No argument from me about the criteria; just pointing it out because everything listed so far doesn’t seem to meet it.
He was recording the whole protest. He was also “on their side”.
Journalists SHOULD be off limits, and to non-fascists they generally are. Propagandists who publish objectively false information while holding it out as true, however, should be … um … on limits. Calling a liar a journalist does not make the liar a journalist, it makes you complicit in the spreading of their propaganda and so every bit as sleazy.
I’m not sure that the metric for whether a person in the proximity of a protest should be assaulted by law enforcement (or others in self-defense) should be the veracity of their incident reporting. Rather, it should be the level of actual current physical threat they pose to others. Proper journalists generally act as neutral parties in such events. If a journalist - or someone claiming to be one - is actively engaged in violent behavior, then they become “fair game” (or as “fair” as anyone is in these instances).
I have minimal information on what Andy Ngo was doing at the time he was assaulted or whether he in any way provoked or justified the assault. It is certainly entirely reasonable to assume, absent further evidence, that he was either beaten up by people he angered through his deliberately provocative reporting style (which, while understandable, is not justified) or by bad people for no good reason. However, in these particular protests there are examples of LEOs actively targeting members of the press who weren’t doing anything other than recording the events, which is even less excusable.
Whether or not Ngo is a “journalist” no longer matters for the purpose of the OP. Altho he was attacked, no one was even arrested and no one claims they did it. Sure, antifa had reason to, but then a right wing agitator or anarchist could have done it to stir shit up.
Portland “peaceful protesters” pulled a white guy From his pick up after they swarmed it, and beat him unconscious. Then robbed his truck. Parents should be so proud.
Here is the link:
Note that ‘antifa’ isnt mentioned at all.
Oh ok…
That’s ok then…
It is not in any way “ok”. But neither is it “Antifa”, as far as the evidence presented thus far shows.
No it was BLM all reports say.
So you agree that 1) no one (other than you) said it was “ok” and 2) it wasn’t Antifa.
No it was said because it wasn’t antifa that the behavior wasn’t the worst thing .If you want to defend these thugs thats on you. Antifa and the Co opted BLM have cause at lease a Billion dollars Worth of damage. As well as deaths and injuries. None of it is ok…I was being sarcastic.
Who said that?
No one is defending anyone, but I would suggest watching it with the “thug” word, that’s a favorite of racists.
This is nearly impossible to parse, but if I am getting the gist of it right, it is also unsubstantiated.
The sarcasm took on a mocking tone, as though you were sarcastically agreeing with someone else that was saying that it was okay. If not, then you were just mocking yourself. If so, could you say who it was that you were mocking?
What are you babbling about? That paragraph makes no sense at all.
Look, antifa is not into violence (except perhaps vs Nazis and their ilk) or property damage. Organized property damage is done mostly by Black Bloc Anarchists who have stated that is their goal, along with various right wing instigators . I am not counting graffiti here, that is done by many leftist orgs.
Antifa is not organized and anyone can claim to be “antifa”.
eenermsCharter Member wrote:
Antifa and the Co opted BLM have cause at lease a Billion dollars Worth of damage. As well as deaths and injuries. None of it is ok…I was being sarcastic.
Was this sarcasm too? “A billion dollars worth of damage. As well as deaths and injuries” is a factual claim, and I’d like to know your source for it.
You keep saying this and it’s wrong every time. Property damage is not their goal. It is a tactic.
Sure, not a “goal” a “tactic”. Same thing in the end- broken windows, flaming cop cars, etc.
Do you even know what anarchists want? Why some are willing to break things to achieve it? Or are you one of the people who conflate anarchy with chaos?
I read what they are quoted as saying. wiki: When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights … After N30 [30 November], many people will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold. The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number of spells—spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.
— ACME Collective, quoted in Paris (2003)[80]
By attacking and destroying Capitalist private property (such as in the Battle of Seattle) we go beyond rhetoric and actually inflict real material damage upon the urban out-posts of the oppressive and totally uninteresting commodified empire of the new Capitalists. By our method we transform indecisiveness and restraint into REAL action.
Tactics of a black bloc primarily include vandalism of private property, … Property destruction carried out by black blocs tends to have symbolic significance: common targets include banks, institutional buildings, outlets for multinational corporations, gasoline stations, and video-surveillance cameras.[84]