> I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism Because of the things the kidnappers said and forced him to say,

> I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism Because of the things the kidnappers said and forced him to say, and because the kidnappers broadcast the event live to send a political message. > 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. Authoritarian and intolerant? Willing to kill those with different beliefs? That's something that exists on both the left and the right. (Witness the many communist holocausts...) Extremists from the American right-wing and Islamic jihadists share little to nothing in common, save a tactic that's used by desperate or unhinged people of all kinds. > Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left. Those certainly are vague labels, inconsistently applied. For example, there's good reason to call the NZ a left-wing white supremacist, according to his statements. He claimed to be an eco-fascist, a fan of communist China, and an opponent of Trump. But the possibility of a left-wing white supremacist is out of bounds for the media these days. > You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are" Perhaps not by exactly the same mechanisms, but constantly equating Trump with Hitler is bound to have an effect on less stable individuals. Someone who hears that message is likely to think they'd be a hero for stopping "Hitler". So those groups probably did contribute, as much as they want to disassociate themselves now. But I doubt we'll settle the world's issues here, and as interesting as this is, I have to go now.