As Far-Right Violence Surges, Ted Cruz Seeks To Brand Antifa A Terrorist Organization

The majority of the 100 investigations into suspected domestic terrorist groups the FBI's undertaken? How many cases were prosecuted as domestic terrorism and what groups were responsible?

 

And this has what exactly to do with my post stating the undeniable fact that the left is in bed with Islamic fundamentalists, Sharia supporters, Jew haters and of course Islamic terrorists?

 

Prove it.

 

More drivel that again advertises that you haven't perused the research. Lott and Mustard applied an inappropriate dummy variable methodology. The nature of that econometric bias is discussed in Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003, The Effect of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime: Beyond the Dummy Variables, International Review of Law and Economics, 23:199-216):

"So far 33 states have adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. The advocates argue these laws have a deterrent effect on crime, while the opponents believe they facilitate crime by increasing gun availability. Although both sides assume that these laws affect behavior, no attempt has yet been made to model such effects using crime theory. Consequently, the empirical evidence on such effects lack a theoretical basis; for example, a highly publicized study by Lott and Mustard (1997) inappropriately models the effect of the law through a dummy variable (a binary-valued regressor). We extend the economic model of crime to formulate a theoretical basis for empirical examination of the issue. We show that using a dummy variable leads to misspecification, and use an alternative procedure to estimate the effect of concealed handgun laws in 1992 for states which had not yet adopted such laws. Our results show that the expected effect of the law on crime varies across the counties and states and depends on county-specific characteristics in a meaningful way. Such effects appear to be much smaller and more mixed than Lott and Mustard suggest, and are not crime-reducing in most cases."

 

A childish comment. Its a post-9/11 analysis into perceptions of terrorism and how they compare with data trends.

 

Huff po not a legitimate news source. FBI data on violence please.

 

how is violence from the left or the right any different? And violence should be prosecuted in our legal system.
This country is strong because we let both left and right have thier say. We should do nothing to inhibit thier voices being heard. When you inhibit a person's voice then that person or group may believe that going outside normal boundaries in called for. that is what needs to be curtailed violent acts not free speech.

 

So is the KKK, but no right winger seems to want to make them a terrorist organization.

 

I know you want to defend the democrats militant wing, Antifa, but remember, the KKK was also the democrats militant wing.

Antifa, nuff said.

 

The KKK are a considered a hate group by every reputable organization. They are often banned from public places. They are despised by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. They are monitored and documented when gathering. We are taught of their atrocities in school, films, videos, documentaries, and talkshows.

They are a DYING group that rarely does anything other than whine and burn a cross in their friends backyard nowadays, (Unless you believe those reported hate crimes that frequently turn out to be hoaxes). They are laughable and pathetic to both the left and the vast majority of the right.

Antifa on the other hand is present in almost every Western country. They are growing rapidly and are almost always only reported by right wing media. They attack people constantly and spout what is obvious hate speech (if you don't have double standards). They vandalize and frighten everyone who is not dressed in black and screaming their head off as they march down the street. They have recruiting platforms on every social media site. They are funded and backed by politicians and wealthy members of noticeable reputation.

They would beat the everyliving s&%$ out of you if you stood in front of them.

They are dangerous criminals supported and covered by far left corporations. They have far more influence on people and communities than the KKK does today.

Here we are finally at the point of labelling them as domestic terrorists. Of course the right is happy. They have been the primary victims of this unjust group while the left excused Antifa's crimes by mentioning (Neo Nazis) and alt righters constantly.

We generally want extreme right wing hate groups to fu&% off and are frequently successful.

Now it's Antifas turn to hit the road...

 

Some examples?

 

It's in the TITLE of the paper smart guy, I didn't realize you were ONLY talking about the US in terms of terrorism though because I was working and posting and did not read carefully. Nor did I ever claim to read the paper. I said I looked at it, i.e. the abstract you posted, citations, and sources. I did look for a full text, but the paper has not been widely cited, nor is it in other paywall databases I have access to. I did look at the sources though and have a pretty good idea what this this is. So since you have access to the paywall your argument is hiding behind, post for us the data sets. And tell me, does their body count begin before or after 9/11 for the stats you are claiming? You told another poster "It is an analysis of terrorist activity post-9/11" which is another way of saying, I left out the worst terrorist event because it makes my argument wrong.
Why are you only starting after 9/11? Doesn't that seem like a strange starting point?
Most of the terrorism I have seen for myself in this country has been from Antifa and loony Bernie supporters shooting up republican baseball games and stuff, and none of that counted as terrorism officially, so I don't know how accurate any of these social science papers are going to be.

Oh OK, if the data analysis is correct then just demonstrate that here with methodology. Also was this peer review by statisticians and hard scientists, or by social scientists?

I am actually. You just have to be able to remember from one post to the next what you were responding to. I initially pointed out that they did not define the term "extremist violence" and you posted a definition of the far left. Do you see how that is different that what I asked for? So I mentioned that you defined the wrong thing. Are you all caught up now? All of this starting to make sense? Have you tried Ginkgo Biloba?
"Violent extremism" as defined by the FBI does not contain ANY ACTUAL violence. It is defined as "encouraging, condoning, justifying, or supporting the commission of a violent act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals". When you conflate things like this and property crime with actual terrorism, it is likely not meant to give us a more clear picture of the truth, but to obfuscate the truth. Like in the British media they call Muslim criminals "Asian men". That is not meant to give you a MORE clear picture of who did it, but less.

One of us is misrepresenting things here, but it is not me. Outside of starting AFTER the worst terror attack in the country's history, do you just not understand what per capita is? Is that what this is?
What about the body count? Are we going to continue to pretend that property crime and blowing people up are some sort of moral equivalent?
I will assume you know what per capita means and the implications of 1% of the population accounting for most of the terror casualties. Anything to add to that?

 

Yes, reference to the US. You've been caught out fibbing that you read the paper.

Yep, you ranted.

This is your defence? You came out with drivel because you didn't actually read the paper? Pathetic.

Its particularly ignorant as you condemned the authors as biased.

God bless you.

Clearly untrue as you misrepresented it repeatedly.

More ignorance. START data is freely available.

It obviously is post-9/11 and investigates accuracy of attitude.

No. It makes perfect sense. For example, it describes how attitudes are focused on jihadist crimes but ignores the reality of the terrorist trends.

Your perceptions are clearly inconsistent with reality. The data proves it.

Its ignorant comment after ignorant comment! I've referring to the objective data. For stats, you'd really need reference to econometric methodology and some particular hypothesis test (e.g. Sandler's analysis into cycles in terrorist activity)

The incoherent tend not to be to be good judges.

Another effort at misrepresentation. I proved that the authors had provided definitions (counteracting your fib). I chose the definition for far left deliberately, as evidence avoiders (like you) would pretend that these issues are ignored.

You're ranting. Loved the idea, mind you, about the British media. You do realise the British media is right wing don't you?

I referred to an empirical study that proves you are wrong. You've given nothing coherent back. You're looking to hide from the truth. Its an ugly trait.

This is an ignorant attempt. You tried to suggest that right wing terrorism was somehow vandalism. I referred to the data. The majority of deaths are from right wing terrorists. Its a shame that you can't be honest and admit your gross error.

Given right wing terrorism shows an upward trend and it already dominates the post-9/11 death toll, why didn't you know the truth and why do you insist on ignoring that truth?

 

Here's more:

 

Sadly you're probably right.

 

The authors of the paper are biased, read the abstract. Look at the source selection. They are looking for a specific conclusion. That is why they start after 9/11 in looking at the death toll, yet still hold the death toll up as a meaningful metric. That is why they include things like "violent extremism" which is not really violence at all. It is completely arbitrary who gets labeled as a hate group and who doesn't.
The "rant" about definitions was to point out that what you are calculating included things like property crime and endorsement of "hate groups" along with the murder and assault of people for political purposes. That is a meaningless metric. Spray painting a swastika on the wall, and blowing someone up, are not the same.
You admitted that you defined the wrong thing. Thanks.
Also, is this confirmation that you do in fact, not understand what per capita means? If you do, then please respond to the per capita numbers.

My favorite part is the British media is right wing. So Huffpo is a right wing rag is it? Isn't it run by feminists? The BBC? If they are right wing, why are there so many restrictions on showing bad behavior of outside groups like Muslims or calling attention to who is committing the crimes? Why did those grooming gangs get away with it for so long? Because the right wing media was beating the war drum to protect the British children for 20 years, or because the media was complicit in ignoring the problem, along with the police, for 20 years due to the outsider status of the criminals and the need to appear inclusive?

 

I've read the paper unlike you.

They use respected data and also look for improvements (such as widening the definition of left wing terrorism).

They are looking for the accuracy of perceptions. They show those perceptions are wrong. You yourself have been caught out, pretending that right wing terrorism is just 'vandalism'

Focusing on post-9/11 is quite appropriate. We would expect, for example, for concerns over terrorism to be focused on jihadist groups. Of course this is also made worse by how terrorism is reported. see, for example, Kearns et al. (2019, Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others?, Justice Quarterly, 1-24):

"Terrorist attacks often dominate news coverage as reporters seek to provide the public with information. Yet, not all incidents receive equal attention. Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media coverage than others? We argue that perpetrator religion is the largest predictor of news coverage, while target type, being arrested, and fatalities will also impact coverage. We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2006 and 2015 (N = 136). Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 357% more coverage than other attacks. Our results are robust against a number of counterarguments. The disparities in news coverage of attacks based on the perpetrator’s religion may explain why members of the public tend to fear the “Muslim terrorist” while ignoring other threats. More representative coverage could help to bring public perception in line with reality."

Already demonstrated you're talking guff, with the majority of post-9/11 deaths from right wing terrorists.

Making stuff up again? Tut tut.

There is no need to refer to per capita. By referring to the majority of deaths being right wing, I've demonstrated that you are guilty of misrepresentation.

This is more churlishness. Clearly you are ignorant about the nature of the British media. No skin off my nose mind you.

 

There is no need to look at per capita. That's your argument? for 3 posts you totally avoided it and would not respond to it, and now you are just trying to shoo it away. Why? If 1% of the population were disproportionately responsible for terror attacks resulting in death and injury, wouldn't that alone be reason for more media coverage for example?

Also, post some of the worst right wing terror attacks from this time 2006-2015. Let us see this right wing ideology on display.

 

My argument was that far right terrorism is, unlike other forms, on an upward trend. I've proved that to be the case. You responded with some guff about vandalism. I also proved that to be wrong, with the majority of post-9/11 deaths resulting from right wing terrorist attacks.

Learn from your errors. If you want a breakdown of those attacks then use GTD or START.

 

Factually incorrect. What has been done on the part of yourself is insinuation, based on questionable statistics from equally questionable sources pertaining to integrity, but no actual proof has been submitted or otherwise provided on the part of yourself.

 

You forgot content. How is the GTD questionable? Why do you make inane attacks on published research, even when they've widened the definition of left wing terrorism?

 

Why does every source limit the scope of their investigations to the period after september eleventh, in a deliberate effort to exclude september eleventh and its death tolls from the end results? Did islamic extremism simply not exist prior to september twelvth of that year?

 

The source is looking at post-9/11 perceptions. I've already referred to that. And of course none of your whinge can be used to deny the upward trend in right wing terrorism.

 

The key word in the above statement is "perceptions" indicating the supposed "research" is counting beliefs and opinions. Meaning the supposed "research" being presented is stating that right-wing extremism is only believed as being worse than terrorism related to islamic extremism. Therefore the supposed "study" being touted by yourself can only present what public perception is, based on the degree of united states media coverage they are subjected to.

 

Don't be silly! It refers to the objective data and, using that data, investigates myths in people's views.

We don't have myths here mind you. We have blatant ideological driven ignorance. Right wing terrorism has seen an upward trend. The majority of post-9/11 deaths are by right wing terrorists. That isn't opinion. That is fact.