reply to post by stumason
Yes Stumason, I read the article. I even read the whole thing.
It was from the article that I formed my questions to begin with.
Not too mention I quoted from the article myself in the post you replied to
In the article there are no quotes from the 'anarchists' themselves. Only the conjecture of the journalist who authored it, stating the rioters were
anarchists. It mentions "leftist groups" and a website. The article does not give details as to the organization they may belong to, or the nature
of this website. It describes a protest that escalated into rioting.
You and Hellmut are saying they are 'self-described' anarchists. I am going to have to conclude that you guys are privy to information I am not,
since the article does not suggest this in of itself. (the old video and article links are now defunct)
So what do you know about this that I wasn't able to collect from this recent article, and how does it justify them being called anarchists?
My obvious concern is that the term 'anarchist' is being used synonymously with 'mayhem' and 'rioters'. If they are calling themselves
anarchists then I fully understand why the journalist is (although self-describing yourself something doesn't necessarily make you that thing). So
how do you know they are self-described as such? And what do you know about this website? And what do you know about this "leftist-group"?
|