Maybe you need to smack yourself harder to help your thoughts settle. You cited an article about anarchists wanting to attack NATO, then asked:
…which suggests you see NATO as a Republican entity. Don’t blame Czarcasm for finding your line of thought to be of questionable coherence.
Yes, because it didnt mention any others. No sir, the smack was for you. Additionally, there was more conversation later.
No it doesnt suggest that. Read the complete title and article then come and play. I and the article no more states NATO is Republican then the bridge they targeted in another article
Putting words in my mouth so you can rebuttal them is a elementary debate tactic. Strawmen burn fast and easy
How can quoting you directly be putting words in your mouth?
How can the Republican National Convention not be Republican. Did you see the Democratic National Convention?
That being said
Please quote where I said that the bridge and NATO specifically are Republican.
Let’s walk through this slowly, step by step. You quoted an article which began with two statements of fact:
1a) These anarchists were arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a Cleveland, Ohio bridge
1b) These anarchists also allegedly talked about attacking an upcoming NATO summit in Chicago
Based on this article, you raise the question:
The rest of us are trying to figure out why you consider alleged anarchist plots to blow up a bridge and attack a NATO summit to be evidence for (rather than against) the proposition that anarchists “only target Republicans”. The obvious explanation is that you include “bridges” and “NATO” within the group “Republicans”. QED.
You know, I’ll just be generous and assume that in your muddled manner of writing you MEANT to say:
“Why do anarchists target Republicans (and occasionally other targets like bridges and NATO) but not Democrats?”
My conclusion is because the DNC werent on their radar. So the RNC is, and the DNC isnt. Additionally, as I linked later, there was another example of the RNC being targeted.
Later in the thread, a poster listed articles for DNC targeting. And while they didnt plan to bomb them, violence did break out at the protest.
And what was my response to that poster and my response to my changing perception?
Question, dngnb8: These guys are all violent idiots, right? Nearly everyone on the board would agree with that. Also, they don’t represent anything other than themselves. So why do you care whether their poorly thought out half baked ideology contains any sort of contradiction.
“Excuse me, Mr. Idiot Bomber, I think I’ve spotted a contradiction in your reasoning!”
That’s pretty much my feeling on 90% of threads I read in GD.
Agreed
We can make this presumption, but maybe, in their minds, they represent a better idea of Government
I raised the issue because there was someone on the board I moderate who was a self professed anarchist, and who was arrested for planning to bomb the RNC.
Thus, I was sharing a perception. As I said, one poster was good enough to post links showing DNC involvement as well. And while they werent planned bombings, they were protested. It seems people only read what they wish to read then respond here.
You can apply this to most extremists, whether political, religious, or otherwise.
The point people are trying to convey to you is that you asked why anarchists only attack Republican targets right after you listed some non-political targets they were attacking.
If somebody had posted “A gang of anarchists arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a Cleveland, Ohio bridge also talked about attacking an upcoming NATO summit in Chicago and this summer’s Republican National Convention in Florida, according to authorities.” and then asked “Why is it, Anarchists only target bridges?” would you see the disconnect?
For those of you who fail to read the whole thread, I thought I would quote what I have said earlier.
I would not presume that the poster thinks NATO and RNC are bridges.
Yeah, no need to pile on dng here. Once the info was provided that the DNC was in fact targeted he quickly acknowledged the fact.
These lines of thought may seem obvious in principle, but really, a thoughtful anarchist may be thinking even more deeply.
You may recall that several prominent Klan leaders said they hoped Obama won the 2008 election. When asked why, they said it was because it would wake up White America and touch off the long-prophesized Racial Holy War*.
Anarchists could adopt the same line of thinking, and disrupt a convention in order to ensure the success of the side they think is more anti-anarchistic. The logic would be that once the Democrats are able to institute a big enough government, or the Republicans are able to sufficiently regulate the vagina, the people will be so cheesed off that they’ll all become anarchists too.
*Klansmen don’t believe in a racial holy war; it’s more in line with urban racist (ie., Neo-Nazi and skinhead) ideology. They do believe that mainstream white people will adopt their views when the darkies take over, though, so it’s close enough for government work.
Actually, Anarchists seem to be a smoke screen for Militant Conservative, as they are far more successful and eager to destroy the government through infiltration and subversion than a couple of homemade bombs will ever be
Your honor, you may think these men are merely guilty of attempting to blow up buildings and kill people. But I’ve uncovered a much more serious offense: Liberal Bias.
What makes people say that Democrats are the party of Big Government, anyway? Republicans want a government that’s at least as big as the one that Democrats want; they just want it big in different ways.
Anarchists tend to oppose government due it being authoritarian (anarchosyndicalists and anarchocapitalists alike). Those that believe government is insufficiently authoritarian are willing to work within the system. If there is a party in government that is more authoritarian than the other it’d be a little unfair to expect the revolutionary anarchists to be as neutral an arbiter between them as those burgeoning proponents of independence at Fox, wouldn’t it?
From In These Times: