The article is quite long, but these two give a brief idea of what is going on:
a) According to that article, what it seems they are about:
> Its manifesto describes the project in explicitly political terms. A/I is antifascist, anti-capitalist and antimilitarist. It promotes free software, encryption, pseudonymity and the independent circulation of knowledge and cultural work. It reserves its limited, volunteer-run resources for people and projects broadly compatible with those principles rather than businesses, political parties, organized religions or institutions already possessing the means to make themselves heard.
b) And the issue U.S. has with them:
> The United States alleges that A/I supplies specialized digital architecture, encrypted communications and hosting to antifascist groups and other radical movements, including organizations already designated by the United States.
A tactic of certain "anti-fascist" groups is to simply call anyone they don't like fascist and attack them. Just like actual fascists used to excuse violence as "anti-communist".
Claiming to be anti-fascist doesn't actually make them anti-fascist nor excuse them from breaking laws.
A tactic of certain fascist groups is to simply claim their opponents simply call anyone they don't like fascist and attack them. How can we objectively decide who's right?
This is literally the thing you will find when busting groups that have been performing multiple attacks on German electricity and rail infrastructure in the last years.
Attacks that results in dead people and are ok with many more dead
This is prob a russian operation to manipulate right wingers by presenting yet another fabricated left wing enemy. Attacks on transportation and electricity grids (and cars and graffiti) are not the same ball park as planed kidnappings and killings. You are just repeating propaganda.
You mean the ones that haven't actually been busted, their true motivation and political conviction unknown, with the only thing pointing towards left-wing extremism being "Bekennerschreiben" that have linguistic traits of being authored by native Russian speakers?
yeah those "unbusted" ones, like the Hammerbande, that have been caught, caught on camera trying to murder civillians they deemed being Hitler, and thus rightfully jailed.
Well the nazis called themselves socialist. I’m not saying this is that, but names are often chosen to mislead people
I don’t think antifa is an kind of organized anything
But I can say with certainty that people claiming that title smashes the shit out of property and people for a few years post Floyd where I’ve been in various areas of the west coast
Some are probably genuine do-gooders who oppose fascism. Others appear to be fascists themselves in that they demand you agree with them or carry out property destruction and physical violence if you dont
Sure, there are examples like that in any large enough group. The folks who stormed the capitol on January 6th should still be in jail too. Breaking laws usually yields punishment under said laws (unless you support or in the good graces of the current president). Labelling broad swaths of people who protest your agenda and don't like your masked goons killing and kidnapping people in their communities terrorists is a gross abuse of power.
I’d feel comfortable categorizing the j6 rioters and the antifa people smashing shops and smashing people over the head with bike lock both as terrorist. Their entire mission is brute force and fear.
The were nonviolent people milling about or protesting in both groups. Leave them alone. But those smashing and threatening and being violent…
they (from both sides) both deserve to be separated from normal society
It's super easy for me to claim the title of something I don't like, and then go smash a bunch of property. For example I could call myself a Republican, then smash a bunch of property. Would you then believe republicans are violent property smashers?
It doesn't mean preposterous or not preposterous. It does mean there is general dispute regarding the proscription.
Appealing to it is not really progressing your argument. Both decisions are controversial, you don't make a more convincing argument as to why one controversial decision should not be considered controversial, by pointing to a different, also controversial, decision.
That's a deeply flawed reading of what I've written. For example, you've disagreed with me in a way that leads me to believe you're more than a little bit dense, but not a terrorist.
You are ok with 7 people getting life sentences because one person fired a gun in the middle of absolute chaos with no evidence the shot was premeditated or planned by the group?
And surely those swastika carriers are getting similar sentences... right?
Storm the capital to overthrow an election, get a pardon. Photocopy an anti-ice zine, get life in prison. Makes sense.
> they oppose the very system they are trying to use and exist within.
Is there a way to not exist within capitalism and fascism while opposing it? You speak about it like this is some hypocrisy on their part. Is it not the rhetorical equivalent of "oh, you're drowning?? but you're IN WATER.."?
> Maybe not violently, but hardly can one expect sympathies, especially from system itself.
I would never expect the law to be sympathetic to anyone. I want the law to be fairly written, and equally applied. But unfortunately we're living in a time when you can get a life sentence for photocopying an anti-ice zine.
The only people who say this are people who don't actually know anyone who is antifascist. Hell, most of the people I've met who strait up identify as antifa are probably closer to democratic socialist than communist and they tend to be pretty dweeby.
Is there any indication or proof that they are providing services to PKK? Equating supporting protest organizers in the west with supporting an armed terrorist group is laughable and dangerous.
Having "pro-PKK views" (or for other groups designated as terrorists for that matter) is not against the law in the US as that is a first amendment right (as long as that speech is not support).
>[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations.
At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training center) lumped in with violent attacks on infrastructure? This isn't the first time either - Samuel Tunick, the man who was charged with destruction of evidence for giving his duress pin to the CBP agents, was being investigated for his connection to the Cop City protests.[1]
And as others have said, what does it say about the current US admin that they are designating "anti-fascist" groups as terrorists? I will say, at least unlike Cop City protests afaik, Rose City Antifa seems willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.[2]
Which account - the one who keeps trying to push the idea that anti-fascism is terrorism, and has posted a lot of that sort of thing across different threads, or the one that called that one a bootlicker and hasn't posted anything remotely similar recently?
The whole discussion is a hellscape, and you (should, by now) know that it's not our role to adjudicate on the correctness of anyone's arguments. But “bootlicker” is, by design, one of the most demeaning terms of abuse that ever gets used here. It's not asking much, at all, to expect people to avoid using it. That account has contributed little of substance, so it's not as if there was a track record of earnest participation to suggest that this was a momentary lapse.
Please don't post like this here. If a comment is egregious, as this one is, please flag it and consider emailing hn@ycombinator.com to let us know about it.
IMO violence is a spectrum. Peaceful protesting with signs is 0 violence. Attacking self-driving cars or department stores without hurting any people is a bit higher up the scale. Attacking food supplies or critical infrastructure is higher still, as it will have downstream effects on everyone that might lead to death and suffering. Attacking actual human bodies is even higher up the scale of course.
I get your point though. There's a strong push to characterize destruction of property as violence, as part of a push to delegitimize protest. To some people, the police can use physical violence against people to stop a protest and that's okay, whereas if the protestors so much as throw a brick through a window, they're violent extremists.
[1] https://www.wewillfreeus.org/the-server-called-paranoia-defe...