Right-wing extremist terrorism as deadly a threat as al Qaeda?

[shakin318]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If you're from the greater NY metro area, like most of us, then no, Right-Wing extremism is less likely to pose a threat as Al Qaeda.

If you're from the greater NY metro area, you stand an infinitely greater chance of being harmed or killed by someone who defines themselves as anything BUT republican or conservative. But that doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[NxYxJets]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.

I find the constant representation of "right-wing" instead of "Neo-Nazi" or "White Supremacist" or "Anarchist" to be of particular interest.

I also find it interesting that I've not seen a similar article regarding "left-wing" violence (including OWS) for that same period.

Finally, it is IMO interesting to point out that the last two shooters were products of Government systems, in Colorado the University, and in Wisonsin the Millitary, and in both cases there appears to be evidence that that Government system had some knowledge their change was unstable and potentially violenent, yet did nothing more than cut loose the two men and washed their hands.

This goes hand in hand with the Nadal Millitary shooting, which does not get classified as "Terrorism" or has it's "wing" identified, but is a similar case of a Government System failing to stop one of it's own from engaging in mass murder.

This article, like many others from CNN, is designed to further the divide in this country between the left and right. I never would have read this story had it not been posted here, but I guess it is good to see how the MSM puts this crap out there. It is sad and scary, what is happening in the US of A.

[Raug]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.

I find the constant representation of "right-wing" instead of "Neo-Nazi" or "White Supremacist" or "Anarchist" to be of particular interest.

First of all, anarchists are far left, unless it's national-anarchism .
Second, I find the constant representation of "socialist" or "communist" instead of "liberal" to be of particular interest.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...s_nationa.html

Any number of "far lefties" use violence to make their "points"; the Baader-Meinhoff Gang is one well known example, as are the Black Bloc anarchists who showed up for OWS protests and are often seen turning world-bank meeting cities into riot zones. A number of the neo-communists quoted in that article I cited for Jetdawwg in his "I wish I was in China" thread make the "we need violence to get the revolution going, violence is good" point quite explicitly.

The fact of the matter is, the mindset that "Goal X is supremely important, therefore it is ok to kill innocents to achieve it" is the province of extremism of all stripes, from religious (al Qaeda) to right wing (McVeigh) to left wing (see above) - and that's true even when it should be generating cognitive dissonance with the peace-love-granola mindset of some left wing extremists. Peace and love, you see, are ideals worth murdering for.

Quoting for the 2nd page because the post is solid and shouldn't be buried...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Raug

First of all, anarchists are far left, unless it's national-anarchism .
Second, I find the constant representation of "socialist" or "communist" instead of "liberal" to be of particular interest.

I'd be happy to have a compare/contrast debate on liberal policies meeting the defitional of socialist (or more accurately, social-welfare) vs. conservative/libertarian policies meeting the definition of facist/nazi.

I would posit the "left" (generalizing here, obviously doesn't include all) often use the language amd questionable defintions to defend themselves from criticism. In order to defend what are in many cases socialist or social-welfare or Govt. Power policies, they must paint their opponents as an opposide but equallity attackable term, in these cases "far right nazi/ facist".

I would posit that outside of religious-based conservatives (of which I am equally disdainful, in general), such a label does not fit the small govt., free market, libertarian style of conservativism of which I am a part of.

[CraigFL]

I guess because I believe in small government, lower taxes, self responsibility, and protecting the American way of life, I'm a dangerous man....very dangerous.

[Raug]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I would posit the "left" (generalizing here, obviously doesn't include all) often use the language amd questionable defintions to defend themselves from criticism.

And the "right" does not do this? Come on, you are smarter than that.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Raug

And the "right" does not do this? Come on, you are smarter than that.

Of course they do. Where did I say otherwise in my response to you?

The difference is the right are defending (generally) their own utter incompetence and liberal-style spending sprees, or their Corporatocractic leanings, not thair "Facism" or "Nazism". About the only thing Facist about the right is their love of Millitarism, but in fairness, a use of the millitary is a well known act of bopth right and left, communist and facist, democrat and republican, hardly a defining thing.