They chased police out of a section of the city under threat of violence, with the explicit goal of dismantling the local (and national) police force and upending governed rule of law. They're also armed (video of Raz with an AK variant on site, and public announcements of the gun club being on-site and armed "for their protection") and, of course, making demands.
This objectively meets the definition of both terrorism and criminality. Now, you may agree with their cause, and even their methods, but if we want to document and discuss exactly what's happening, we need to start by calling spades spades.
"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."
Expecting not to be tear gassed while your antifa cohorts are using bricks, bottles, rocks, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against the police seems unreasonable even if people are calling to ban tear gas and rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can kill, but tear gas as an equal response to IEDs seems the lesser of two evils.
I expect they will relinquish control of their "autonomous zone" when they can no longer maintain their own order or clean up the waste that will build up as services fail.
I didn't, but it seems upon following up on your comment they were thrown and not found left overs. Not IEDs, but one of the objects along with bottles and rocks being thrown.
No, you're quoting word for word a heavily biased article, pushed from a site that is publishing "information" without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources, and whose outlandish claims don't match up to multiple reports by news agencies with years if not decades of experience providing news both locally and nationally.
Time, NPR, and several others paint a much different picture, and appear to be able to actually substantiate THEIR articles, unlike this one that you're championing.
>without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources
Are you disputing that the protests have been filled with people yelling about dismantling the system? Have you seen the BLM website? Do you deny that these same people have commandeered an area in Seattle?
Which of these facts is incorrect? And if they are correct, let's look at the definition of terrorism:
>he use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
>Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
You think the police left peacefully? You think business owners weren't coerced after seeing businesses burned and looted all over the country, including in Seattle by people chanting the same slogans of this movement?
If you've only seen portrayal on the news, I'm sorry that you did not witness the violence on the dozens of livestreams from the first week or so.
This objectively meets the definition of both terrorism and criminality. Now, you may agree with their cause, and even their methods, but if we want to document and discuss exactly what's happening, we need to start by calling spades spades.