Proud Boys.

[fishermccann]

Are they a terrorist group? They fit the definition. I guess that there is a difference between shouting your ideals, and shouting it with guns in your hands. Insurrection plans as well , pretty much sealed the deal.

[canadaman30]

Are they a terrorist group, they fit the definition? Their actions pretty much seal the deal.



Sad how the left say they are peaceful protesters....

[MikePal]

How did Antifa not make the list...they violently took over an entire area of a major city (Seattle)

Seattle’s hard-Left secessionist movement has claimed its first territory: six blocks in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

For the past week, Black Lives Matter and Antifa-affiliated activists have engaged in a pitched battle with Seattle police officers and National Guard soldiers in the neighborhood, with the heaviest conflict occurring at the intersection of 11th and Pike, where law enforcement had constructed a barricade to defend the Seattle Police East Precinct building. Hoping to break through the barricade, protesters attacked officers with bricks, bottles, rocks, and improvised explosive devices, sending some officers to the hospital. At the same time, activists circulated videos of the conflict and accused the police of brutality, demanding that the city cease using teargas and other anti-riot techniques.

[fishermccann]

How about, one was protesting for equality and justice , and the other was trying to prevent that? That is is the essence, of both riots. One side was trying to improve government-justice, make it more accountable. The proud boys were trying to remove it, and overthrow the duly elected government . Do you not see the reason- difference between the rioters?

[Species8472]

How about, one was protesting for equality and justice , and the other was trying to prevent that? That is is the essence, of both riots. One side was trying to improve government-justice, make it more accountable. The proud boys were trying to remove it, and overthrow the duly elected government .

You typically espouse the ideology that rule of law is paramount. Just cause or otherwise, both groups should be held accountable for any laws broken.

By extension of your logic if a just cause justifies breaking the law than when a known murderer gets off on a technicality it should be okay for a regular citizen to mete out justice outside of the law.

Back to your query - are they terrorists? Probably. But so to are other groups that did not make the list because their ideology is compatible with the flavour of the week.

[Fox]

How did Antifa not make the list...they violently took over an entire area of a major city (Seattle)

There are portions of that movement that could be, but marching on the capital threatening to assassinate sitting members of the government is not something I have heard broadcast by those groups (not that I do not believe they have not said it, just that it did not make news in the way this did).

[sawbill]

The news reporting is every bit as much to blame for the hype with the of use phrases like 'Camouflaged troops in unmarked vehicles'. They make it sound like some third world banana republic was doing over the top enforcement.

[MikePal]

According to Canada:

Defining Terrorism: Does Antifa fit the bill?

Every country has a different way of defining the concept of terrorism. From a Canadian point of view, it is easy to see that Antifa could fit into the Criminal Code’s definition.

The Criminal Code defines terrorism as “an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, with the intention of intimidating the public”.

Antifa’s ideologies are rooted in the belief that if there had been more violent opposition to horrors such as the Holocaust before it was too late, these instances would not have happened and millions of lives would have been saved. They argue that violence against those whom they classify as fascists is not only ethically justifiable, but necessary. Their actions are undoubtedly ideological and political in nature and therefore fit nicely into the above definition.

[impact]

The Government of Canada has placed 13 new groups on the Criminal Code list of terrorist entities, including four ideologically motivated violent extremist groups: Atomwaffen Division, the Base, the Proud Boys and Russian Imperial Movement.

In addition, Canada has also listed:

three Al Qaida affiliates: Jama’at Nusrat Al-Islam Wal-Muslimin, Front de Libération du Macina, and Ansar Dine
five Daesh affiliates: Islamic State West Africa Province, Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, Islamic State in Libya, Islamic State East Asia, and Islamic State - Bangladesh
Hizbul Mujahideen

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safe...en-others.html

[trimmer21]

You typically espouse the ideology that rule of law is paramount. Just cause or otherwise both groups should be held accountable for any laws broken.

By extension of your logic if a just cause justifies breaking the law than when a known murderer gets off on a technicality it should be okay for a regular citizen to mete out justice outside of the law.

Back to your query - are they terrorists? Probably. But so to are other groups that did not make the list due to ideology.

Both organizations can be defined as terrorist,they're simply different elements operating under different ideaologies,both misguided,both extremely dangerous to society. In Canada,we have legislation against hate and hateful organizations. In America,they have the 1st amendment,guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech.