"Attempts to Rewrite of 9/11" Topic

So so very Orwellian!

What if no one had exposed their attempts? Of course, they attempt to walk it back when caught! But how much longer before memories are diminished and more generations without exposure grow up? 🤔

They may fail this time…. But they will keep trying and will eventually, unfortunately, probably succeed .

Oh and..

Yes, the CBC is heavily supported by Canadian taxpayer money. As Canada's national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada relies on the federal government for the vast majority of its operational budget

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) faced severe international backlash and subsequently reversed an internal policy directive that instructed its journalists not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attacks as "terrorist attacks". The controversy erupted right before the 25th anniversary of 9/11, when a leaked memo from Basem Boshra, CBC's senior director of journalistic standards, revealed instructions to label the events as "passenger jet crashes" instead of terrorist acts in the broadcaster's own voice. Following intense criticism from U.S. and Canadian political figures, including the FBI Director and Canada's Conservative Party, the CBC retracted the guidance and created an official exception for 9/11.

Details of the Policy and Controversy
The internal memo was first leaked and reported by The Toronto Sun. The directive explicitly told staff to avoid using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" when describing the 9/11 attacks unless they were directly quoting an official source.
* The CBC's Original Stance: The broadcaster defended its actions by citing a long-standing policy shared by other global outlets, like the Associated Press. The policy dictates that terms like "terrorism" are politically and emotionally charged, and avoiding them helps maintain journalistic neutrality.
* The Backlash: Critics—including U.S. House Republicans, Canadian Member of Parliament Rachael Thomas, and FBI Director Kash Patel—fiercely condemned the memo. They accused the network of trying to "rewrite history," "sanitize" an atrocity, and disrespect the victims, families, and first responders of the tragedy. Critics also pointed out the hypocrisy, noting that the Canadian government explicitly recognizes Al-Qaeda as a terrorist entity responsible for the attacks.
* The Reversal: Late Friday afternoon on August 28, 2026, Basem Boshra published a statement announcing that the CBC would walk back the policy specifically for 9/11. He noted that the strict wording of the internal language policy had unfortunately become an "impediment to clarity and public understanding". Moving forward, CBC journalists are permitted to directly refer to 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
This incident follows previous friction over the network's vocabulary; the CBC faced similar scrutiny after an internal email from October 2023 instructed reporters not to use the word "terrorist" to describe Hamas militants without attribution.

CAIR recently trying the same thing.. until exposed.

Remember, like CBC, CAIR receives taxpayer money.

CAIR receives millions of dollars in taxpayer money through federal and state government grants. [1, 2]
While the national organization is primarily funded by private donations, its regional chapters—most notably CAIR-California (CAIR-CA)—have received substantial taxpayer-funded government sub-grants. [1, 2]

Yes, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) faced intense public scrutiny for a 9/11 curriculum recommendation that critics argued downplayed the terrorist nature of the attacks. [1, 2]
In August 2026, CAIR National released its 2026–2027 Back-to-School Resource Guide. Critics and watchdog groups quickly pointed out that the guide directed K-12 educators to a 9/11 curriculum—developed by CAIR-New Jersey and Teaching While Muslim—that avoided describing the hijackers as terrorists and instead focused overwhelmingly on the post-9/11 Global War on Terror and domestic anti-Muslim discrimination. [1, 2]
The curriculum drew even sharper backlash because an earlier version recommended Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America" as a primary source resource for high school students. [1, 2]

Yes, that argument was central to the curriculum CAIR promoted, which fueled the intense backlash against their recent K-12 guide. [1, 2]
The lesson plans explicitly linked the September 11 attacks to U.S. foreign policy, specifically pointing to American backing of Israel. The lesson materials—developed by CAIR-New Jersey and the group Teaching While Muslim—directed educators to teach students that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated primarily by U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and the American government's financial and military support for Israel. [1, 2]

The Specific Accusations and Materials
Critics and investigators stated that CAIR's curriculum shifted the moral responsibility of the attacks away from the Al-Qaeda terrorists and framed the event as a direct consequence of American-Israeli relations. The controversy compounded due to two primary features of the curriculum: [1]
* Shifting the Focus to Israel: Critics argued the guide used the history of 9/11 to introduce anti-Israel narratives into K-12 classrooms under the guise of teaching the "root causes" of the tragedy. [1, 2]
* The Osama bin Laden Connection: The curriculum drew even sharper criticism because it directed high school students to Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America". In that letter, bin Laden explicitly cited U.S. support for Israel as one of his primary justifications for murdering American civilians. Watchdog groups argued that by including the text without proper critical context, the curriculum effectively legitimized bin Laden's grievances and anti-Israel justifications. [1]

..
Other examples

The push to reshape the public memory, institutional terminology, and academic history of the September 11 attacks extends beyond the recent controversies involving the CBC and CAIR. Over the years, several other high-profile instances have occurred in international education, mainstream publishing, and global media, sparked by attempts to downplay the terrorism aspect or shift the blame to Western foreign policy: [1, 2]

1. The Hodder Education Textbook Controversy (UK)
In 2020, a prominent British educational publisher, Hodder Education, faced intense international condemnation over a history textbook aimed at students aged 11 to 13. [1]
* The "Rewrite": Under a section titled "Muslim Mistrust of the West," the textbook explicitly prompted middle school students with the question: "How could it be argued that the creation of Israel was a long-term cause of the 9/11 attacks?" [1]
* The Fallout: Watchdog groups and the Board of Deputies of British Jewry fiercely condemned the prompt. They noted that it directly introduced a warped version of history and fed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories regarding Jewish or Israeli culpability for the attack. Hodder Education issued a public apology, officially withdrew the textbook from sale, and committed to scrubbing the text. [1]

2. The Ellipses CIA Conspiracy Insertion (France)
Also in 2020, French publisher Ellipses was forced to issue an emergency correction for a high school history textbook that validated fringe internet conspiracy theories. [1]
* The "Rewrite": The textbook, designed to prepare students for university-level tracking, featured a line claiming that the 9/11 attacks were "orchestrated by the CIA (secret services) to impose American influence on the Middle East?" [1]
* The Fallout: The text was flagged by the French watchdog site Conspiracy Watch, sparking an uproar over how an objective text could print an unverified internet myth as fact. Ellipses blamed the error on an individual author, publicly apologized, and added an immediate digital and physical correction to erase the phrase, stating that unfounded conspiracy could never be presented as objective truth. [1]

3. Media Network Language Shifts (BBC & Associated Press)
While the CBC's internal memo caused a unique uproar, it pulled back the curtain on a broader, decades-long language shift across corporate mainstream media outlets attempting to filter out terms like "terrorist". [1, 2]
* The "Rewrite": Media networks like the BBC and the Associated Press (AP) have institutionalized language stylebooks that strictly advise journalists against using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" in their own reporting voice. They argue the terms are "politicized and emotionally charged". [1, 2, 3, 4]
* The Fallout: Critics and media watchdogs note that systematically replacing the word "terrorist" with terms like "militants," "attackers," or—in the case of the CBC memo—"passenger jet crashes" works to sanitize the nature of the atrocities over time, separating the acts from the ideological groups that perpetrated them. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Erasure of 9/11 from K-12 Classrooms
A subtler but widespread form of rewriting the narrative has come through the institutional omission of 9/11 in modern high school curriculums. [1, 2]
* The "Rewrite": Academic studies led by education experts have revealed that as the generation who lived through the event ages out, many state history curricula treat 9/11 as a passive footnote. Because the topic is deemed "politically sensitive" or "too recent," teachers frequently skip the background context of Islamic extremism altogether, summarizing the event simply as "the bombing of the Twin Towers" or focusing strictly on post-9/11 domestic surveillance. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* The Fallout: This lack of structural historical framework has left a vacuum for younger generations, leading to a documented surge of students pulling their history from viral social media trends—such as the late 2023 phenomenon where TikTok users actively praised Osama bin Laden's justification for the attacks. [1]

…

Examples by politicians

Yes, multiple politicians and political figures have made comments that critics argue rewrite the narrative of 9/11. These figures generally fall into two categories: those who attribute the attacks to "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy (echoing the CAIR framing), and those pushing fringe conspiracy theories. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Notable examples include:

1. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
In 2019, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar faced intense national backlash for how she described the September 11 attacks during a speech to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). [1]
* The Comment: Discussing the post-9/11 landscape for Muslim Americans, Omar stated that CAIR was founded because "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." [1]
* The Backlash: Critics across the political spectrum—including survivors, first responders, and Donald Trump—accused her of minimizing the atrocity by referring to Al-Qaeda terrorists as merely "some people" and the mass murder as "something." Omar defended her comments, stating she was speaking contextually about the collective punishment Muslim Americans faced after the attacks. [1]

2. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
Former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has repeatedly promoted theories that shift the blame away from Islamic terrorists. [1]
* The Sentiment: Shortly after the attacks, McKinney infamously suggested that the Bush administration had advance warning of 9/11 but allowed it to happen to financially benefit defense contractors. Years later, she drew widespread condemnation for promoting anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories that alleged Israel's intelligence services were the true orchestrators behind the tragedy. [1, 2, 3]

3. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
From the other side of the political aisle, Senator Ron Johnson drew strong condemnation from members of his own party for attempting to legitimize "9/11 Truther" theories. [1]
* The Comment: In April 2025, Johnson stated in an interview that he wanted to hold formal congressional hearings on "what actually happened on 9/11," claiming the government had covered up key facts. He explicitly echoed fringe theories by claiming that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down via a "controlled demolition." [1, 2]
* The Backlash: Lawmakers, including New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, publicly rebuked Johnson, demanding he "stop peddling conspiracy theories about the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history." [1]

4. Political Commentators & Streamers (Hasan Piker Controversy)
Though not politicians themselves, political commentators heavily tied to major campaigns have faced scrutiny for identical rhetoric. [1, 2]
* The Sentiment: In August 2026, during a highly competitive U.S. Senate primary race in Michigan, Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed faced intense pressure from opponents and lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz over his close campaign ties to far-left streamer Hasan Piker. Piker had previously generated outrage by explicitly stating that "America deserved 9/11." [1, 2, 3]
* The Justification: Piker later walked back the word "deserved," but defended the underlying concept—mirroring CAIR's educational materials—by arguing that 9/11 was a direct "boomerang effect" caused by destructive U.S. foreign policy and military interventionism in the Middle East. [1, 2]
*

Just a few of the links

Subject: CBC tells staff to avoid calling 9/11 a terrorist attack | The Jerusalem Post

link

Subject: Warren Kinsella on X: "The story is in @TheTorontoSun." / X

link

Subject: CBC tells staff not to call 9/11 a 'terrorist attack' – Yahoo News Canada

link

And your point? 🤔

Those attacking the towers, the Pentagon and attempting another before foiled by the brave passengers on board, were not terrorists?

If yes, please give us an explanation of why they were not.

If you agree they were, then why post at all? 🤔

Dogtail

This is "Ultra-Modern Warfare (2016-present) Message Board. What does your I-support-Trump-by-throwing-dirt-at-Canada post has to do with modern warfare?

Did I bring "Trump" up?!

No… you did.

1. 9/11 IS ultramodern warfare. As IS terrorism!
2. This is an attempt by the media, organizations and politicians, to rewrite history. Something they have been doing, with success, for 40 plus years. I am bringing attention to that attempt. Force them into the LIGHT of DAY.
3. Canada had nothing to do with this. But their taxpayer funded News organization did! Just as our tax funded organization, CAIR did. CBC is just the latest.
4. All in WHITE are responses back from AI to queries. Not MY opinions.
5. I don't see Trump's name even in those and for sure NOT posted by me.
6. As far as "taxpayer funding", that is for Canadian and US taxpayers who oppose using taxpayer funding for supposed "news" organizations, that seem more interested in spreading Orwellian propaganda, as opposed to real news. Do that privately and not ON OUR DIME.

I could even have pointed out the potential bias of the CBC author, Basem being Egyptian before going to Canada and the potential for bias toward Islamic views.

So you seem to be deflecting.

Please instead, Answer the question:

Those attacking the towers, the Pentagon and attempting another before foiled by the brave passengers on board, were not terrorists?

If yes, please give us an explanation of why they were not.

If you agree they were, then why post at all? 🤔

Terrorism is not warfare? Sorry, you do not get to redefine "warfare" to suit yourself. Plenty of wars have been fought by groups other than states. Or do you consider the Apache and the Comanche "states"? Were the barons who forced King John a "state"?

I don't deflect. I am simply tired of your inability to reduce the length of your texts.

As many philosophers and wits have said, "I apologize for writing such a long letter. I didn't have the time to write a short one."

You post here like a lawyer charging $200 USD/hour and feel the need to submit a 400 page "brief".
If your posts exceed the size of my cellphone screen, I automatically pass on.
Go ahead and call me whatever you want for not absorbing your content and wisdom.

Again you deflect from the question. Why?

You delve instead, into personal attacks and politics.

The post has NOTHING to do with Trump. What he believes and what he does not believe!!!

Were those who attacked on 911, terrorist??

CBC, CAIR and others are trying NOW to convince you they were not. Why?

That is what the post is about!!

Terrorism by the way is a version of what today is considered:

4th Generation: The blurring of lines between war and politics, civilian and combatant. In 4th Generation Warfare, non-state actors use decentralized networks, insurgency, and media-driven terrorism to break the political will of a state rather than destroying its army.

John,

How or what you feel about the length of my posts, is irrelevant to the content or question.

I'll ask you: were those who attacked on 911 terrorist?

I notice you don't complain about the lengths of those whose points you agree with. I won't mention the names of those people, but I've never seen your comments there.

Consistency,
would make your comment more valid. 😏

A lot of sematic vagueness around all of this. Nobody is right or wrong.

The Japanese attacked us by surprise using aircraft at Pearl. Terrorism, warfare, or both? They did not target civilians. But they later committed crimes against humanity on prisoners. These are called war crimes for a reason.

As I understand it, for most Muslims jihad is a personal religious experience and jihad as warfare is supposed to be only in defense. Holy war is not a thing. But radical extremists in the Muslim world have used this to attack civilians around the world to create terror. This is how they fight, its warfare to them. Iran's conventional military forces were not their main weapon. But their extremist leaders and their proxies are always a threat.

IMO, terroist attacks are most often high level crimes against humanity and not warfare. I would treat many of these attackers as dangerous criminals and not enemy combatants. But terrorism has been used in war against prisoners and civilians. The difference between terrorism and warfare is not a clear cut thing

Rewrites of history in America have gone on for a long time. The South's Lost Cause Narrative to minimize slavery as a cause of the war for example. Textbooks are being "sanitized" once again to promote happier vibes.

I think you have to take some of those 9/11 comments in context, and remember that the comments have a political agenda. Speakers known for extreme politicized views.

In unrelated events, Jan 6 has been getting a rewrite. So have election promises. Iran will surely get one. Alex Jones spent years trying to rewrite the bloodbath in Newtown. I know very well what happened there.

Terrorism can be used in warfare as the Russians have done executing civilians in Ukraine. Obviously the Nazis in WW2. I would not argue with anyone wanting to call terrorism warfare or vice versa in some cases.

Tort,

Back to the question.

Were those who committed 911 terrorist?

It is a simple question. That is the point.

Again CBC, CAIR and others, are trying to rewrite that designation.

If they are, than those sources are wrong and we would agree.

If they are not terrorists .., Why not?

35th OVI,

I support you on this one. We always need to be on guard from those who would like to change the past in order to meet their political goals. We should note that everything to cited was caught and made known. Still, there is a danger, from left and right, in trying to bend history to their political viewpoint. But yes, 911 was a terrorist attack. It is proper to discuss it here as it is part of modern warfare.

I would also say that I would agree on the constant quoting of lengthy sources gets old. I would much more appreciate your views or opinions on the issues discussed here. Anyone can find sites or news stories in many different places. I come here to hear what TMP'ers have to say not what someone else ahs written somewhere else. Plus, how many people take the time to read it anyway.

Grattan thanks for addressing the terrorism question. Which was the whole point of this post.

They were terrorists. Not called so by just the U.S.

As to the other. I post backup to my opinions. Why?
Because for the first years of my membership on TMP, I was attacked continuously for placing my opinions.

"You have no facts to back that up"
"Where is your evidence?"

And so it went on.
Some have since been removed from TMP. Some are still here.

So I would post some links and they would say:

"Oh, that's FOX!"

Or some other source they refused to recognize as valid.

And I would be ridiculed again.

So now I attempt to find alternative sources.. sources that they cannot disregard as easily.

AI is great. Responses extracted from numerous sources. It displays the links below it. If I choose to post them. At least the AI I use does. Not all do.

Also a good source for what you may remember, but not the source.

BUT…. my posts today, are as a result of what others on TMP have forced me to, from the past.

So if they are a monster, they are the monster many of you created. 😏

dogtail 30 Aug 2026 5:48 a.m. PST
Trump called antifa a domestic terrorist organization.
World War II was fundamentally a global conflict between democratic nations and fascist totalitarian regimes.
So the democratic states fighting Japan, Italy and Germany are now considered terorist organizations

That's silly. AntiFa – Antifaschistische Aktion, was founded by the German Communist Party as a street thug attack group against EVERYONE not them. They not only assaulted and intimidated nazis, but non-Communist movements and trade unionists (both socialist and traditionalist). They also considered another Leftist socialist organization as one of their *main enemies* – the Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). AntiFa was used to attack SPD members, allies and leadership, and engaged in street battles with rival antifacist street action group "The Iron Front (Eiserne Front)" – itself a militant anti-fascist organization.

You don't get to rewrite history to suit your own agenda, just like the CBC can't rewrite the history of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

That was the real only question here. They ARE terrorist.

None of us like being there. I have been twice recently, for responding to posts that should have placed those who posted them originally in the DH. At least, not just me.

It's like the NFL. One guy hits an opponent, the guy responds. The referee doesn't see the one who started it and penalizes the responder.

FYI dog, or currently "tuck frump", changing to that alias name???? I have to ask.. why?? Actually don't answer, it just leads off subject more?

I really thought this post would be agreed to by all sides.

They were and are terrorists.

I am actually surprised, especially in the U.S.. 😮

1. Was it about Trump? Answer, No.
2. I'm Attacked on Post lengths instead of addressing the subject???
3. "Oh yeah, what about…?" As relates to the specific content, terrorist.. why?
4. It's not ultramodern warfare? Do people game it? Of course. They miniature game everything. 😉

Come on, long posts with lots of white blocked material are easy to skim and then read carefully if you want or need to. Just as topics in which you have no interest are easy to ignore. There is no need to act offended that someone wants to make his case. If you want to engage, do so, and if not, just move on.

I have no trouble calling them terrorists and I read your posts 35th. I don't always agree, but I usually learn things I did not know or see the same way.

The Comanche were a sovereign nation like the other tribes. Tribes signed formal treaties, went to war, engaged in trade, controlled territory. The Iroquois provided a practical model for democratic government.

Tort, I assumed you would NOT have an issue calling them terrorists. 😉

Sad that we just had another setback, bringing those still at Guantánamo Bay to justice, 25 years later. 😡

TMP is a recreational site.

It's not on my syllabus for an advanced degree.
When you go out of your way to make posts that are LOOOONNNNGGGGG, I feel no need to read them.
It's not a personal attack. I'm merely telling you why I don't bother to read what you print. Actually, I think I'm being rather nice, pointing out where you could use improvement.
There are more than here whose eyes glaze over when they see that.
Knowing your TMP persona, I pretty much know already what you're going to say, anyway.

Read my first sentence.
TMP is not (thank God!) influential in the slightest in determining policy. I've already made up my mind who I'll be voting for in 2026 and 2028. You can guess that already.

I laughed when you wrote that I don't accuse "others" of being long winded.
The standard "Yeah, but what about …?" logical fallacy. Desperate deflection that is nothing but hurt feelings.
Name someone.

John did you write something? Sorry I must have glazed over after: "I feel no need to read them" 🙄

Don't comment on that which you don't read.

So terrorist or not?

Oh by the way, if long posts really offended you, you would comment on all. It's called consistency. Instead of just those you disagree with.

SBS, I doubt that the US Antifa that Trump is calling a domestic terrorist organisation has any relationship at all to a German organisation that just happens to have a similar name.

35th, I didn't read your very last long epistle either, but I agree with what I think it said after skimming the first bit. A terrorist action, and one of the worst that has ever happened.

I also ignore any and all AI gibberish.
But those posts are never as long as yours.
You win the long winded "Mine Eyes Glaze Over" contest hands down.

And you get offended that I can't be bothered to read you? Like I have any effect on policy? Like I'm obligated to read EVERYTHING, and accept it?
All I can do is vote. Which I will.

John, I fear you are a Luddite. But to each his everloving blue-eyed own.

I'm also against data centers and flock cameras.

I have a long list.

What if no one had exposed their attempts?

I believe the average Canadian is smart enough, and cynical enough about governments'- or government agencies'- fiddling with history, to remember the terrorists were terrorists. Besides, Boshra failed and was forced to backtrack.

A bit of a squall in a thimble, I think. It's not as if rewriting history (or even, in some cases, pre-writing it) is unique to Canada, either.

John

And you get offended that I can't be bothered to read you? Like I have any effect on policy? Like I'm obligated to read EVERYTHING, and accept it?

You think way too much of yourself. You don't offend me, because I rarely ever take you seriously.

But if you didn't read them, you would not be here. If there was not something in the post that bothered you, you would not be commenting.

So again terrorists or not John?

Dal

I believe the average Canadian is smart enough, and cynical enough about governments'- or government agencies'- fiddling with history, to remember the terrorists were terrorists. Besides, Boshra failed and was forced to backtrack.

A bit of a squall in a thimble, I think. It's not as if rewriting history (or even, in some cases, pre-writing it) is unique to Canada, either.

He wrote an " internal policy directive" to those reporting FOR CBC. They were not to use terrorist or terrorism in their broadcast of the 25th anniversary.

That is a far cry from an article out there to read. It would be like ABC, the BBC or CBS doing the same in all their news reporting.

The average Canadian would only hear the stories, stories avoiding referring to the perpetrators as terrorists. 🤔 How would they have referred to them?

His directive was leaked from inside. That is how it was exposed.

Secondly, it was NOT just CBC. My posts points out others who have attempted the same. CAIR was attempting it in Islamic schools and other Islamic centers. That becomes potentially dangerous. Especially if young minds are influenced in the wrong ways.

So not a "tempest in a thimble" in MHO. Just another attempt to change history the Orwellian way.

Why do you care so much about what I believe? Is there some mysticism involved here?
I can't be bothered to read your walls of text, and that's what bothers you?
😱

John you aren't even reading my posts…. Remember? 😏

Are you that insecure that you demand I read your posts?
That seems rather pathetic.
I don't bother to read your Walls O'Text™️. I'll read stuff that doesn't take up my whole cellphone screen.
But not stuff that makes me scroll at least 4 times.

You're repeating yourself.
Move along.

Way back in the depths of the last century, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, we used to write Abstracts. A summary, so you didn't have to plow through the data. I had professors who would knock down my grades for not providing a legible abstract.
Seriously. If you wish to be understood, try summarizing. This is said in a friendly manner.

But if you demand that I respond to an Either/Or … demand… naaaah. Live in disappointment.
If you can't be bothered to write for the dull and old like myself, I can't be bothered to read your Walls O'Text™️.

It's kind of sad that you need my validation so badly.

John I "demand" nothing. Respond to the subject of the post or don't respond at all.

But you are just bloviating to no purpose, which I mean in the friendliest manner possible. 🙂

I will continue to post as I will.

You seem to continue to attempt to deflect from the actual conversation, by shifting the focus from the topic to my writing length and psychological state. What are you deflecting from?

Respond to the subject, or ignore it completely.

Oh yes…

They are either terrorist, or they are not.

You have a rather Maoist determination to force me to give the "correct" answer.

A pox on all your houses.

There are the Lounges for these discussions.

Doug

He wrote an " internal policy directive" to those reporting FOR CBC.

It was leaked and he was forced to back down. Even if he hadn't been forced to back down, I don't think his ploy would have worked- the backlash would be tremendous. The attacks, and who the attackers were, are too well known- news clips are replayed every year, so even those born after 2001 are familiar with what happened.

As for the Islamic schools and organisations rewriting the history, they've been doing that since 12 September 2001, so there's nothing new about that.

Ha! I am fully vaccinated! But your point is a good one Doug. Too often we end up in the wrong ballpark.

Dal

At one time I thought the same about some of the things being taught in our schools for the last 50 plus years. 🙂

I was wrong.

2 generations at least, were heavily influenced.

And they created the greatest communications system in human history, for better or for worse. Now they cure diseases, run the Fortune 500 and the US government (off the books), build space rockets, etc. Change cannot be stopped, oil is not the future. Oh, and some are right and left wing extremists for sure. That's me sorted.

Meanwhile, new outbreak of shooting in the ME. Russia is flooding Ukraine with drone attacks. Ultra-modern indeed. Is the Army purging those top generals/promotion candidates based on merit? Is the Army running out of money? Or are these reports not accurate? New thread needed?

Dagwood 30 Aug 2026 2:57 p.m. PST
SBS, I doubt that the US Antifa that Trump is calling a domestic terrorist organisation has any relationship at all to a German organisation that just happens to have a similar name.

Dunno -- but I was responding to the history warping statement by dogtail that "Trump called antifa a domestic terrorist organization. World War II was fundamentally a global conflict between democratic nations and fascist totalitarian regimes. So the democratic states fighting Japan, Italy and Germany are now considered terorist organizations"

I see this meme over and over, people claiming that US soldiers in WW2 were also "antifa" to try and give Antifa a moral basis and heritage it never had, never earned, and doesn't deserve. They were founded as violent street punks organized by the Communist Party and sent out to beat up and intimidate anyone who doesn't support their flavor of ideology, and remain to be violent street punks.

They are well organized in a terrorist cell structure. They are funded through various dark money groups, pass through groups/front groups and other resources. They are controlled by high order parties. They collaborate internationally. They have been discovered to be using the same secure comms and chat apps that are being used by international terrorist groups like Hamas and Iran's IRGC.

Antifa in the US have been using secure comms apps from a dark web Italy-based group called the Autistici/Inventati (the A/I Collective).

State Dept reveals Portland Antifa connection to Hamas, Iran's IRGC in sweeping terror action

link

So yes, they should be on the terrorist list, and we should be cracking down on them.

I disagree that Antifa was "founded as violent street punks organised by the Communist Party". I would say it began as spontaneous protests against police violence, which was later taken over by criminal elements.

@dagwood -- sorry pal, history says you are WRONG. Antifa was created by the Stalinst German KPD in 1932 from other pro-Communist street action groups.

link

The "modern" Antifa was reformed in the 1970s and 1980s by explicitly communist groups and anarchists. They adopted wholesale the lineage of the Stalinist KPD Antifa – same logo, same slogans, they claim it as their heritage in fighting "fascists" (a very broad term that happens to include everyone they don't like). They are organized along resistance cell lines, yet their's a national cadre of organizers that makes them more than spontaneous protest groups and they have been discovered to be using the same secure chat/messaging tech as Hamas and the IRGC.

They were always "criminal elements"…

As usual on this Board, the posts sort of wander off from the opening post. SOP.

So, allow me to further muddy the waters with the "Confessions of a premature anti-fascist".
Call me naive, but I find something inherently noble in being anti fascist.
Some here may disagree, but this is still a free country.

link

SBS, I suspect neither of your two historical antifa groups had any relationship with the more recent anti-fascist protests, except the common desire to fight against perceived fascism.

Dagwood 01 Sep 2026 5:14 a.m. PST
SBS, I suspect neither of your two historical antifa groups had any relationship with the more recent anti-fascist protests, except the common desire to fight against perceived fascism.

I dunno why you're fixated on deflecting from Antifa. There's only one "historical Antifa" from the 1930s German Stalinists – everything Antifa today started in the 1980s. The adopted the logos, flags and slogans; they adopted their pro-communism with an anarchist "bust sh1t up" component, they act as a terrist group, organize like a terrorist group and use the same secure coordination apps as Hamas and Iran's IRGC.

I don't think Antifa in the US follows the same playbook as Hamas or the Guard. They are a loose decentralized group in general, some factions use violence, others do not. They arose here as a response to extreme right wing and neo-Nazi movements. None of these people on either side are part of everyday life for the vast majority of Americans. As a percentage of population, the best guess is that the there will be some extremists in any large democracy.

Part of Antifa's significance is that they are easy targets for authoritarians to blame and link to authoritarian political opposition. They are hard to pin down as Antifa individuals when committing violent crimes. Most law enforcement say they are less lethal than their right wing counterparts, but there have been dozens of dangerous assaults in recent years. Lots of conspiracy charges from the right about them. They are dangerous. But they are not Hamas. All my opinion. I know there are lists of dozens of physical injuries. I am looking at the frequency compared to other dangers, say from drug gangs now pushing meth.

Look, nobody's saying these people are Hamas or the IRGC. That's not the argument. What is true is they were using the same locked-down chat and hosting setup that other militant terrorist outfits use, after the provider screened people for the right politics. Shared tools aren't the same as shared command but it's still a real overlap.

And the angle the they are basically "just some Minneapolis kids who got sick of Nazis" story is only half the picture. Yeah, the so-called "Baldies" started the street fights in the late '80s and named the thing Anti-Racist Action. But then older leftists, John Brown Anti-Klan Committee types with Weather Underground roots, stepped in with the politics, the security habits, the connections, and helped turn a local crew into an actual network.

The name, the flags, the black bloc, the "we don't call the cops" line? That came from the German revitalized Antifa scene. After that they hooked into international stuff: conferences with German groups, Torch Network, Antifa International, a defense fund that's sent money to people in 26 countries. That's how a bunch of teenage skins ended up part of a recognizable global organization.

And calling it "loose and decentralized" lets them off too easy. There are named chapters. They vet people. They provide training. They share tactics and encrypted comms. Some of them travel and stay at homes or sites managed by a local cell. Prosecutors have charged actual cells. The masks and the "who, us?" act are the point, it makes it hard to grab individuals.

And stacking body counts against meth gangs misses the difference. Gangs shoot over money and turf. This stuff is aimed at cops, federal buildings, and whoever they've decided counts as the enemy that week. Fewer dead bodies than some gang fights doesn't make it "just protest." It's political violence on purpose.

The prosecutors in Texas went way over the line to make sure the terrorism claims would stick, which supported Trump in announcing his designation of Antifa a few days later. Multiple witness and those arrested who have spoken out still insist they did not know what officials were talking about re: a "cell".

I am not defending these people. There are safer ways to protest and exercise free speech. Some did commit crimes and were rightfully arrested, deserved to be prosecuted. But the government appears to have enhanced the narrative of the event for political reasons. If there was hard evidence of a cell, they would still be waving it all over the place.

I am not letting Antifa off easily, I am saying the same thing. it is harder to connect them to criminal acts because of their tactics. And my reference to gangs concerned the relative severity of threats to everyday public safety.

Antifa, watermelons (aka greens), fascists, nazis, anarchists, jihadists, fundies (of all religious persuasions),etc ad nauseum. What real difference is there in any of them, once you turn off the sound? They look the same (just different slogans on their clothing and placards), sound the screeching same and do the same- protests, intimidation, disruption and destruction.

They think they are very special and have found "truth".
They think they have all the answers.
They are determined to make people think and believe as they do, and if that means violence then that's what they will use.
The end justifies the means- if that gives them what they want.
They want to tell everyone else how they must live their lives, and make sure that they do so.
They are Right, everyone else is wrong.

They'll never go away, just morph their names and so-called beliefs (excuses).

Evangelical fundy here, and yes, from an outer view, pretty often as you say. Some of us do understand that honey catches more flies than vinegar. The "turn or burn" approach is pretty far down my list of preferred tactics, and rare among those of like mind whom I know -- and I know a lot of us. For example we see homosexuality as a sin, but we are all sinners of one sort or another, and all sinners of whatever sort are welcome in our church. We do not throw gays off high buildings. So there are SOME differences, important ones.

Plus, from our point of view, everyone in the world is drowning, and we have hold of a life preserver that is big enough for anyone. If we are decent human beings, how can we NOT urge the drowning person next to us to grab ahold? Plus we are under ORDERS to do that, even if we can't stand the guy.

So cut us some slack. In our place you'd act the same way.

Agree, Dal and Doc