Two-Thirds of U.S. Terrorism Tied to Right-Wing Extremists

Interesting piece on the majority source of domestic terror in the United States:

https://www.securitymagazine.com/ar...of-us-terrorism-tied-to-right-wing-extremists

From the article:

Out of 65 incidents, 37 were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations. That list includes the case in which neo-Nazi extremist James Fields is accused of driving into a crowd of counter-protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia last year, killing one person.

In light of this glaring truth and tragic reality, why is the rather ludicrous *Mob Rule!* meme being pushed by the right to falsely implicate liberals and the left?

Is it an attempt to obscure the true source of major threat, that being right-wing extremists?

A need to live in denial of the truth?

A cynical political ploy to empower dangerous right-wing extremists & their repugnant ideology?

What can be done to combat both dangerous right-wing extremists and the treasonous lie that they don't pose a major threat to US peace and freedom?

 

There was also a report from the FBI that came out saying that RW and white nationalist groups were responsible for more police deaths than other political groups. Seems like the sample size is so relatively small, though, that there is not much more that can be drawn from it.

Seems like the lesson we should draw, both from the examples of RW violence and examples of LW violence, is that in both cases it comes from the fringe and it doesn't represent RWs, LWs as a whole.

 

I went to the site where the links got their data from, looked at the number of deaths by perp group and RW extremists didn't appear to be the worst group, especially if you take away the Vegas murders.

 

i guess antifa threats and actions isnt on the radar screen from the leftist perspective

 

Looked at some more attacks by alleged RW hate groups, one attack was spray painting a message on a car - no injuries, no damage, no nothing other than paint. In another 'attack' a guy slipped past Amtrak security which triggered an emergency stop. There were no injuries, no damages, no nothing except the guy possessed Neo Nazi literature.

 

Yep, that's terrifying terrorism!

 

As a Black Man and a Muslim, the opening mantra of the article is actually anti-freedom and it greatly offends my sense of being born born free, but who am I? Whoever wrote the article is a clear Statist and a lover of controlling the thoughts (speech is born from thought) of others.

 

Securitymagazine.com is getting their news from Quartz. Quartz is a biased leftist outfit.
Who is checking their facts and claims? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quartz/

 

Where are you getting that interpretation from?

 

If you don't like the criticism of the Leftist violence, harassment, threats and incitement that implicates the Left do something about it.

Stop the violence. Stop the harassment. Stop the threats. Stop the incitement. Demand lawful and civil behavior out of your leaders and comrades.

Get up in the faces of Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Mazie Hirono and Hillary Clinton and tell them to cut the crap. When Eric Holder goes low, kick him. You get the drift...

 

How about we stop both the manufactured outrage (no one seriously believes Holder, for example, was actually talking about physical violence) and stand up to the violence on both sides while also criticizing those who try to use these fringe examples to characterize the entire right or left.

 

I'm always hesitant when I see statistics like this.

If you take out 9/11 the most terrorist deaths can be attributed to RW Terrorism. But what happens when you take out Oklahoma?

Lots of outliers can really skew the data one way or the other without proper analysis and context.

 

Definitely. It just seems like too small of a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions beyond: oh, hey, looks like all sides have their *******s. There are also those crimes that had a political motivation, but for which that motivation was never uncovered. And then there are faked attacks. And then there are the numerous instances of minor violence and bullying that don't go reported at all. And do we go by number of attacks or number of victims? And where do failed/thwarted attempts fit in the picture?

 

Yeah, this is why this topic is a big nothing burger.

It sucks that media channels use cherry picked stats and then build stories off of it.

It’s where “fake news” comes from IMO.

 

I recall back a year or two ago the left wing media tried to use some report to claim that vets returning from overseas where the next people most likely to be far right wing terrorists.

 

I guess it's subjective to think in terms of right wing and left wing terrorism. I think groups like the Nazi Party, Communists, Skinhreads, ANTIFA, etc follow a left wing fanatical ideology, much like Hitlers Germany. Many consider Stalin and Hitler to be on opposite spectrum because they went to war with each and therefore must be on opposite ends ideologically speaking. In reality, they both shared some of the very same traits that got them into power and allowed them to consolidate. I consider fascism and Communism to be on the same left wing.

But they are all extreme, dangerous and really in the end, what difference does it make because they all share the same goals. Like you, I am suspect of statistics like this as well.

 

Why don't you stop pretending the outrage is "manufactured" after Steve Scalise gets shot, Rand Paul gets beaten so severely he has to be hospitalized, Antifa thugs attack people in our streets for exercising their constitutional rights, Leftist idiots threaten to kill someone, etc., etc.. You're only kidding yourself.

 

IMO, that only makes sense if you go with the "less government" definition of right wing -- which is when RWers temporarily adopt libertarianism for cover, only to attack libertarianism the following week. It would also make anarchists RWers . . . which would put many ANTIFA members on the right wing. When modern neo-Nazis, white nationalists and self-described fascists supported mainstream candidates in the last election, they supported Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are, of course, not Nazis, but most Nazis were Trump supporters. They also showed up in droves to support he Unite the RIGHT rally, and have found a home in the alt-right. Both sides have their looney fringe, as does my side. Libertarian-leaning looneys, least we forget, put up armed resistance on the Bundy Ranch and later took over a government building while threatening law enforcement, and we've had other nutters in the "sovereign citizen" movement.

 

Thread fail.

 

Try actually reading my last post. The whining about Holder is manufactured outrage, and it is the only example I called out of manufactured outrage. Want an example from the other sides: all of the idiots gnashing their teeth about Palin's "Don't retreat, reload."

I never claimed that there is no violence on the left; in fact, I've said the opposite several times in this thread and have also called out the antifa thugs. In fact, I talked about the violence ON BOTH SIDES in the very post you quoted.

I'll try again three more times and hope one of them sticks: both sides have their violent thugs, both sides have their violent thugs, both sides have their violent thugs.

There are legit complaints and there is also manufactured outrage. This should not be a controversial thought. Both exist.

 

I'm assuming you'll do the same on the right ?

 

Less government doesn't equate to ignoring laws and following the Constitution and those are primary traits of the Right Wing which is exactly opposite of ANTIFA, fascists, Communists and other groups. They want more government, less laws and to alter and change the Constitution or outright destroy it.

But they are all looney, that we can agree on.

 

And herein lies the main problem with Politics today. There is no shared view on ideologies. And then whether the current political makeup even adheres to ideologies anymore. Republicans are all about a smaller and less intrusive Govt and States rights until Textiles wanted to squash hemp as an alternative, Nixon needed to squash the hippies/black communities, up to Trumps Justice Dept suing California for instituting it's own Net Neutrality Laws.

Democrats are all about LW politics until it actually clashes with reality

 

From reading the opening mantra of the article in discussion:

The bottom line and basics of what I am protesting about this article, is the attempt to cull people into restricting freedom of association, freedom of thought which are basic rights of everyone on the face of this planet. People have the right to dislike whom they please and what they please, dislike behaviors that go against their systems of belief and acceptance. This is why I neither liked nor supported "hate speech" laws. There is an international move to obliterate freedoms that we in America have taken as granted because they are granted. they are granted by the very fact of being born on this planet in a universe that is also founded on freedom. We all enjoy the Sun which is free to shine its light to the ends of the universe, so who are so me late-comers to arbitrarily stand in opposition of some that they themselves enjoy, e.g. FREEDOM?
So what there are people who do not like Black people, Jews, Homosexuals, etc. everyone has likes and dislikes, which is the basis of said person's persona, psyche and personality and NO ONE has the right to restrict other people's birth rights. there is too much totalitarianism being birthed and allowed under the guise of "protecting others".

 

I've never condoned, promoted or incited anyone to harass and attack people, and I've never engaged in that misbehavior at the demonstrations I've attended. Furthermore, I've never made like a Nazi stormtrooper and disrupted other people's rallies and demonstrations. There's no reason why people can't exercise their constitutional rights in a lawful and civil manner.