What is 'antifa'?

[Build That Wall]

Scary times when civil disturbance and protests start being defined as 'terrorism'. After all what isn't justified when fighting terrorists?

Lemme ask you man, are these terrorists?



Are these people all terrorists?


How about these guys?



Damn, I mean I've been on protests against the far right and racist groups - and I got no problem saying I align with the values of the anti-fascist movement. Am I a terrorist too? Shit, do I got to go and turn myself in at my nearest police station?

The entire point I'm trying to make here is that 'antifa' ain't one group with one set of ideas or methods. There are radical groups who could be considered part of the 'anti-fascist' movement who also advocate violent overthrow of the state, but there are also groups - the large majority in fact - who advocate peaceful protest against racism and authoritarianism and are merely exercising their lawful right to protest.

By all means those who commit crimes shoulds be subject to the appropriate punishments under law, but - IMHO at least - defining an entire movement by the actions of a minority of extremists would probably set a worrying precedent. You just never do know when some future authority might choose to use the very same laws against you.

Incidentally FWIW the US and it's component states already have laws for dealing with rioting and civil disorder. People have been getting up in the streets and sometimes burning and breaking stuff since as long as there's been towns and cities to do it in, and long before 'antifa' was ever a thing.

The waters are also muddied here because even according to the DoJs own reports much of the property damage and looting is attributable to local criminal opportunists rather than protestors, and is anyway down to a very small minority - a handful of individuals in most cases.


EDIT: If you're interested there is some relatively thoughtful discussion in this article about whether certain groups might or might not be definied as 'terrorist' and a look at how the term is defined under law and in normal usage:

https://www.vox.com/iden******/21449...rtland-kenosha

(the asterisked out word is 'identities'. Apparently the autocensor thinks that's how you spell 'titties')

An article on 'antifa' as movement:

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article53483

A perhaps more orthodox standpoint from RAND about the difficulties and possible pitfalls of attempting to classify 'antifa' as a terrorist organisation.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/06/th...anization.html

THIS IS THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU MORON.

You should know perfectly well who I am talking about. Don't play dumb

[Citizen Koba]

THIS IS THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU MORON.

You should know perfectly well who I am talking about. Don't play dumb

I'm not playing dumb, man. I'm trying to clear up a misunderstanding. Antifa is not a single organisation. I've linked about 20 different articles in this thread to explain that, including those from various official agencies and law enforcement in the US. In the same way that 'white supremacy' cannot be described as a 'group' or organisation since it comprises dozens or even hundreds of groups each with their own membership, beliefs, goals and tactics, neither can 'antifa' be so described.

The kids in black you're talking about there appear to be assciated with a Communist or Revolutionary Communist group using blackbloc tactics. The people in the pictures I posted were all also described as 'antifa' and may or may not belong to other groups but are dressed in regular clothes. This is what seems to confuse folk. Sometimes protestors will wear regular clothes, other times, most likely if they're expecting counterprotestors like the Proud Boys to show up they'll wear black and tool up in case of trouble.

It could be argued that some individuals or groups have engaged in or espouse illegal activities to further their aims whilst other groups and individuals who identify as 'antifa' have been entirely peaceful in their methods.

Whether it's reasonable to describe crimes such as property damage and even arson as 'terrorist' is a matter for your courts to decide, and I've included some discussion from lawyers and RAND analyst over the pros and cons of going down that avenue, but as things stand no-one has been accused of a terrorist offense.

It is worth pointing out that the US has a perfectly functional set of laws that already cover rioting and civil disorder however, as well as those covering specific indivdual offenses like looting or arson.

In fact it appears that of the arrests made the vast majority have not been identified as 'antifa' or linked to groups under that umbrella, with much of the criminal damage and looting having been carried out by local opportunists and even in some cases far right accelerationists.

https://yourvalley.net/stories/prote...-antifa,195903

I hope that helps you to understand the situation a little more clearly. I've linked a ton of articles throughout the thread from everyone from the DoJ to various lawyers to RAND and many others that might help broaden your knowledge if you have an interest in the topic.

[Build That Wall]

I'm not playing dumb, man. I'm trying to clear up a misunderstanding. Antifa is not a single organisation. I've linked about 20 different articles in this thread to explain that, including those from various official agencies and law enforcement in the US. In the same way that 'white supremacy' cannot be described as a 'group' or organisation since it comprises dozens or even hundreds of groups each with their own membership, beliefs, goals and tactics, neither can 'antifa' be so described.

The kids in black you're talking about there appear to be assciated with a Communist or Revolutionary Communist group using blackbloc tactics. The people in the pictures I posted were all also described as 'antifa' and may or may not belong to other groups but are dressed in regular clothes. This is what seems to confuse folk. Sometimes protestors will wear regular clothes, other times, most likely if they're expecting counterprotestors like the Proud Boys to show up they'll wear black and tool up in case of trouble.

It could be argued that some individuals or groups have engaged in or espouse illegal activities to further their aims whilst other groups and individuals who identify as 'antifa' have been entirely peaceful in their methods.

Whether it's reasonable to describe crimes such as property damage and even arson as 'terrorist' is a matter for your courts to decide, and I've included some discussion from lawyers and RAND analyst over the pros and cons of going down that avenue, but as things stand no-one has been accused of a terrorist offense.

It is worth pointing out that the US has a perfectly functional set of laws that already cover rioting and civil disorder however, as well as those covering specific indivdual offenses like looting or arson.

In fact it appears that of the arrests made individuals identifying as 'antifa; are far from the majority, with much of the criminal damage and looting having been carried out by local opportunists and even in some cases far right accelerationists.

https://yourvalley.net/stories/prote...-antifa,195903

I hope that helps you to understand the situation a little more clearly. I've linked a ton of articles throughout the thread from everyone from the DoJ to various lawyers to RAND and many others that might help broaden your knowledge if you have an interest in the topic.

Tell that to someone who hasn't been chased by these terrorists.

[Citizen Koba]

Tell that to someone who hasn't been chased by these terrorists.

I'm sorry to hear that, man, must have been a bad experience. I myself have been cornered and had the shit kicked outta me by racist skinheads, although we're going back a lot of years now... and I can't say I did nothing to provoke it and haven't given back as much myself on other occasions.

[Build That Wall]

I'm sorry to hear that, man, must have been a bad experience. I myself have been cornered and had the shit kicked outta me by racist skinheads, although we're going back a lot of years now... and I can't say I did nothing to provoke it and haven't given back as much myself on other occasions.

All that needs to happen that will piss them off is if they think you are a Trump Supporter. Luckily they didn't lay a hand on me, But I ran my ass down to the subway, and got on a docked train and I was safe. But these terrorists are blood thirsty animals.

[Citizen Koba]

All that needs to happen that will piss them off is if they think you are a Trump Supporter. Luckily they didn't lay a hand on me, But I ran my ass down to the subway, and got on a docked train and I was safe. But these terrorists are blood thirsty animals.

Intimidation and violence ain't never a good thing, man, whether it's radicals or conservatives doing it, but I'd be very wary of labelling that kinda shet 'terrorism' or of tarring an entire movement with one brush.

Terrorism has always been about planting bombs on planes or shooting up churches or mosques... targeted and planned murders designed to produce maximum political impact. Rioting and civil disorder have a long history, man, but I'd suggest it's worth thinking very carefully before labelling 'em terrorist.

That kinda thing could have massive repercussions on your own liberties at some point in the future.

As I said many times on this thread, people who actually commit crimes should be punished for 'em, man, but merely turning up to a protest wearing black can hardly be considered a crime under any rational system of law.

[Build That Wall]

Intimidation and violence ain't never a good thing, man, whether it's radicals or conservatives doing it, but I'd be very wary of labelling that kinda shet 'terrorism' or of tarring an entire movement with one brush.

Terrorism has always been about planting bombs on planes or shooting up churches or mosques... targeted and planned murders designed to produce maximum political impact. Rioting and civil disorder have a long history, man, but I'd suggest it's worth thinking very carefully before labelling 'em terrorist.

That kinda thing could have massive repercussions on your own liberties at some point in the future.

As I said many times on this thread, people who actually commit crimes should be punished for 'em, man, but merely turning up to a protest wearing black can hardly be considered a crime under any rational system of law.

Rioting, Looting, Anarchy all for a political motive is called Terrorism

This is the legal definition of Terrorism “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is what Antifa today is doing

[Citizen Koba]

Rioting, Looting, Anarchy all for a political motive is called Terrorism

This is the legal definition of Terrorism “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is what Antifa today is doing

Feels like I'm going over ground already covered here... Okay, so where to start?

Firstly I already said it's a resonable definition of terrorism but casts a wide net, the actual specific language used in Federal law makes it clear that there needs to be a threat to life and furthermore the analysis from legal professionals I linked earlier suggests that interpretation should lean towards those acts that are clearly planned to injure or kill specifically for the purpose of political gain. In short chaotic rioting and looting and other indiscriminate violence wouldn't normally be seen as fitting the bill.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

Some discussion on the interpretation of the law from RAND and Brookings (I linked others earlier in the thread) and reasons why or why not 'antifa' might be considered terrorists.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/06/th...anization.html

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...rist-actually/

Secondly antifa ain't one group, there ain't a membership or a manifesto and the majority of those involved in the antifa movement have never looted, rioted or anything similar nor do most turn up at demonstrations dressed in black with the intent of causing trouble. Means any sweeping descriptions of 'antifa' as terrorists simply make no sense.

This is the phenomenon I started this thread to address... there seems to be a misconception - probably fueled by the use of the term by certain media outlets - that 'antifa' is synoymous with black clad rioters and thugs, that they are one and the same thing. This is not the case as I've demonstrated over and over on this thread, but I guess you're amongst those who share that perception. Since that is the question I was asking in this thread I guess you've kinda given me your answer though, so that's fair enough.

Finally I actually linked an article discussing who is responsible for the various crimes that have been laid at the door of 'antifa' however you choose to define 'em, based on an analysis of thousands of pages of court documents taken from cases related to the protests. What they've shown is that these crimes ain't particularly being commited by anarchist/ communist activists as part of some kinda planned plot, but by individual actors; opportunists, local criminals, some assciating with the left wing, some right wing extremists... in fact a wide cross section of the population most with no links to any of the organisations or groups which could be described as falling under the loose 'antifa' umbrella.

In thousands of pages of court documents, the only apparent mention of antifa is in a Boston case in which authorities said a FBI Gang Task Force member was investigating “suspected ANTIFA activity associated with the protests” when a man fired at him and other officers. Authorities have not claimed that the man accused of firing the shots is a member of antifa.

It's worth noting that of all the cases brought, not once has any form of terrorism been amongst the charges.


So. Looks to me like folk have just latched on to the term 'antifa' as some kinda general term for 'the bad guys' without really understanding what 'antifa' is, what they do or whether they are actually responsible for most of the rioting and criminal damage involved - whether you wish to describe it as terrorism or not.

Anyways I've linked a huge amount of information throughout this thread for anyone who wishes to actually learn more about the subject, but I ain't gonna try to ram it down anyone's throat.

All I'd suggest is that it's worth getting your information from as broad a range of sources as you can. It's one of the banes of our modern age that we often get our infoirmation from such radically different sources that we're in effect living in diferent informational worlds from one another. S'one of the reasons we're seeing such great polarisation in the world right now.

[Zaroku]

Which group keeps burning down private property, shoots cops, and loots stores?

Is the BLM? Or BLM + Antifa? Or some other non group of terrorists doing this crap?

[BostonGuy]

Man wearing Trump shirt assaulted in BLM Plaza pic.twitter.com/JkL0HTWixf

— Matthew Miller (@mattmiller757) November 14, 2020