Right Wing Terrorism

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am trying to maintain some perspective on the matter...instead of characterizing right-wing folks as deadly terrorists. That would be ridiculous.

Like I say, we can just say that most are peace-loving, and leave it at that. I am sure that is what will be said by libs if some right-wing terrorists fly planes into buildings...right?

A majority of Republicans support Donald Trump, a violent* lunatic who attempted to overthrow democracy (violently), and who has voiced support for the terrorist groups that support him.

Accordingly, while most righties aren't terrorists, referring to them as "peace-loving" is a twisted absurdity.


* People like Trump who regularly encourage violence, but are too cowardly to actually engage, are in a way the worst sort of violent individuals.

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so we've established the Conservatives are cowards who elect other people to commit violence, but we all already knew that.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The event you reference is small potatoes compared to the one I cited.

The one you cited - 9/11 - was an example of right wing terrorism

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

The one you cited - 9/11 - was an example of right wing terrorism

Yes but those darn libruls wouldn't let that be an excuse to hate all Muslims, so therefore, step 2 steal underpants, step 3 Democrats are terrorists.

Of course nobody said that and will not debate it.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes but those darn libruls wouldn't let that be an excuse to hate all Muslims, so therefore, step 2 steal underpants, step 3 Democrats are terrorists.

Of course nobody said that and will not debate it.

Yeah, nobody said any of that. And practically all of it makes no sense.

[JoeMorgue]

Yes which is why you will now explain exactly why you brought up Democrats defending Muslims after 9/11.

No wait, you won't, you will mush-mouth some excuse about not debating or lie about having said it.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes which is why you will now explain exactly why you brought up Democrats defending Muslims after 9/11.

No wait, you won't, you will mush-mouth some excuse about not debating or lie about having said it.

Clearly my point is the double-standard being applied, and that this whole "Right-Wing Terrorism" issue is being overplayed for political gain. It is being used as tool to demonize Conservatives/Republicans.

Both here, and in the media. Even recent comments in this thread drive that point home. As I said, "conservaphobia"...it is real, and being pushed by the liberal agenda. This is just another example of that.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Clearly my point is the double-standard being applied, and that this whole "Right-Wing Terrorism" issue is being overplayed for political gain. It is being used as tool to demonize Conservatives/Republicans.

Both here, and in the media. Even recent comments in this thread drive that point home. As I said, "conservaphobia"...it is real, and being pushed by the liberal agenda. This is just another example of that.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. I think it's quite rational to fear the kind of people who fly aircraft into office blocks or attack the Capitol building in an attempt to change the results of an election

[JoeMorgue]

"Facts are just a liberal bias" is really the only card someone has left and they are just going to play it over and over.

Everytime we use a fact to show something he's just going to go "That's a liberal bias."

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Certainly has nothing to do with how loudly this is being used to characterize conservatives as a general threat in the US.

The event you reference is small potatoes compared to the one I cited. Still, I don't see libs clamoring to defend conservatives as "mostly peace-loving" (like they have done for other "victimized" groups). I wonder why that is?

Because it is just politics, that's why.

So the death of 168 people is small potatoes, yet you bring up BLM protests. Strange how you downplay a tragedy showing you wrong about right wing terrorism (sticking strictly with homegrown). Actually, not strange at all.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

So the death of 168 people is small potatoes, yet you bring up BLM protests. Strange how you downplay a tragedy showing you wrong about right wing terrorism (sticking strictly with homegrown). Actually, not strange at all.

BLM? I don't recall shouting about that too much. That's not a terrorist threat...it is just a bogus sham. And sometimes cities burn. Start a new thread if that is what you want to debate. I'm not interested.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Warp12

There is a clear emphasis on the "evil" of the right-wing in this thread (and the forum, in general). I believe they call this, "conservaphobia".

Nobody is saying that threats and such should not be investigated. However, the presentation reeks of a political motivation, both here and in the media.

https://youtu.be/lJNBdE6NC64

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Clearly my point is the double-standard being applied, and that this whole "Right-Wing Terrorism" issue is being overplayed for political gain. It is being used as tool to demonize Conservatives/Republicans.

Both here, and in the media. Even recent comments in this thread drive that point home. As I said, "conservaphobia"...it is real, and being pushed by the liberal agenda. This is just another example of that.

Oh, you poor little victim.

Bull! Everybody knows the difference between principled conservatives who support the Constitution and the rule of law and wack job right wing terrorists who seek to destroy democracy.

[JoeMorgue]

"All facts are a liberal hoax and I'm not going to debate you about it."

Keep repeating it. Maybe you'll start believing it as much as your online persona does.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Certainly has nothing to do with how loudly this is being used to characterize conservatives as a general threat in the US.

The event you reference is small potatoes compared to the one I cited. Still, I don't see libs clamoring to defend conservatives as "mostly peace-loving" (like they have done for other "victimized" groups). I wonder why that is?

Because it is just politics, that's why.

That is probably because Conservatives have shown themselves to be antisocial And Ratical not peace loving,
Applauding violent actions is never peace loving making Heroes of Terrorist Like Timothy McVeigh and the Bundy!'s isn't in any form peace loving.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by arayder

Oh, you poor little victim.

Bull! Everybody knows the difference between principled conservatives who support the Constitution and the rule of law and a wack job right wing terrorists who seek to destroy democracy.

Absolutely.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Start a new thread if that is what you want to debate. I'm not interested.

You keep on making claims, then retreating to how you don't want to discuss or to have a "debate" about those claims when you're challenged on them. Perhaps this isn't the place for you if you don't want to discuss your claims? You may feel better making those claims in an echo chamber of like-minded "conservatives" who will never question you, if you have no interest in debating them.

Or...you know, keep on simply posting things in an effort to get a response rather than to have a discussion. The more wrong and/or inflammatory thing you say, the more attention you get around here after all.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Oh, you poor little victim.

Bull! Everybody knows the difference between principled conservatives who support the Constitution and the rule of law and wack job right wing terrorists who seek to destroy democracy.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Absolutely.

Just like everybody knows the difference between a moderate democrat and a bomb throwing leftist.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Start a new thread if that is what you want to debate. I'm not interested.

Originally Posted by wareyin

You keep on making claims, then retreating to how you don't want to discuss or to have a "debate" about those claims when you're challenged on them. Perhaps this isn't the place for you if you don't want to discuss your claims? You may feel better making those claims in an echo chamber of like-minded "conservatives" who will never question you, if you have no interest in debating them.

Or...you know, keep on simply posting things in an effort to get a response rather than to have a discussion. The more wrong and/or inflammatory thing you say, the more attention you get around here after all.

We are being trolled as part of our friend's "I owned the libs" fantasy.

One suspects he logs off. . .imagines Laura Loomer teliing him, "Your argument is sooooo big". . . then he logs back in with one hand.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by arayder

Just like everybody knows the difference between a moderate democrat and a bomb throwing leftist.

.Who is the Leftist?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You keep on making claims, then retreating to how you don't want to discuss or to have a "debate" about those claims when you're challenged on them. Perhaps this isn't the place for you if you don't want to discuss your claims? You may feel better making those claims in an echo chamber of like-minded "conservatives" who will never question you, if you have no interest in debating them.

Or...you know, keep on simply posting things in an effort to get a response rather than to have a discussion. The more wrong and/or inflammatory thing you say, the more attention you get around here after all.

Huh? I didn't clam anything about BLM in the first place, to start such a debate. And this would not be the thread for it, obviously.

Zany.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

We are being trolled as part of our friend's "I owned the libs" fantasy.

One suspects he logs off. . .imagines Laura Loomer teliing him, "Your argument is sooooo big". . . then he logs back in with one hand.

Classy. Totally within the MA, no doubt.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh? I didn't clam anything about BLM in the first place, to start such a debate. And this would not be the thread for it, obviously.

Zany.

The feigned confusion is another great tactic if one's goal is to get a response rather than have a discussion. 9/11, according to you, is not on topic, yet you had no issue bringing it up.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You keep on making claims, then retreating to how you don't want to discuss or to have a "debate" about those claims when you're challenged on them. Perhaps this isn't the place for you if you don't want to discuss your claims? You may feel better making those claims in an echo chamber of like-minded "conservatives" who will never question you, if you have no interest in debating them.

Or...you know, keep on simply posting things in an effort to get a response rather than to have a discussion. The more wrong and/or inflammatory thing you say, the more attention you get around here after all.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh? I didn't clam anything about BLM in the first place, to start such a debate. And this would not be the thread for it, obviously.

Zany.

The ploy is getting old. You want us to go down a rabbit hole about whether or not you said something about this or that. . . sometime.

Then you'll say you don't want to talk about it.

You think that's cute.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh? I didn't clam anything about BLM in the first place, to start such a debate. And this would not be the thread for it, obviously.

Zany.

Yes, no one can figure out what you are alluding to when you say "mostly peace-loving." All of us understand the reference, so no reason to feign ignorance.

[JoeMorgue]

The saddest part is how absolutely certain it is he didn't come up with this routine on his own.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The feigned confusion is another great tactic if one's goal is to get a response rather than have a discussion. 9/11, according to you, is not on topic, yet you had no issue bringing it up.

Huh? I referenced 9/11 to show how liberals are using a clear double-standard in their characterization of conservatives as a terrorist threat...I clearly presented that point. I never raised the topic of BLM, at all.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The feigned confusion is another great tactic if one's goal is to get a response rather than have a discussion. 9/11, according to you, is not on topic, yet you had no issue bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh? I referenced 9/11 to show how liberals are using a clear double-standard in their characterization of conservatives as a terrorist threat...I clearly presented that point. I never raised the topic of BLM, at all.

You are off topic again.

The topic is "Right Wing Terrorism", not whether all conservatives are terrorists.

Frankly that you ascribe this latter argument to the posters here is a bit of an insult. As I said before everybody knows the difference between a principled conservative and a right wing terrorist.

So what are you talking about unless it is some sad, troll attempt to derail the thread with BS you think is cute?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

So what are you talking about unless it is some sad, troll attempt to derail the thread with BS you think is cute?

Huh?

I have presented the point that the right-wing terrorist threat is being blown out of proportion for political gain. This is the politics section, right?

I have presented that a clear doubled-standard is being applied by liberals, for this purpose. The comments in the thread have backed up my assertion that conservatives in general are being demonized.

I don't know how this can be considered a derail. Unless it is simply a thread to dump on conservatives.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I have presented the point that the right-wing terrorist threat is being blown out of proportion for political gain.

Yes and now is the point where you defend that statement with actual facts. Facts that exist in actual reality not Republican conspiracy theories.

You will not do this, you will just keep dismissing all actual facts as "liberal bias."

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

So what are you talking about unless it is some sad, troll attempt to derail the thread with BS you think is cute?

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh?

I have presented the point that the right-wing terrorist threat is being blown out of proportion for political gain. This is the politics section, right?

And at several points in that discussion you simply refused to discuss/debate central points of your own argument.

Quote:

I have presented that a clear doubled-standard is being applied by liberals, for this purpose. The comments in the thread have backed up my assertion that conservatives in general are being demonized.

And at several points in that discussion you simply refused to discuss/debate central points of your own argument.

Quote:

I don't know how this can be considered a derail. Unless it is simply a thread to dump on conservatives.

All you did was present your conclusion as your argument and then dance around any questions about premises that might (or might not) sustain your conclusion.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Huh? I referenced 9/11 to show how liberals are using a clear double-standard in their characterization of conservatives as a terrorist threat...I clearly presented that point. I never raised the topic of BLM, at all.

9/11 has it's own thread. Several of them. You've recently been in one, trying to present the fact that planes caused the damage to the World Trade Centers as a "belief" and a "predetermined theory" so you know this.

Bringing up 9/11 is off-topic, and you haven't actually shown a double standard between that conservative terroristic attack and the home-grown conservative terroristic attacks that are on topic.

[JoeMorgue]

Here's some of those pesky "facts" that will simply be dismissed as "Liberal Bias:"

I've highlighted parts of it to make it easier to ignore or have an excuse to not deal with. I suggest sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" for maximum effect.

Quote:

According to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as of 2020, right-wing terrorism accounted for the majority of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. As of May 2022, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 as follows: 122 killed in far-right attacks, 107 killed in jihadist attacks, 17 killed in "ideological misogyny/incel" attacks, 12 killed in black separatist/nationalist/supremacist attacks, and 1 killed in a far-left attack.

According to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001, were caused by right-wing extremist groups, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%. The total number of deaths caused by each group was about the same, though 41% of the deaths attributable to radical Islamists occurred in a single event – the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in which 49 were killed by a lone gunman. No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups.

The Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS. The DHS report did not mention antifa, despite persistent allegations about its threat from the political right in recent years.

A 2019 report found that 50 people in the United States were killed in murders by domestic extremists (including both ideologically and non-ideologically motivated homicides) during the previous year. Of these killings, 78% were perpetrated by white supremacists, 16% by anti-government extremists, 4% by "incel" extremists, and 2% by domestic Islamist extremists. Over the broader 2009 to 2018 time period, there were a total of 313 people in the United States killed by right-wing extremists (including both ideologically and non-ideologically motivated homicides), of which 76% were committed by white supremacists, 19% by anti-government extremists (including those affiliated with the militia, "sovereign citizen", tax protester, and "Patriot" movements), 3% by "incel" extremists, 1% by anti-abortion extremists, and 1% by other right-wing extremists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...rism#Post-2001

[arayder]

Nice post, Joe.

My question is whether the far right of the Republican Party is contributing to these terror attacks by, what some say, is a failure to roundly condemn them?

Do calls to abolish the FBI and fantasies around the IRS coming with AR-15s to get tax payers feed anti-governmet hate and violence?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by arayder

Nice post, Joe.

My question is whether the far right of the Republican Party is contributing to these terror attacks by, what some say, is a failure to roundly condemn them?

Do calls to abolish the FBI and fantasies around the IRS coming with AR-15s to get tax payers fed anti-governmet hate and violence?

The Republican President ordered a violent mob to storm the Capital, I'm done splitting hairs about how complicit they are.

When you tell stupid, violent people that there's a child sex dungeon under a pizza parlor you share responsibility when someone shoots it up.

It's like the judge told Alex Jones. You may not believe it, but you know damn well stupid, dangerous people will believe it and act on it.

This is why disinformation has be treated as an actual threat to society.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

So the death of 168 people is small potatoes, yet you bring up BLM protests. Strange how you downplay a tragedy showing you wrong about right wing terrorism (sticking strictly with homegrown). Actually, not strange at all.

I strongly condemn the riots that happened during the BLM protests.Nothing can justify them. If for on other reason then they created an image problem for BLM, and I have no patience with the attempts I have seen here to excuse or even justify them. Please explain how looting a small shop helps the cause.
But few people died as a result of the BLM protests, as compared to the 168 who died in Oklahoma city. Downplaying that while screaming about how bad the BLM protests were donwplaying Oklahoma City is the height of hypocrisy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The Republican President ordered a violent mob to storm the Capital

[snip]

This is why disinformation has be treated as an actual threat to society.

Mmm... delicious irony.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Mmm... delicious irony.

It's so weird to see you pretending that the well documented events of Jan 6th didn't happen. How deep in the conservative bubble does one have to be to think that the mob didn't storm the Capitol building, or that the mob wasn't violent, or that the sitting President didn't tell the crowd to march to the Capitol bldg and fight like hell?

[JoeMorgue]

Again all they have is looking at reality and going "Nope that's just a liberal bias."

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It's so weird to see you pretending that the well documented events of Jan 6th didn't happen. How deep in the conservative bubble does one have to be to think that the mob didn't storm the Capitol building, or that the mob wasn't violent, or that the sitting President didn't tell the crowd to march to the Capitol bldg and fight like hell?

I see you moved the goalpost. Here's what Joe claimed:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The Republican President ordered a violent mob to storm the Capital

Now compare that to what you're now talking about:

Quote:

the sitting President didn't tell the crowd to march to the Capitol bldg and fight like hell?

You changed "violent mob" to "crowd", you changed "storm" with "march to" and "fight like hell". And even that "fight like hell" is taken out of context. Why don't you actually quote him? Oh, who am I kidding, I know exactly why you don't quote him. But I will.

Let's address the "fight like hell" bit. First, Trump used the word "fight" 20 times. And there's a consistent pattern of using it metaphorically, which is normal. For example:

"For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that's what they are. There's so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it's, it's incredible."

Now what's important here isn't whether or not Trump is right about Democrats. What's important here is the use of the word "fight". And it very obviously doesn't refer to physical combat. That's consistent throughout the entire speech.

Here's another one (well, more than one) use of the word from that speech:

"The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument."

Again, obviously not talking about physical fights. But let's look at the specific part you referred to:

"I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

So not only is "fight like hell" STILL not referring to physical combat, it's not even a command! He's not even telling the crowd to fight, he's describing what he and other Republicans already do, metaphorically. Again: description, NOT command.

Now let's get to some of what you left out. First:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

So if you want to argue that Trump intended his descriptions as commands, then you have to include this in your considerations, which you obviously didn't.

Now, what did he directly command the crowd to do?

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

My GOD! He told people to WALK! Does his villainy know no bounds?

And that's what counts for you as "order[ing] a violent mob to storm the Capitol". Yeah, no. That's not what happened. You are spreading misinformation.