people have become an unruly mob is enough reason to shut them down... that includes demanding dispersal and arrests and prosecution as needed. If that were done, there is no longer any need to "babysit" anyone. The streets are safe. If the unruly mob is allowed to exist, the need arises to "babysit" everyone not associated with the mob, and that is an unreasonable expectation. That's exactly why we don't allow unruly mobs to exist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I get your point but the First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion. Even if antifa shows up and they have a name for using violence untill they use such violence they are allowed to express their dislike with the patriot prayers.

Remember that second assault I showed you..



This may or may not be an antifa supporter but untill he covers his face and starts beating mr.Ngo he is just a guy throwing a milkshake.

Mr.Ngo insisting on making arrests doesn't make sense in the same way that you would not walk up to a cop who was in the process of handling an other case that he would drop everything and follow you to the cafeteria where you got in a dispute over bad service.

The police were there to ensure the patriot prayers got to hold their rally.

So any point risen (milkshakes. Sillystring) up untill mr.Ngo got beaten was of no concern to the officers there.

What happened is unfortunate but with the tactics used by antifa it is impossible to round up a couple of thousand people who are exercising their right to be there and express their opinion. If you are only going to round up people who are "clearly" antifa they just take off their facemask and they become joe public...

It was near impossible for police to act directly after mr.Ngo got beaten against the people who actually beat him...

Peace

ETA: Happy 4th of July by the way...

a reply to: operation mindcrime

I get your point but the First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion. Even if antifa shows up and they have a name for using violence untill they use such violence they are allowed to express their dislike with the patriot prayers.

The 1st Amendment does not cover throwing items. It cover expressing oneself verbally (or artisticly according to Supreme Court rulings). Throwing a milkshake, a doughnut, a nerf ball, or a ninja star are all considered assault, even though the latter is the only one that could reasonably be considered "deadly."

Remember that second assault I showed you..

So you do agree that throwing a milkshake at someone is an assault. Good.

This may or may not be an antifa supporter but untill he covers his face and starts beating mr.Ngo he is just a guy throwing a milkshake.

Whether or not he is Antifa is irrelevant. That is, by your own admission just above, an assault on Mr. Ngo. The guy who threw it should have been detained. Had he been, had the police exercised some sort of control of the situation, the violence would likely not have escalated.

That doesn't mean throw the bum in chains for the next 20 years... it's a milkshake. But it does mean arresting him and making sure he at least leaves the area after being informed that this type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Mr.Ngo insisting on making arrests doesn't make sense in the same way that you would not walk up to a cop who was in the process of handling an other case that he would drop everything and follow you to the cafeteria where you got in a dispute over bad service.

The police were there to ensure the patriot prayers got to hold their rally.

The police have a duty to enforce the law... all the laws, regardless of their specific assignment at the time. But in this case, they were there specifically because there was a high probability of the two groups clashing. Ergo, they were there to make sure neither got violent.

They failed... TWICE... to respond to complaints of violence against Mr. Ngo by people in the area. No, they were not there to ensure that Patriot's Prayer could hold their rally, or they would have responded to complaints by Mr. Ngo that indicated one of the groups might be getting out of control.

Protest is not an excuse to break other laws or disturb the peace.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

When your inception is to destroy, that is all you can do.

Antifa was a communist plot to destroy Germany and it backfired

Just like it will in the USA.

you (yes YOU) will be responsible, just like you were in 1939

You are complicit in ALL the crimes that Antifa does, there is no middle ground

there is no "moderate" antifa

you have yet to explain WHY antifa is violent, why is that??

They are VERY much like radical muslim Jihadists

and use violence the same way ( I did not say the same violence )
so no lame "we aint bombing no one".

OWN IT!!

a reply to: thedigirati

Glad to see you're back. Hope you had a great 4th yesterday and refueled a bit...

I'll take it slow because we are going backward here.

Your antifa (the american version) has nothing to do with the antifa of 1939. Only parallel is that they are a bunch of angry people and some of them use violence.

Remember this guy?


I call him "cookie-man", by Ngo recognised as antifa who was handing out cookies because he thought a little sweetness was needed during the protest.

How about this guy?


One of those antifa thugs actually caught using violence.

So who are these communists wanting to destroy america (not saying they don't excist)? Obviously throwing cookie man in jail isn't going to save you from a preceived threat.

Lumping everything together under the labal "antifa" isn't going to solve your problem but it does set the stage for amending your constitution again in the form of banning facemasks to make the real enemy known.

Apart from the two or three thugs actually hitting mr.Ngo you really aren't suggesting all these measures should be taken over the throwing of milkshakes or shooting silly string? What's next? People throwing water? How about confetti or flowers?

Are you acting out of fear or are you just using it as an excuse to round up....well...liberals I guess?

Peace

a reply to: TheRedneck

My "assault" remark was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do not see it as assault but in America it could very well be and I respect that.

But like I stated earlier, the police is there to keep two groups seperated. Mr Ngo reported the "assault" and police took note of it.

I guess mr Ngo should have called the police and waited untill an offer arrived that wasn't tasked with anything else.

I'm not sure about their direct orders but from what I get it was to form human barriers to guidd the two groups in opposing directiions. How effective is that barrier going to be if you have a dozen cops break rank to chase complaints.

"Officer, that guy spit on me and I want you to arrest him"

Peace