I wouldn’t call the people who attack protesters with pipes and explosives “counterprotesters”. I’m not sure why anyone else is calling them that either, other than to create a false equivalence of violence with nonviolence.

Given what they're protesting, that's 100% consistent though.

I can tell you why: it's because protesting against existing power is automatically equated with violence (even when no actual violence is present), so violence in response is interpreted as tit-for-tat.

check out the copagandist in my replies 🤬

Like framing an argument as "Theft Victims vs Countertheftvictims", there's just better words available to define them. In the above case "Protesters vs Assault Commiters"

Yep. They are thugs and terrorists.

How about violent criminals?

Copypasta lives on Ban the anonymous from the public square

"Domestic Terrorists". That's what they ought to be called. 👿

Pinkertons?

They're domestic terrorists, not patriots.