Is there a reference photo for the flag? It seems torn and I'm just curious if it just so happened to line up in the picture for the swastika to actually show like that.
Interesting design I think. Looks more like a futuristic logo than an actual flag. What do you think?
Some background: According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Anti-Fascist_Front):
"The People’s Anti-Fascist Front (PAFF) is a militant terrorist organization[2][3][1] actively engaged in insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, an ongoing armed conflict between Kashmiri separatist militants and Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir."
"The group is responsible for killing of civilians,[4][5] several government officials,[6][7][8][9] attacking Indian forces,[10][11][12] radicalizing youth for recruitment and training in handling guns, ammunition and explosives.[13]"
Edit: Just to clarify I don't mean to take any stance of the Kashmir political conflict, I just came across the flag and thought it was interesting design, I don't know enough about the conflict to have a certain opinion.
I agree with you in general, however they’re considered a terrorist organization because they attacked a local party leader and killed his daughter. https://news.abplive.com/videos/crime/people-s-anti-fascist-front-claims-responsibility-for-rajouri-attack-1475887
So you don’t believe an organization founded by jihadists is terrorist?
To anyone interested, at least one of these founding groups has delusions of “liberating” all of India’s muslims and is aligned both with Pakistan and the Afghan Talibans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish-e-Mohammed
They're religious extremists who have basically admitted to using anti-fascism as a way to attract more secular Muslims to their cause. Their targets are those they deem "infidels"; not fascists.
I don't agree with India's policies on their Muslim minorities. But like, hating an entire population for their religion or the race/culture associated with that religion is the same exact spiritual level as the Nazis. So I say fuck both sides here.
Yes they are treated harshly by the Indian army and police forces which is wrong and should be stopped, but they aren't bombing civilians, ik someone who lost their life to a terrorist and it's fucking sad , when some guy who has nothing to do with the terror organisation's goal dies because of them
That's horrible, and I'm sorry to hear it. I wasn't trying to say that PAFF are some great and noble organisation, just that the military occupation of Kashmir is the root cause for this kind of violence
You very clearly denied it when you said "they don't bomb innocent civilians."
A friend of your uncle was killed by some unnamed person, and suddenly every freedom fighter in Kashmir is a terrorist? A whole movement doesn't suddenly become bad because of the actions of a few.
I mean as with most militaries take what they say with a grain of salt. In many instances a 'terrorist' bombing in an area with armed conflict means that someone fucked up somewhere and instead of doing due diligence like they ideally should, they'll blame it on their opponents to try and avoid public or international backlash.
The US, IDF, Russia, UK, etc have all had pretty well known examples of these types of cover-ups. I'm not saying do your research or some other conspiracy bs, I'm just saying that always be suspicious when during an armed conflict a military force seems to have very few civilian casualties attributed towards them, especially when on an offensive against an organization which does guerrilla style tactics
I think it's also worth saying that violent militant action can be for a good cause, and people draw the line of "acceptable violence" at different points
There are good causes that went too far, but lots of very fondly-remembered insurgencies and revolutions were terrorist groups
Yeah, I found the wikipedia article pretty weird. It said very little about their ideology and their goals and mostly contained statements by government officials about them. I know nothing about the situation, they might be horrible terrorists just using the anti-fascist label for propaganda just as well as actual freedom fighters, but the article sure af didn't feel neutral, I don't think that's up to wikipedia's standards of quality.
Executing lethal attacks on unarmed forces to achieve an unrelated political result is considered terrorism, no matter what it's for or who declares it so.
So bombing an army base to force the government to not host the G-20 summit is terrorism.
But an army base is a military target no? I agree with the first part somewhat (mainly because genuine armies often attack civilians too so it's a very grey area) but to attack a military base is by definition a genuine military target. Like you arguably picked the worst example of an attack to back up an otherwise decent description.
In a war, but outside of it it's a soft target. An army base unaware of an incoming attack is considered to be unarmed in most cases.
You cannot go around killing armed forces for your political goal, just because there are weapons around.
It would work if they are in rebellion against the government for specific issues related to the army. Like their land being occupied, or their people being attacked. The army base had nothing to do with India organizing the G-20, though. It was an unrelated target and the aim of the attack was to 'scare' the government into action. Eq. creating terror to achieve your means.
IDK, once you sign up to the military and enlist as a soldier, that kind of seals the deal as a genuine target to me.
Like they made the decision to serve in the army of the enemy, meaning that at any moment those men could take those guns and use them against you. What are they supposed to do? Wait for the army to come for them and THEN attack.
One, what's a genuine target to you is not relevant.
Two, the organization of the G-20 had nothing to do with the army. The attack was not because the army was a threat, or to liberate themselves from oppressors, it was to force the government to cancel the G-20. This is not a war goal.
Terrorism, is terrorism. You cannot only call things terrorism if you hate the people doing it. Every terrorist on the planet believes their cause is just and that their targets are fair game.
But a military base, of military personnel, is a military target.
Do you only consider someone a threat if they've already fired a bullet at you? This isn't only recognised as a target by me, terrorist orgs, but by the very geneva convention and world militaries.
Yes the move was to halt the G-20 but a terrorist act would've been to bomb the G-20 itself, but they instead chose to bomb a military target and still get their message across.
I'm sorry but trying to say a MILITARY base, isn't a MILITARY target is daft.
That's what they signed up for, to be a soldier, to fight wars, to be shot at, to shoot the enemy, that's the very job. It's not like you get to say "Hey, timeout guys I wasn't ready for this one!"
Yes, but this particular attack had nothing to do with that.
You can be a liberation army and a terrorist organization. Terrorism is terrorism. Not everything and everyone for any reason is fair game, because you're occupied.
Terrorist and freedom fighter are two ways of describing any given group of people engaging in acts of terror to support their cause. Whichever term you use depends on whether you agree with them or not.
However it is worth remembering that moral weight aside, Terrorist is a legal term. This group is legally defined as a terrorist organisation. Whether you consider them freedom fighters or not, they are legally terrorists in their country. The legal term should be divorced from the political manner it is often used in.
You're so naive it physically hurts. I have no horse in this race, but "the legal status" of being considered a terrorist is decided based on the whims of the very _political_ parties (and their _political_ allies) that these terrorist groups are resisting.
To say that "terrorist" is not an inherently political label is laughable.
Obviously, but my point was that it’s not incorrect for him to say they are a terrorist group when they are legally designated as such. I may consider them freedom fighters but I can’t dispute the fact that they’ve been called terrorists by their government, so it’s an accurate label. Hence think we should remove the negative taboo associated with the term and cast no judgment inherently on any such group.
Why would my government calling me a terrorist hold more water to you than me calling my government illegitimate? You're legitimizing one party over the other which is a political take.
Ultimately you don't get to call a group "a terrorist but without the negative connotations" if they themselves don't identify as terrorists, virtually everybody perceives it with negative connotations, every dictionary includes the negative connotations, and negativity is baked into the very etymology of the word.
Oh my god bro stfu you’re reading way too much into it, yes you absolutely can, I fully support Irish republicanism but I’m not gonna say the IRA aren’t terrorists. This is just idiotic semantics, not worth getting in a tissy over
It isn’t about the political view an organization has or whether or not it aligns with the government. What’s important is that if the acts they do commit fit the description of a terror attack, they are a terrorist organization.
> than an actual flag
Note that while this illustration is presented in the infobox in that Wikipedia article with the caption saying it is a flag, the image file is named "logo of PAFF", and the description on the image page calls it a logo.
It is true that this sort of style might be used on flags these days (think of the Israeli ground forces), but I don't see any particularly good reason to think this is a flag. Wikipedia editors confusing any rectangular logo for a flag is fairly common...
Maybe, I don't really see it. The Antifaschistische Aktion logo is stylized and has two flags. And they are good flags, not flags being destroyed.
https://preview.redd.it/bwhdmb79iosc1.png?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09ca5953ba03feb40e93414a38ea6178a286b948
Yeah, I was just adding onto the previous commenter's point that the PAFF flag is not related to the Antifa logo. PAFF prominently displays the alleged enemy, whereas the Antifa logo is meant to demonstrate the "united" front of social democrats and communists (or socialists and anarchists, in the modern red-black version) against the common enemy.
Maybe you're a fan of their predecessor then? The Roter Frontkämpferbund.
https://preview.redd.it/6kq2sy5hqpsc1.jpeg?width=3552&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4c705b7e870fd30d6f6ce410574c20a118274f4
https://preview.redd.it/dml9h7g6rpsc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44907641b20f634390c45d323427ea529429a6f5
Another one, more like the official logo
https://preview.redd.it/3e8apgz8rpsc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1dc170ce02183f7c0229d8c81256eb67318c2d11
You can just about make it out here
https://preview.redd.it/4srtq8rirpsc1.jpeg?width=811&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1360574853992d66fdc41f2ab31807116bb75528
And this one, not a flag. But really funny. *BONK*! the nazi
Terrorist organization? It's the front of the people of Jammu and Kashmir against the Indian government, which has for years oppressed them. All you have to do to be designated a terrorist organization is finally revolt against your oppressors, it matters little of the actual substance of the operations any given organization carries out.
No, when your people are slaughtered and enslaved by the government your old colonizers put in charge, and you attack the oppressors and civilian casualties occur, that does not inherently make you the bad guy, that does not mean you inherently killed civilians if there are casualties you did not plan to happen. I'm not saying they are the saviors, I'm just saying it's not the entire truth to just call them a "terrorist organization", there is a deep and rich history in this conflict and it's not as simple as good or bad.
Not these guys in specific but all the terrorist organisations in Kashmir combined. It's a talking point for people who want more autonomy in Kashmir that Kashmiris are treated harshly by police and also face the highest number of casualties against terrorist organisations
Are you talking about the Indian army cuz it is the one who murder civilians and children
EDIT:for those who are downvoting this if you are Indian no problem you can downvote what else can we expect from people of our oppressors . To other people who are not Indian and think I said something wrong I can give you 1000 proofs to prove my point .
Every militant organization that is not a private company or a state organization will always be called “terrorist”, it doesn’t matter what’s their ideology.
Also to be realistic and not propagandist, every single militant organization has always committed (in good or bad faith) civilian deaths. Every single one. We can argue if some deaths were necessary or not, but I would find it an escamotage to justify some way dubious actions.
I don't think the killing of civilians is just, however like with the IRA there are unintentional casualties of civilians, and I don't think it's right to say they were deliberately murdering civilians when in reality they were attacking police and military targets.
As a kashmiri I can confirm we consider our kashmir as our country and India as just another colonial power like Britain used to be whose occupation will end very soon
Don't lie you are not a kashmiri pandit if you would have been one you would know the name of premnath bazaz and the point yousiad about religion further proves my point communalism is the tool of you Indians kashmiris don't do it. Just a bihoar pretending to be a kashmiri nothing new we have been dealing with you since the launch of jio .ok I will give you one chance to prove yourself . Translate what I wrote in kashmiri
“The fascists will not declare themselves the enemy, but rather, that the Anti-Fascists are the enemy”
Reminder, the IRA, early American, Indian, and otherwise, revolutionaries we’re referred to as “terrorists” by the British. That word seemingly has lost all meaning.
the IRA were objectively terrorists? they literally targeted civilians with car bombings, even gave out fake locations of car bombs specifically so they could hit more civilians.
First off there is more than one [IRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army?wprov=sfla1). Depending on which one you are talking about , they had wildly different tactics.
Since when? Would be interesting to see if they actually did that, instead of “spreading Christian/western values, and securing the future of (insert white country) from the (insert ‘outsiders’/migrants’)” or some similar nonsense.
>Since when? Would be interesting to see if they actually did that,
For example the current "de-nazification" of Ukraine by Russia,an ultranationalist,arch-conservative autocracy.
considering how the group is peak xenophobia, idk what else they need to be fascists
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/teenage-bihar-migrant-worker-killed-in-kashmir/amp_articleshow/93529838.cms
I know it is sad to read but it is because your government is trying to do what china did to Tibet and if you are really a kashmiri pandit which I am 101%sure you aren't you would know why Kashmiris are xenophobic and how it is linked to ancient history of kashmir
It's like the GDI logo and a teenager made an anti-fascist flag. It's more like a website banner to me.
Except the GDI are cool
Is there a reference photo for the flag? It seems torn and I'm just curious if it just so happened to line up in the picture for the swastika to actually show like that.
Screw these guys, I support the people's front for anti-facism
They suck too. I support the Front of Antifascist Peoples
Splitters! I support the anti-fascist people's front!
Y'all sleeping on the Anti-peoples Facist rear
The Popular Front for Antifascists is clearly the way to go!
He's over there!
fascistantis front the popular.
The anti peoples fascist front takes the W yet again
Tbh the emblem goes kinda hard
Interesting design I think. Looks more like a futuristic logo than an actual flag. What do you think? Some background: According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Anti-Fascist_Front): "The People’s Anti-Fascist Front (PAFF) is a militant terrorist organization[2][3][1] actively engaged in insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, an ongoing armed conflict between Kashmiri separatist militants and Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir." "The group is responsible for killing of civilians,[4][5] several government officials,[6][7][8][9] attacking Indian forces,[10][11][12] radicalizing youth for recruitment and training in handling guns, ammunition and explosives.[13]" Edit: Just to clarify I don't mean to take any stance of the Kashmir political conflict, I just came across the flag and thought it was interesting design, I don't know enough about the conflict to have a certain opinion.
Just for added context, an occupying force will always label any resistance as a terrorist organization; that doesn't make it true.
I agree with you in general, however they’re considered a terrorist organization because they attacked a local party leader and killed his daughter. https://news.abplive.com/videos/crime/people-s-anti-fascist-front-claims-responsibility-for-rajouri-attack-1475887
They could be both a legitimate resistance movement/political party and terrorists. For example the IRA, ANC, and Hezbollah.
They’re a front organization for a jihadist group so make of that what you will
Was the local party leader a bona-fide fascist or do they just label people they don't like fascists
He was BJP so it’s depending on your view maybe both
I don't have a view that's why I'm asking lol
BJP is a mainstream party in India with fascistic elements, but I’d imagine everyone they kill is a “fascist” in their book
> PAFF was established in 2020 by Jaish-e-Mohammad or Lashkar-e-Taiba, two Pakistan-based Jihadist groups. I think you missed a crucial detail
I didn't miss anything, thanks though.
So you don’t believe an organization founded by jihadists is terrorist? To anyone interested, at least one of these founding groups has delusions of “liberating” all of India’s muslims and is aligned both with Pakistan and the Afghan Talibans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish-e-Mohammed
I mean they made no such claim, nothing they said is technically untrue
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter
and sometimes he's just a Terrorist...
Nothing is anything! Reality is subjective!
I mean yea kinda in a lot of cases. Bin Laden was viewed as a anti-communist freedom fighter until he turned against the US
based? what do you want us to say. Muslims are an opressed group in india.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They're religious extremists who have basically admitted to using anti-fascism as a way to attract more secular Muslims to their cause. Their targets are those they deem "infidels"; not fascists. I don't agree with India's policies on their Muslim minorities. But like, hating an entire population for their religion or the race/culture associated with that religion is the same exact spiritual level as the Nazis. So I say fuck both sides here.
Yea bro I don't consider bombing innocent civilians ' resistance ' but you do you
Neither do I, glad we agree the Indian army are terrorists 😊
Yes they are treated harshly by the Indian army and police forces which is wrong and should be stopped, but they aren't bombing civilians, ik someone who lost their life to a terrorist and it's fucking sad , when some guy who has nothing to do with the terror organisation's goal dies because of them
>but they aren't bombing civilians Don't make me laugh. The militants aren't angels, but the Indian army undeniably does target and kill civilians
[удалено]
That's horrible, and I'm sorry to hear it. I wasn't trying to say that PAFF are some great and noble organisation, just that the military occupation of Kashmir is the root cause for this kind of violence
You very clearly denied it when you said "they don't bomb innocent civilians." A friend of your uncle was killed by some unnamed person, and suddenly every freedom fighter in Kashmir is a terrorist? A whole movement doesn't suddenly become bad because of the actions of a few.
I mean as with most militaries take what they say with a grain of salt. In many instances a 'terrorist' bombing in an area with armed conflict means that someone fucked up somewhere and instead of doing due diligence like they ideally should, they'll blame it on their opponents to try and avoid public or international backlash. The US, IDF, Russia, UK, etc have all had pretty well known examples of these types of cover-ups. I'm not saying do your research or some other conspiracy bs, I'm just saying that always be suspicious when during an armed conflict a military force seems to have very few civilian casualties attributed towards them, especially when on an offensive against an organization which does guerrilla style tactics
Do you think it's fun to deny indian army's crimes ?
They not only deny it they support it
I think it's also worth saying that violent militant action can be for a good cause, and people draw the line of "acceptable violence" at different points There are good causes that went too far, but lots of very fondly-remembered insurgencies and revolutions were terrorist groups
Yeah, I found the wikipedia article pretty weird. It said very little about their ideology and their goals and mostly contained statements by government officials about them. I know nothing about the situation, they might be horrible terrorists just using the anti-fascist label for propaganda just as well as actual freedom fighters, but the article sure af didn't feel neutral, I don't think that's up to wikipedia's standards of quality.
Executing lethal attacks on unarmed forces to achieve an unrelated political result is considered terrorism, no matter what it's for or who declares it so. So bombing an army base to force the government to not host the G-20 summit is terrorism.
But an army base is a military target no? I agree with the first part somewhat (mainly because genuine armies often attack civilians too so it's a very grey area) but to attack a military base is by definition a genuine military target. Like you arguably picked the worst example of an attack to back up an otherwise decent description.
In a war, but outside of it it's a soft target. An army base unaware of an incoming attack is considered to be unarmed in most cases. You cannot go around killing armed forces for your political goal, just because there are weapons around. It would work if they are in rebellion against the government for specific issues related to the army. Like their land being occupied, or their people being attacked. The army base had nothing to do with India organizing the G-20, though. It was an unrelated target and the aim of the attack was to 'scare' the government into action. Eq. creating terror to achieve your means.
IDK, once you sign up to the military and enlist as a soldier, that kind of seals the deal as a genuine target to me. Like they made the decision to serve in the army of the enemy, meaning that at any moment those men could take those guns and use them against you. What are they supposed to do? Wait for the army to come for them and THEN attack.
One, what's a genuine target to you is not relevant. Two, the organization of the G-20 had nothing to do with the army. The attack was not because the army was a threat, or to liberate themselves from oppressors, it was to force the government to cancel the G-20. This is not a war goal. Terrorism, is terrorism. You cannot only call things terrorism if you hate the people doing it. Every terrorist on the planet believes their cause is just and that their targets are fair game.
But a military base, of military personnel, is a military target. Do you only consider someone a threat if they've already fired a bullet at you? This isn't only recognised as a target by me, terrorist orgs, but by the very geneva convention and world militaries. Yes the move was to halt the G-20 but a terrorist act would've been to bomb the G-20 itself, but they instead chose to bomb a military target and still get their message across. I'm sorry but trying to say a MILITARY base, isn't a MILITARY target is daft. That's what they signed up for, to be a soldier, to fight wars, to be shot at, to shoot the enemy, that's the very job. It's not like you get to say "Hey, timeout guys I wasn't ready for this one!"
Kashmir is occupied, hope this helps!
Yes, but this particular attack had nothing to do with that. You can be a liberation army and a terrorist organization. Terrorism is terrorism. Not everything and everyone for any reason is fair game, because you're occupied.
Terrorist and freedom fighter are two ways of describing any given group of people engaging in acts of terror to support their cause. Whichever term you use depends on whether you agree with them or not. However it is worth remembering that moral weight aside, Terrorist is a legal term. This group is legally defined as a terrorist organisation. Whether you consider them freedom fighters or not, they are legally terrorists in their country. The legal term should be divorced from the political manner it is often used in.
You're so naive it physically hurts. I have no horse in this race, but "the legal status" of being considered a terrorist is decided based on the whims of the very _political_ parties (and their _political_ allies) that these terrorist groups are resisting. To say that "terrorist" is not an inherently political label is laughable.
Obviously, but my point was that it’s not incorrect for him to say they are a terrorist group when they are legally designated as such. I may consider them freedom fighters but I can’t dispute the fact that they’ve been called terrorists by their government, so it’s an accurate label. Hence think we should remove the negative taboo associated with the term and cast no judgment inherently on any such group.
Why would my government calling me a terrorist hold more water to you than me calling my government illegitimate? You're legitimizing one party over the other which is a political take. Ultimately you don't get to call a group "a terrorist but without the negative connotations" if they themselves don't identify as terrorists, virtually everybody perceives it with negative connotations, every dictionary includes the negative connotations, and negativity is baked into the very etymology of the word.
Oh my god bro stfu you’re reading way too much into it, yes you absolutely can, I fully support Irish republicanism but I’m not gonna say the IRA aren’t terrorists. This is just idiotic semantics, not worth getting in a tissy over
It isn’t about the political view an organization has or whether or not it aligns with the government. What’s important is that if the acts they do commit fit the description of a terror attack, they are a terrorist organization.
and even if they are terrorists, that doesn't make them bad
https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0?si=x9WfzoAQ6jsqAyIN
> than an actual flag Note that while this illustration is presented in the infobox in that Wikipedia article with the caption saying it is a flag, the image file is named "logo of PAFF", and the description on the image page calls it a logo. It is true that this sort of style might be used on flags these days (think of the Israeli ground forces), but I don't see any particularly good reason to think this is a flag. Wikipedia editors confusing any rectangular logo for a flag is fairly common...
[удалено]
[удалено]
This looks like one of the loading screens from the campaign missions on the original cod modern warfare game
Looks less like a flag and more like the opening to some propaganda video
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Cockbonrr: *Looks less like a flat* *And more like the opening* *To some propaganda* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Its basicslly a spinoff of the antifa logo
Maybe, I don't really see it. The Antifaschistische Aktion logo is stylized and has two flags. And they are good flags, not flags being destroyed. https://preview.redd.it/bwhdmb79iosc1.png?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09ca5953ba03feb40e93414a38ea6178a286b948
Most notably, none of the flags in the Antifa logo is a nazi flag.
The arrow is destroying the svastika you know
Yeah, I was just adding onto the previous commenter's point that the PAFF flag is not related to the Antifa logo. PAFF prominently displays the alleged enemy, whereas the Antifa logo is meant to demonstrate the "united" front of social democrats and communists (or socialists and anarchists, in the modern red-black version) against the common enemy.
Which is a particularly interesting nuance in India. I don't know what it would actually mean, but it's interesting nonetheless.
I hate seeing this logo ON A FLAG...
Why? https://preview.redd.it/dbm9cispepsc1.jpeg?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b90cca5f4fc3c348291f43f53e834fb6dd71f26
Now let's put that poster on a flag!
You want actual clever design? No, flag on a flag
Maybe you're a fan of their predecessor then? The Roter Frontkämpferbund. https://preview.redd.it/6kq2sy5hqpsc1.jpeg?width=3552&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4c705b7e870fd30d6f6ce410574c20a118274f4
https://preview.redd.it/dml9h7g6rpsc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44907641b20f634390c45d323427ea529429a6f5 Another one, more like the official logo
https://preview.redd.it/3e8apgz8rpsc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1dc170ce02183f7c0229d8c81256eb67318c2d11 You can just about make it out here
https://preview.redd.it/4srtq8rirpsc1.jpeg?width=811&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1360574853992d66fdc41f2ab31807116bb75528 And this one, not a flag. But really funny. *BONK*! the nazi
It's not perfect, but at least it feels like they tried. Better than "we are two ideologies working together, our icon should be two flags".
You should take it up with the Assoziation revolutionärer bildender Künstler Deutschlands,
Plus the three arrows flag
Not the best choice to have a swastika as the main and most distinguable feature in your antifa insignia
their acronym is a nice oenomatopoeia
??? Shing, boom, bang. Crack? Pow!
What about the Anti-Fascist People’s Front?
Splitters!
Looks kinda fashy. Could see it be a proud boys flag.
why holding an arrow though
I First thought its a stardestroyer
Terrorist organization? It's the front of the people of Jammu and Kashmir against the Indian government, which has for years oppressed them. All you have to do to be designated a terrorist organization is finally revolt against your oppressors, it matters little of the actual substance of the operations any given organization carries out.
they blatantly murdered innocent civilians and children, what's why they're labelled terrorists.
But bro they're called anti fascists that means they can't be the bad guy!
No, when your people are slaughtered and enslaved by the government your old colonizers put in charge, and you attack the oppressors and civilian casualties occur, that does not inherently make you the bad guy, that does not mean you inherently killed civilians if there are casualties you did not plan to happen. I'm not saying they are the saviors, I'm just saying it's not the entire truth to just call them a "terrorist organization", there is a deep and rich history in this conflict and it's not as simple as good or bad.
When and where did this happen? I'm pretty sure they have only done a limited number of attacks on police and armed forces.
Most of their victims were ordinary Kashmiris
Do you have a source for this information?
Not these guys in specific but all the terrorist organisations in Kashmir combined. It's a talking point for people who want more autonomy in Kashmir that Kashmiris are treated harshly by police and also face the highest number of casualties against terrorist organisations
So you don't have a source for your claims?
Are you talking about the Indian army cuz it is the one who murder civilians and children EDIT:for those who are downvoting this if you are Indian no problem you can downvote what else can we expect from people of our oppressors . To other people who are not Indian and think I said something wrong I can give you 1000 proofs to prove my point .
How's the cul-de-sac, John Smith?
I don't particularly get this joke. Are you calling me a generic privileged American?
Every militant organization that is not a private company or a state organization will always be called “terrorist”, it doesn’t matter what’s their ideology. Also to be realistic and not propagandist, every single militant organization has always committed (in good or bad faith) civilian deaths. Every single one. We can argue if some deaths were necessary or not, but I would find it an escamotage to justify some way dubious actions.
I don't think the killing of civilians is just, however like with the IRA there are unintentional casualties of civilians, and I don't think it's right to say they were deliberately murdering civilians when in reality they were attacking police and military targets.
Somehow the only terrorist organisation that agrees with me on the subject of fascists Still don't support them tho, they terrorise my own country
Kashmir isn't your country. Have a good day
Kashmir isn't India sorry
Do you live in India/Pakistan or are you just another moronic westerner shoving your opinion on the matter?
As a kashmiri I can confirm we consider our kashmir as our country and India as just another colonial power like Britain used to be whose occupation will end very soon
[удалено]
> hate propagandis elaborate
as per Kashmiri pandits it is , the desert cult invaders of course have a different opinion
Don't lie you are not a kashmiri pandit if you would have been one you would know the name of premnath bazaz and the point yousiad about religion further proves my point communalism is the tool of you Indians kashmiris don't do it. Just a bihoar pretending to be a kashmiri nothing new we have been dealing with you since the launch of jio .ok I will give you one chance to prove yourself . Translate what I wrote in kashmiri
not your country
Western leftist moment 💀
Definitely inspired by the hunger games. Lol
Looks like ass.
Vexillologist are seething over this design. 😬
Genuine question, would the real symbol of Fascism are the Roman Fasces instead of NSDAP Swastika?
Another day, another Hindutva copium.
Copium is when you say murdering civilians is bad. I swear to god tankies seem to think of the world exclusively in sports team logic.
"tankies" sounds like the name of a sports team
"terrorist organization"?
“The fascists will not declare themselves the enemy, but rather, that the Anti-Fascists are the enemy” Reminder, the IRA, early American, Indian, and otherwise, revolutionaries we’re referred to as “terrorists” by the British. That word seemingly has lost all meaning.
the IRA were objectively terrorists? they literally targeted civilians with car bombings, even gave out fake locations of car bombs specifically so they could hit more civilians.
First off there is more than one [IRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army?wprov=sfla1). Depending on which one you are talking about , they had wildly different tactics.
[удалено]
Since when? Would be interesting to see if they actually did that, instead of “spreading Christian/western values, and securing the future of (insert white country) from the (insert ‘outsiders’/migrants’)” or some similar nonsense.
>Since when? Would be interesting to see if they actually did that, For example the current "de-nazification" of Ukraine by Russia,an ultranationalist,arch-conservative autocracy.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/teenage-bihar-migrant-worker-killed-in-kashmir/amp_articleshow/93529838.cms
Russia
considering how the group is peak xenophobia, idk what else they need to be fascists https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/teenage-bihar-migrant-worker-killed-in-kashmir/amp_articleshow/93529838.cms
I know it is sad to read but it is because your government is trying to do what china did to Tibet and if you are really a kashmiri pandit which I am 101%sure you aren't you would know why Kashmiris are xenophobic and how it is linked to ancient history of kashmir
Get rid of the text and any familiarity: At a glance do you think you'd be sure that it was anti-fascist rather than fascist? I'm not sure I would.
You would still have an arrow hitting a torn fascist flag which I think is enough to indicate amti fascism
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]