4 ms·

Called an act of terrorism by who? They were acts of violence with a political motivation. That's terrorism. Even the SPLC called the BLM-related shootings terr

Called an act of terrorism by who? They were acts of violence with a political motivation. That's terrorism. Even the SPLC called the BLM-related shootings terrorism. ("As details developed about the Dallas, Baton Rouge and St. Louis attacks, it was apparent that a domestic terrorist threat had re-emerged — a threat not seen since the 1970s.")[1] > The study I posted above from UMD says otherwise The study that (unlike the SPLC) doesn't acknowledge the existence of "violent black nationalism" (the SPLC's term), classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism? The study with a deceptive chart that depicts 210 where 250 should be and 190 where 150 should be? That study has many flaws. Still, I must admit the study does seem to say that left-wing terrorism has decreased, after being out of control in the 2000s, accounting for about 75% of all attacks. However, the DHS, under Obama's leadership, concluded that left wing terrorism is increasing: "Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as domestic terrorist violence" Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.[2] > Congressional baseball shooter specifically wasn't part of an online community He was part of several online communities where hating Trump and Republicans is the norm ("including the Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans, Donald Trump is Not My President, [and] Terminate the Republican Party"[3]). 1: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/return-violent-black-nationalist https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... 2: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesv... 3: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-virginia-shooter-profile-20170614-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-virginia-shooter-pr...

ModernMech 8y ago
> Called an act of terrorism by who? If you're allowing biased sources to decide what's terrorism for you By the links you posted. But I mean, for example, I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism. Or the shooting of a private company by someone with a grievance against said company. > classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism? Why do you want to lump everything together? Anti-police violence isn't necessarily left wing. I know several conservative black men who are anti-police (not to say they are violent). But if you want to play some sort of game with the numbers, then we can lump in religious terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism with right wing terrorism. Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth. I'll agree 100% that anarchists and antifa are a problem. Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left. Anarchists as I understand are anti-globalists, which would be something the right would be for. They're also anti-capitalist which is something the left would be for. So I don't know if they fit nicely into this right/left dichotomy. Either way, every single antifa and anarchist could disappear tomorrow and almost no one would notice, and we would still be knee deep in high-profile terrorist activities. The US mail bombings last year paralyzed the nation for a week. Then there was the Squirrel Hill shooting at the same time that killed 11. Now a NZ shooter that kills 50. Each of these actors were clearly radicalized by the alt-right. The bomber frequently posted right-wing memes [1], the Squirrel Hill shooter was on Gab posting his insanity [2], and the NZ shooter conducted his whole attack for the benefit of social media like 8chan and Twitter. It seems to me then, if we want to stop these kinds of things from happening, we should target the communities and recruitment methods that radicalize individuals to such extremes. A blanket condemnation of "terrorism of all kinds" while one kind specifically is racking up a body count by the dozens seems to miss the point. > He was part of several online communities You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are". There's a difference between being a member of a Facebook group that's political, and being part of something like 8chan or gab. I mean, the secretary down the hall is part of the Donald Trump is Not My President Facebook group. She's not exactly becoming radicalized. The Terminate the Republican Party group in your link is quoted "It's terrible what he did," Pearlman said of the gunman. "I — and we as a group — do not condone this at all." That doesn't exactly sound like a radical terrorist recruiting group to me. Contrast this with the shooting in NZ last week and /r/The_Donald and 8chan are calling him a hero. [1] https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/cesar-sayocs-social-media-posts-show-florida-bomber-cesar-sayoc-held-extremist-views-10859874 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/cesar-sayocs-social-media... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#cite_note-LevensonSanchez-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#...

ModernMech 8y ago

> Called an act of terrorism by who? If you're allowing biased sources to decide what's terrorism for you By the links you posted. But I mean, for example, I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism. Or the shooting of a private company by someone with a grievance against said company. > classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism? Why do you want to lump everything together? Anti-police violence isn't necessarily left wing. I know several conservative black men who are anti-police (not to say they are violent). But if you want to play some sort of game with the numbers, then we can lump in religious terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism with right wing terrorism. Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth. I'll agree 100% that anarchists and antifa are a problem. Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left. Anarchists as I understand are anti-globalists, which would be something the right would be for. They're also anti-capitalist which is something the left would be for. So I don't know if they fit nicely into this right/left dichotomy. Either way, every single antifa and anarchist could disappear tomorrow and almost no one would notice, and we would still be knee deep in high-profile terrorist activities. The US mail bombings last year paralyzed the nation for a week. Then there was the Squirrel Hill shooting at the same time that killed 11. Now a NZ shooter that kills 50. Each of these actors were clearly radicalized by the alt-right. The bomber frequently posted right-wing memes [1], the Squirrel Hill shooter was on Gab posting his insanity [2], and the NZ shooter conducted his whole attack for the benefit of social media like 8chan and Twitter. It seems to me then, if we want to stop these kinds of things from happening, we should target the communities and recruitment methods that radicalize individuals to such extremes. A blanket condemnation of "terrorism of all kinds" while one kind specifically is racking up a body count by the dozens seems to miss the point. > He was part of several online communities You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are". There's a difference between being a member of a Facebook group that's political, and being part of something like 8chan or gab. I mean, the secretary down the hall is part of the Donald Trump is Not My President Facebook group. She's not exactly becoming radicalized. The Terminate the Republican Party group in your link is quoted "It's terrible what he did," Pearlman said of the gunman. "I — and we as a group — do not condone this at all." That doesn't exactly sound like a radical terrorist recruiting group to me. Contrast this with the shooting in NZ last week and /r/The_Donald and 8chan are calling him a hero. [1] https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/cesar-sayocs-social-media-posts-show-florida-bomber-cesar-sayoc-held-extremist-views-10859874 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/cesar-sayocs-social-media... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#cite_note-LevensonSanchez-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#...