ANTIFA

WHY IT DOES FIT THE MODEL OF TERRORISM

Back in October of 2019, I posted this blog on the topic of ANTIFA. It was not my only comment on this group, but this particular post had a rather disturbing point. "Why is the U.S. government so reluctant to move on ANTIFA?"

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=ANTIFA+AND+THE+STATE+OF+DENIAL

Unless you have been under a rock, you know full well how the topic of ANTIFA has changed since October of 2019. It's for that reason I have decided to go back and try to address the question I posted last year. Why?

Rand:

https://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2020/08/11/the-consequences-of-designating-antifa-as-a-terrorist-organization.html

If you have followed me over the years, you know my opinion of RAND Corp. Some of RAND's staff, such as the author of this article, give sound logic in their presentations. Some do not. When I read this particular piece, I couldn't help but think about my question from last year. Why? In my post from October of 2019, I ended by asking, "Is the government scared to truly move on ANTIFA?" Reluctance was based upon fear of making things worse; that was my theory. Well, this RAND release seems to give my theory a great deal of validity. According to Ms. Williams, ANTIFA doesn't fit the model of FTO, Foreign Terrorist Organization."

Antifa does not clearly meet the definition of the F, the T, or the O—it is primarily domestic, it is unclear whether their acts of violence rise to crimes of terrorism, and it is a loosely oriented movement.".

Her words. By the way, I love it when analytical work is done and the word, "cleary" is incorporated. If you want to stake your opinion to a topic, then use the word, "clearly." It's akin to saying, "look….. I know better than you."

If ANTIFA doesn't "fit" the FTO model, then what model do we look for? We are told we can't go down the path of FTO designation, an opinion I do not support. What about Domestic Terrorism? Why would anyone argue against a Domestic Terrorism status for ANTIFA? Well, it only took me reading the rest of the RAND story to figure out the answer. Fear! Just as I had warned about last year. Fear of making things worse.

"In particular, designating Antifa without the facts could cultivate a conspiracy theory that Antifa was "set up" by white supremacist groups in league with the government. This plays into a dangerous narrative that could both be leveraged by left-wing extremists to garner recruits and which could fuel further violence."

 

When I read this part of the report, I again got stuck on a keyword. "Facts." Without the "facts," a designation of ANTIFA could make things worse. The word "could" was also tossed in there, but then again, it almost always is when dealing in the world of intelligence analytics.

 

The Theme:

 

It's too risky. It could backfire". Those genuinely seem to be the words D.C. wants to hear, but they need validity. They need some well-established organization to give guidance. They need some group that has a reputation for providing, impartial, insert laughter here, analysis. Enter; RAND Corp. D.C. doesn't want the President's statement to the public to actually come true. When President Trump said, "we are going to go after ANTIFA," when he stated, just last week, they would be designated as a terrorist group, that is "clearly" 😊 not the wishes of D.C.  Even the President's F.B.I. Director is against it. Better yet, you can't even get the party in opposition to speak of ANTIFA. "ANTIFA. It's an idea, not an organization!" Biden and his team don't want to talk of the "idea." To the "experts," it's too dangerous. To the F.B.I., it's a distraction. To the Left, it's a weapon they would rather not talk address.

The Definition:

18 U.S.C. 

United States Code, 2009 Edition

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM

Sec. 2331 - Definitions

From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

 

 

5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

 

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

Can someone please tell me how ANTIFA doesn't fit this definition? Even Ms. Williams stated they did. The problem is, she went on to inform D.C., it might be dangerous. Yes, it might be dangerous, at least to political ambitions. Some might fight the definition. I can think of one political party, in particular, that would absolutely push back at an attack on their proxy fighters.

Summary:

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=PRESIDENT+TRUMP++TEST+POSITIVE+AND+THE+LEFT+POUNCES

I posted the above article just two days ago. It has a theme I've addressed time and time again. Just how fractured has the U.S. become? Are we so fractured, so torn, we are going to be unable to unit against a movement that has ties to global enemies? Do you not believe those ties exist? Let me address that realty in my next post.