Research shows the threat posed by far-right extremist
groups far exceeds that of other groups. Far-right
extremists were behind two-thirds of the attacks and
plots in the United States in 2019 and more than 90%
in the first half of this year.

Left-wing ideology has also inspired terrorism in the
past, and indeed, left-wing terrorism remains a real
contemporary threat. To understand the present we have
to understand the past and its history. But Antifa does
not represent a terror threat by virtue of its
organization and activities. As it currently stands, it falls
below the conventional threshold for terrorism.

Antifa is not a homogenous entity, and has no identifiable
command structure, leadership apparatus or radicalised
membership. To designate Antifa as an "organization" is to
misconstrue the present reality of the movement.

The Brookings Institute has a great deal on its websites
on this issue on how protests are being conflated with
terrorism.

Foxy comment 1-

"Antifa is not a homogenous entity, and has no identifiable
command structure, leadership apparatus..."

Answer 1-

I guess that Antifa is similar to ISIS and Al-Qaeda in that regard.

Foxy comment 2-

".. or radicalised membership. To designate Antifa as an "organization" is to misconstrue the present reality of the movement."

Answer 2-

I'm not sure you can say that Antifa is not radicalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization

Radicalization (or radicalisation) is the process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly ‹See Tfd› radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo. The ideas of society at large shape the outcomes of radicalization; for example, radical movements can originate from a broad social consensus against progressive changes in society or from a broad desire for change in society. Radicalization can result in both violent and nonviolent action - most academic literature focuses on radicalization into violent extremism (RVE).[1][2] Multiple separate pathways can promote the process of radicalization, which can be independent but are usually mutually reinforcing.[3][4]

Radicalization that occurs across multiple reinforcing pathways greatly increases a group's resilience and lethality. Furthermore, by compromising a group's ability to blend in with non-radical society and to participate in a modern, national or international economy, radicalization serves as a kind of sociological trap that gives individuals no other place to go to satisfy their material and spiritual needs.

Mass radicalization
Chairman Mao Zedong writing On Protracted War in 1938.
Jiujitsu politics

Also called "the logic of political violence", Jiujitsu politics is a form of asymmetrical political warfare in which radical groups act to provoke governments to crack down on the populace at large and produce domestic blowback that legitimates further violent action.[49] The primary purpose of a radical group using this tactic is not to destroy the enemy outright, but to make the enemy strike at political and ideological moderates, such that the existing political order loses its claim on legitimacy while the radical group gains legitimacy.[50] By destroying moderates, radical groups encourage a bifurcated society and use state's reactions to violence as a justification for further violence.[51] Al-Qaeda's strategy of luring the West, specifically the United States, into ground wars in Islamic states that polarize the Ummah against the West while avoiding engagements that would allow the American military to draw on its technical superiority is an example of jiujitsu politics. David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency advisor to David Petraeus during the Iraq Surge, has called this the "accidental guerrilla syndrome".[52]

This tactic is also pillar of Maoist insurgency and serves both the purposes of tactical and ideological advantage.

This is interesting...

The Three Stages of Mao’s Communist Revolutionary Warfare (What Today’s Left Seems to be Following)

http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2020/07/04/the-three-stages-of-maos-communist-revolutionary-warfare-what-todays-left-seems-to-be-following/

Canem Malum,

What is your take on Xi telling the PLA to prepare for war on two occasions over the past several years?

China's annexation and militarisation of the East and South China Seas should give you the hint.

Taiwan.

Will China's invasion of Taiwan be the start of a second Pacific War?

I imagine yes.

Most terrorism researchers have rejected the idea that
Antifa constitutes a terrorist threat, instead
comparing them to gangs, militants or activists.

While Antifa has previously engaged in low-level
violence such as street skirmishes and obstructing
right-wing demonstrators it lacks organizational
coherence and a meaningful command structure. This limits
the likelihood of organised and sophisticated violence akin
to terrorism.

Conflating protest movements with terrorism or violent
extremism poses numerous risks to a democratic
society. For one, it undermines a central pillar of any
functional democratic system, the right to protest.

It also suppresses or manipulates legitimate dissent to
serve a secondary agenda in the case of President Trump -
to paint Democrat-controlled cities as out of control.

When the Trump administration threatens to designate
Antifa a terrorist organisation or send federal forces
to cities to quell violent protests, it also diverts
resources away from other high-priority threats. This
includes right-wing extremism which has claimed dozens
of lives in the past year in places like Christchurch,
El Paso, and elsewhere.

This is not an "either/or" situation - the threats from
both right-and left wing groups must be countered. But
governments must allocate resources based on the actual
threat they represent, rather than political rhetoric.

The political appeal of labelling oppositional protesters
as terrorists must not outweigh the risks it poses to
democratic principles.

In the current international security environment there
are many threats to democracy, but in order to truly
safeguard it, we need to fiercely defend the rights of
citizens to protest and voice dissent.