[Serious] Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem

[WinterHold]

The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Hmm.. so trying to burn down buildings full of people in the pursuit of political aims. Sounds like textbook terrorism to me. Is the Oxford dictionary wrong on this one? Why doesn't the US consider the Proud Boys to be a terrorist group if it's so beyond obvious? Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists? Iran considers atheists to be terrorists, but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter what political aims you have behind a terrorist action. As long as they are political aims. If an animal rights activist who thinks they're trying to improve the world for the better commits an act of violence in the pursuit of political aims, that's terrorism.

I don't think BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, atheists, or animal rights activists should all be smeared as terrorists. If certain members of those groups happen to commit acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims, then it's fair game to call those specific people that.

That Oxford dictionary entry very loose and unjust; as a Muslim I saw the worse of such loose definitions and I know finally why they exist: to suck the blood out of any enemy with clear conscious.

Every movement of resistance includes violence against the man with the gun; a reminder is the Draft Riots of 1863 in New York:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

If the government is supporting violence against the civilians and protect it, then a revolt against that tyranny is not even close to terrorism. That what BLM did: white cops were massacring colored people, so colored people revolted.

But how about an organized white supremacist gang that broke into the Capitol to stop the elections after their boss lost fairly?

Trying to change the results of elections that they agreed to obey using the power of the gun is pure terrorism and attack on the state.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bummer. Letting people freely assemble is really terrible.

Too bad he never said that 

Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something. They have no demands. They have no political goals. It's a coincidence that the mayor lives in the building. They certainly have no political aims and are just setting fires to try to kill a bunch of people because that's what gets their rocks off.

You can prove they intended to kill people for political aims or are asserting they did? And you realize self-identification doesn't mean anything in this case.

 Next we need to designate any Christian who is against abortion as a terrorist.They deserve it. If they had a magic wand, women would lose all of their rights. Probably even the right to vote or even leave the kitchen. Sounds a lot worse than even racism to me. Better yet, we better designate all Christians as terrorists because some of them have bombed abortion clinics. Guilt by association. A Christian is a Christian, right? No need to differentiate between the violent ones and the lawful ones.

Sigh not the same thing. Pro-Life is not by itself a violent idealogy. White nationalism and white supremacy is.

---

Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self-identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something.

It was done by the white supremacists who went to the protests to make damage.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/...the-nation

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbrea...d96c54f748

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minne...SKBN23H06J

---

Yup

[Irreligious Atheist]

Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something.

It was done by the white supremacists who went to the protests to make damage.

I watched the video, and it doesn't mention the situation you quoted me on, where a fire was set in an apartment building where a mayor was staying. What's with the what-aboutism? Why can't you just admit that BLM supporters, Antifa, and right wing nutters all have their terrorists among them? Because you don't want 'your side' to look bad? People on all sides are fucked up and do fucked up things. Stop trying to pretend that's not the case.

And right wing terrorists killed 79 people in acts of terrorism in 8 years? That's actually pretty shocking. I thought the number was far, far higher than that, given that it's a country of 350 million people. Here's some what-aboutism for you to return the favour. Sometimes over 100 people are shot in a weekend in Chicago. Not 8 years. Two days. Of course every act of terrorism and every terrorist who kills is a despicable person and needs to be called out, but this is the thing that people are saying is going to lead to the destruction of America? Do you think there might be a bit of an overreaction going on here?

---

The Oxford Dictionary calls terrorism “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

Hmm.. so trying to burn down buildings full of people in the pursuit of political aims. Sounds like textbook terrorism to me. Is the Oxford dictionary wrong on this one? Why doesn't the US consider the Proud Boys to be a terrorist group if it's so beyond obvious? Why doesn't any other country on the planet other than mine consider them to be a terrorist group if they are clearly all terrorists? Iran considers atheists to be terrorists, but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter what political aims you have behind a terrorist action. As long as they are political aims. If an animal rights activist who thinks they're trying to improve the world for the better commits an act of violence in the pursuit of political aims, that's terrorism.

I don't think BLM, Antifa, Proud Boys, atheists, or animal rights activists should all be smeared as terrorists. If certain members of those groups happen to commit acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims, then it's fair game to call those specific people that.

That Oxford dictionary entry very loose and unjust; as a Muslim I saw the worse of such loose definitions and I know finally why they exist: to suck the blood out of any enemy with clear conscious.

Every movement of resistance includes violence against the man with the gun; a reminder is the Draft Riots of 1863 in New York:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

If the government is supporting violence against the civilians and protect it, then a revolt against that tyranny is not even close to terrorism. That what BLM did: white cops were massacring colored people, so colored people revolted.

But how about an organized white supremacist gang that broke into the Capitol to stop the elections after their boss lost fairly?

Trying to change the results of elections that they agreed to obey using the power of the gun is pure terrorism and attack on the state.

Ah, so you just have an entirely different definition of terrorism, so it turns out we are talking about two completely different things. That's fine. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[The Architect Of Fate]

And a heap of false comparisons, Poor reasoning, And strawmen

---

Why can't you just admit that BLM supporters, Antifa, and right-wing nutters all have their terrorists among them? 

Because neither Antifa and BLM are terrorists and the Proud boys are 

Because you don't want 'your side' to look bad? People on all sides are fucked up and do fucked up things. Stop trying to pretend that's not the case.

False equivalence 

And right wing terrorists killed 79 people in acts of terrorism in 8 years? That's actually pretty shocking. I thought the number was far, far higher than that, given that it's a country of 350 million people. Here's some what-aboutism for you to return the favour. Sometimes over 100 people are shot in a weekend in Chicago. Not 8 years. Two days. Of course every act of terrorism and every terrorist who kills is a despicable person and needs to be called out, but this is the thing that people are saying is going to lead to the destruction of America? Do you think there might be a bit of an overreaction going on here?

1.Terrorism threat is not defined by the number of people killed 

2. Comparing street crime to terrorism is dishonest

[Irreligious Atheist]

And a heap of false comparisons, Poor reasoning, And strawmen  

And your sound reasoning says that 79 deaths in 8 years means the sky is falling and we all need to panic like never before and start labeling everyone a terrorist for having naughty thoughts. I'm sorry, but even when I see on the news that 50 people have been shot and killed at a club by an Islamist, I think to myself, damn, that's rough, but life goes on. Put your mind at ease Sungula. Life will go on.

[The Architect Of Fate]

And a heap of false comparisons, Poor reasoning, And strawmen  

And your sound reasoning says that 79 deaths in 8 years means the sky is falling and we all need to panic like never before and start labeling everyone a terrorist for having naughty thoughts. I'm sorry, but even when I see on the news that 50 people have been shot up at a club by an Islamist, I think to myself, damn, that's rough, but life goes on. Put your mind at ease Sungula. Life will go on

No, my sound reasoning is to treat dangerous violent ideologies for what they are and do what needed to neutralize their influence. The number of deaths inconsequential as terrorism's threat isn't defined by the death toll. Meanwhile, your "sound" reasoning to pretend the problem doesn't exist or isn't a problem and keep inventing excuses to downplay the threat or play games of false equivalency trying to muddy the water. Thank goodness the people who actually deal with terrorists don't take your "Life will go on" nonsense approach to terrorism because irrational and foolish.

---

Setting a fire in an apartment building to try and kill people is a little more than arson. It's attempted murder, not to mention the actual murders that BLM supporters have committed. I'm sure the self identified Antifa and BLM supporters just set fire to buildings full of people because they're pyromaniacs or something.

It was done by the white supremacists who went to the protests to make damage.

Need i also point out they didn't find the firestarter in the apartment complex incident let alone their motivation (wanting to kill people)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My understanding is that it’s virtually impossible for the US to label any domestic group as a terrorist organization (groups can be classed as a ‘terrorist threat’, which is not the same thing).

The reason is that freedom of assembly makes it unlawful to legislate that belonging to a particular group - in and of itself - is a crime.

Boru

Bummer. Letting people freely assemble is really terrible. Next we need to designate any Christian who is against abortion as a terrorist. They deserve it. If they had a magic wand, women would lose all of their rights. Probably even the right to vote or even leave the kitchen. Sounds a lot worse than even racism to me. Better yet, we better designate all Christians as terrorists because some of them have bombed abortion clinics. Guilt by association. A Christian is a Christian, right? No need to differentiate between the violent ones and the lawful ones.

I think you mistake my meaning - I'm not in favour of any group being designated as a terrorist organization, even the ones that clearly are. The problem with doing so is that it opens the floodgates to labeling EVERY group the government doesn't like as a terrorist organization. Simply because some members of a group (BLM, Proud Boys, The International Brotherhood of Ferret Fondlers - whatever) commit what can be considered terroristic acts doesn't justify calling everyone in that group a terrorist and prosecuting them as such.

I'm all about differentiating between criminals and lawful people. I hope that clears it up for you.

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

Bummer. Letting people freely assemble is really terrible. Next we need to designate any Christian who is against abortion as a terrorist. They deserve it. If they had a magic wand, women would lose all of their rights. Probably even the right to vote or even leave the kitchen. Sounds a lot worse than even racism to me. Better yet, we better designate all Christians as terrorists because some of them have bombed abortion clinics. Guilt by association. A Christian is a Christian, right? No need to differentiate between the violent ones and the lawful ones.

I think you mistake my meaning - I'm not in favour of any group being designated as a terrorist organization, even the ones that clearly are. The problem with doing so is that it opens the floodgates to labeling EVERY group the government doesn't like as a terrorist organization. Simply because some members of a group (BLM, Proud Boys, The International Brotherhood of Ferret Fondlers - whatever) commit what can be considered terroristic acts doesn't justify calling everyone in that group a terrorist and prosecuting them as such.

I'm all about differentiating between criminals and lawful people. I hope that clears it up for you.

Boru

I did not mean to accuse you of that, since you did not explicitly say that like the others did, but my rant was after quoting your post, so I can see how it looks that way and I apologise for that.

I remember a time when atheists used to mock conservatives for fearing that Sharia law could be implemented in Western countries in the future if we kept letting Muslims immigrate here, and now the big boogeyman is whitey who wants a white ethnostate. There isn't going to be a white ethnostate any more than there is going to be Sharia law or Christian theocracy. These are wild dreams that those extremist types have, that are never going to come to pass. Yeah, it's fucked up that some people may want a white ethnostate, kicking out every rightful citizen, but unless they have a magic wand, they're not getting their wish. They can have their naughty thoughts and I'm still not going to call that terrorism unless they do what the dictionary actually defines as terrorism. I'm not for making thought crime a thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is turning into a negative free association exercise. Terrorists aren't designated for their dreams. By all means, dream away, pretty sure you'll be clear with whatever the canadian excuse for an fbi happens to be.

[WinterHold]

---

That Oxford dictionary entry very loose and unjust; as a Muslim I saw the worse of such loose definitions and I know finally why they exist: to suck the blood out of any enemy with clear conscious.

Every movement of resistance includes violence against the man with the gun; a reminder is the Draft Riots of 1863 in New York:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

If the government is supporting violence against the civilians and protect it, then a revolt against that tyranny is not even close to terrorism. That what BLM did: white cops were massacring colored people, so colored people revolted.

But how about an organized white supremacist gang that broke into the Capitol to stop the elections after their boss lost fairly?

Trying to change the results of elections that they agreed to obey using the power of the gun is pure terrorism and attack on the state.

Ah, so you just have an entirely different definition of terrorism, so it turns out we are talking about two completely different things. That's fine. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Of course we have different definitions; the American definition needs adjustment.

---

I think you mistake my meaning - I'm not in favour of any group being designated as a terrorist organization, even the ones that clearly are. The problem with doing so is that it opens the floodgates to labeling EVERY group the government doesn't like as a terrorist organization. Simply because some members of a group (BLM, Proud Boys, The International Brotherhood of Ferret Fondlers - whatever) commit what can be considered terroristic acts doesn't justify calling everyone in that group a terrorist and prosecuting them as such.

I'm all about differentiating between criminals and lawful people. I hope that clears it up for you.

Boru

I did not mean to accuse you of that, since you did not explicitly say that like the others did, but my rant was after quoting your post, so I can see how it looks that way and I apologise for that.

I remember a time when atheists used to mock conservatives for fearing that Sharia law could be implemented in Western countries in the future if we kept letting Muslims immigrate here, and now the big boogeyman is whitey who wants a white ethnostate. There isn't going to be a white ethnostate any more than there is going to be Sharia law or Christian theocracy. These are wild dreams that those extremist types have, that are never going to come to pass. Yeah, it's fucked up that some people may want a white ethnostate, kicking out every rightful citizen, but unless they have a magic wand, they're not getting their wish. They can have their naughty thoughts and I'm still not going to call that terrorism unless they do what the dictionary actually defines as terrorism. I'm not for making thought crime a thing.

And that folks, is a Trumpster white supremacist, believing in the Great Replacement theory; the theory again so you know it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

The Great Replacement (French: Grand Remplacement), also known as the replacement theory,[1][2] is a white nationalist[3] far-right[4] conspiracy theory[5][6][7] which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,[a][5][8] the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples—specifically Arab, Berber and sub-Saharan Muslim populations