Rightwing terror stalks America.

Post Reply New Topic

Rightwing terror stalks America.

It's only terrorism when Arabs do it
/sarcasm

As a matter of fact, I recall how the Obama Justice Department had wanted to investigate the threat of right wing terrorism, until outcry from the right got them to back down. This right wing backlash had included the homophobic Focus On the Family.

The Republican's relationship with domestic terrorism goes far beyond incendiary hate speech.
In April 2009 DHS released a threat assessment, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", which provoked enraged Republicans to pressure DHS to essentially drop WASP domestic terrorists from it's target list. Republicans have successfully blocked passage of HR 1076; "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act" for over 11 years, enabling over 2,000 people on the Government's terrorist watch list to legally purchase weapons. Internationally, in 2013 Republicans voted to stop the U.S. from entering the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (along with those bastions of democracy; Syria, Iran and North Korea) that would have slowed or even stopped illegal arms from being diverted to ISIS and other terror groups.
That's not a subjective parsing of their demagoguery; that's objective documented history of their actions.

Trump cut funding to programs fighting neo-Nazism and White supremacism

Most "terrorists" are really just angry mentally ill / brainwashed people.

It's fallacious to later label their terror as politically motivated.

"...it is clear that those actively engaged in or with the war on terror define it as activity of political actors, involved in a specific political, violent and armed, conflict...United States Law Code (U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)) defines “terrorism” as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” As political actors, terrorists are rational actors: their actions are instrumental, they believe that they constitute efficient means for the achievement of their political goal....all rational action is based on ideas, all rational actors first think and then act...it was concluded that they are no more abnormal than people serving in regular armies."
Psychology Today

If we fail to distinguish between the mentally ill and terrorists we do Isil's work for them

It's not only patently untrue, but deeply prejudicial to perpetuate negative stereotypes conflating violence with mental illness when all research suggests the opposite; that the mentally ill are much more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators. Actively contributing to the stigmatization of people with mental illness is unconscionable. Perhaps you should try educating yourself on a subject prior to commenting on it.

Most Violent Crimes Are Wrongly Linked to Mental Illness

The Myth of Violence and Mental Illness

If you are commiting violence and are “sane” enough to be motivated by a political/ social reason you are a terrorist. It does not matter how “insane” most people think the terrorists cause is. There are exceptions, if a person shoots all his neighboors because he thinks they are part of a secret government communist plot even though it is for a political reason he is too insane to be a terrorist. If he shoots all of his neighboors because they voted for gun control he is a terrorist.

As others in this and other threads have pointed out the problem is not that too many people are labeled terrorists, it is that too few are.

Your links have nothing to do with act "terrorist events".

Virginia Tech Shooter <---mental illness (but labeled a terrorist)
Orlando Nightclub Shooter <---mental illness (but labeled a terrorist)
Mandalay Bay Shooter <---mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Boston Bombing <---mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Sandy Hook Shooter <---mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Church Shooter (Dylan Roof) <---mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Fort Hood Shootings <--mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
UnaBomber <--mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
2017 Ballpark Shooter <--mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Jacksonville Game Shooter <--mental illness (labeled a terrorist)
Pipe Bomber (Ceaser sayoc) <-- life time mental illness(labeled a terrorist)

I'm going to speculate that 90% of "Terrorism" is really just a mentally ill person.

Many of US "terrorists" have a life-long history of mental illness.

Terrorism in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... ted_States

Most people who commit terrorist type acts are not happy contented people. A lot of them especially the “lone wolf” type prevelent in America have delusions of grandeur thinking thier attacks are going to inspire a revolution. That is as true with todays right wing terrorism as is it was in the 70’s with left wing terrorism. So it is arguable that most terrorists have a degree of mental illness even if is not enough to get a diagnosis. My argument the two things are not mutually exclusive, one can be a mentally ill and a terrorist.

In today’s hyperpolitical atmosphere nearly every violent act is going to be labled terrorism by someone. A lot of the incidents listed above were not labled terrorism by the vast majority of the government and the mainstream media. The Ft. Hood incident was not at first and only became commonly accepted as terrorism after complaints as it should have been at first because it was done for jahidist reasons. There is no reason to label the Sandy Hook incident a terrorist attack because Adam Lanza did not disclose his reasons therefore was not trying to advance a socio/political cause.

All available data shows that in the United States, right-wing terrorism is much deadlier than left-wing terrorism. It's not even close: An analysis at the right-leaning Cato Institute found that right-wing domestic terrorists have killed 10 times as many people as their left-wing counterparts since 1992. According to the Government Accountability Office, far-left extremist groups didn't kill anybody between 2001 and 2016, while far-right extremists claimed 106 victims during that same period.

This excerpt ^ is from this commentary:

https://www.bustle.com/p/statistics-on- ... s-13003761

I suspect the numbers are probably understated by the Government Accountability Office, which may be a result of how they choose to define terrorism.

There are people on the right who absolutely refuse to believe those findings, believing that their side of the aisle represents God, baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

And apple pie wasn't events invented in America

...and a few miles north, Chevolet is at war with Ford...

According to 6 USCS § 101, the term terrorism is "any activity that--
(A) involves an act that--
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
(B) appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

The New Yorker disposes of the spurious claims of "mental illness" promoted and meant to distract by Trump supporters so commonly heard after right wing terrorism: "all the singulars become a plural"...

The biggest indictment of the moral calibration in Trump’s Presidency is found in the sheer frequency by which he is absolved by his most ardent supporters. The man who sent explosive devices to men and women whom Trump had named as enemies of the nation, or had scorned as rogues skirting the consequences of their actions, was not someone prompted by the President’s words but, rather, a lone lunatic. The shooter who reportedly preyed upon a mostly elderly group of worshippers, in part, because the synagogue housed a congregation that supported work on behalf of refugees, was not responding to a corrupted dialogue about immigration but was simply drunk on the ancient bias of anti-Semitism. Yet the arithmetic is inescapable—all the singulars become a plural, and that plural is the collective face of a volatile white-nationalist movement whose ascent corresponds closely to Trump’s, who took comfort in his equivocating over the moral lines in Charlottesville, and who understood his declaration “I am a nationalist,” last month.