Timothy McVeigh and the History of Right-Wing Terrorism

I dunno about people never talking about McVeigh, he's pretty infamous. And yeah extremism is the issue, not left or right wing politics. I'm against fanatics of any stripe.

The issue with Islamic extremism is there is an element on the left in America that seems to want to brand any criticism of Islam or Muslims as "Islamophobia". Basically this is part of this same groups tendency to attempt to shut down any form discourse that they can't dominate.

 

What people would that be? Do you have an example of someone or some group who think terrorism is exclusive to Islam?

 

I don't think there are many groups who actually think terrorism is exclusive to Islam.. more like there are groups who support or ignore terrorism that backs up their belief. One example would be those who think that what the Bundys did with that national park.. or those who support the government and ignore their terroristic tactics. Then you have groups/people who acknowledge terrorism all the way around.

 

If you consider the Bundy people terrorists then you must consider BLM and OWS terrorist organizations too. We should keep the definition of terrorism clean by only considering those who intentionally harm innocents as terrorists, otherwise the word loses all meaning and can be applied to any protester of anything.

 

I don't think that Muslims are overwhelmingly more likely to commit acts of terrorism, but they are often far less likely to take measures to stop the militants from doing it, or bring them to justice, than other groups would be in the same circumstance. Personally, I think that we should just stay away from these societies and let them sort their own problems out.

 

The Bundys weren't protesters.. protesting with guns isn't protesting.. and it definitely is terrorism when the "protesters" preemptively state that they will use their guns against anyone who tries to remove them.

The BLM.. no, I don't see them as terrorists. Don't know what OWS is, but the US government does commit some terrorist acts. I see our meddling in the Middle East as terrorism.. no surprise we get what we give. Nuking Japan's civilians was more like an act of terrorism than an act of war.

The definition of terrorism is pretty clean as it is.. terrorists are those who use violence, or threaten it, for personal and political gain. The acts of the BLM were more like if you attack someone who just stole something from you. That wouldn't be terrorism as you're not actually gaining anything, you're taking back what is yours. Don't muddle the definition of terrorism because of a few instances where you happen to agree with the terrorists.

 

Probably a reference to Occupy Wall Street, a leftist movement that was largely abandoned several years ago.

 

There are those people it's true. There are also people who deny Muslims kill more people in acts of terror than any other group.
4 surprising facts from the 2015 Global Terrorism Index

I thought we were discussing actual terrorism, your definition would include bank robbers and muggers as terrorists, I don't see it that way so it's pointless for me to discuss this with you. If you don't know what OWS is there's always Google, it'll explain it in 0.53 seconds.

 

We were.. and with the robbers/muggers never threatened violence, it wouldn't be terrorism. If they did, it would be. A big scary looking dude could walk up to a meager person and say "give me all your money" and they do so instantly.. there was no actual threat of violence. The moment they threaten or use violence for their own gain, they are committing a terrorist act. Under the clear definition of terrorism, more than likely every single person in the world has once committed a terrorist act. Does that mean everyone is a terrorist? No.. but they are the moment they are committing an act of terror.

And don't mistake my lack of Googling something you brought up with my lack of care..

 

I agree one hundred percent to me terrorism is a minority group fighting against a state as defined by the state. It has zero to do with personal gain it's strictly political. If the bundies were on private property would it be terrorism? No! Its another word the state uses to influence people. If you remember the Timothy mcvay bombing it was repeated over and over that it was a right wing anarchists. Another word the state hates and tries to blame all it can on.....even though it has zero to do with anything. Anarchy is not violent and chaos, and terrorism is not a act for personal gain. It's all political BS

no im not drunk!

 

So you are saying any act that uses violence for personal gain is a terrorist act? Or they are terrorizing someone? Because there's a HUGE HUGE difference. Under your definition if im understanding it right we all have been terrorist, and according to federal law we can have all our rights suspended. your last name isn't bush is it?

no im not drunk!

 

Yes.. and yes. The difference between the two is like the difference between 6 and a half dozen, 1/3 and 0.333 repeating. And yes.. you are understanding right. I mean.. that's exactly what I said in the post you quoted.. lol

You also seem to have missed the part where I said committing a terrorist act in the past doesn't mean you will automatically be a terrorist for life.. just while you are committing a crime until the point where you are punished for your crime. So one could very well die being a terrorist if the punishment for their crime is death.

 

In this discussion we are referring to terrorism as defined by intimidation or violence to achieve social or political goals. Criminals, who rob people, may terrorize but they are not terrorists unless there is an agenda other than personal gain.

 

The case of Breivik is very relevant at the moment imo. He is a result of far right/anti Islamic propaganda. Breivik is a keyboard warrior who went full Jihad.

There will always be Breiviks, we need to accept that in the world we live in people are always liable to go off the rails.

I know this sounds incredulous and all but some of these lads actually believe the Muslims are coming for them. They have been whipped up into a frenzy watching you tube after you tube video detailing the Muslims plans for the West.

Lads that would object to gay marriage are all of a sudden outraged at the lack of gay rights and freedom in ME countries. It's funny really.


Propagandist for Propaganda

 

I am aware.. the main reason I came in was because it was asked who thinks Muslims are the only ones capable of committing terrorism. My answer is that there isn't.. it's just that people typically ignore or support terrorism that adheres to their belief/PoV. Terrorism is an emotionally charged word, so of course people are going to want to avoid sounding like they condone it.. but as evident in the OP, some people praise terrorism in their favor. Islamic extremists, Christian extremists, Buddhist extremists, fanatical antiabortionists, armed "protesters" who preemptively threaten violence, extreme racists.. they often get praise from those who agree with their social and political goal, even when they take it to the extreme.

 

There's nuts that support everything under the sun, like those idiots Jane quoted in the op. The only ones I've heard say anything have been pointing out the hypocrisy of those people supporting gay rights in the West yet accept their treatment by Muslims as if it were fine. Like PayPal canceling it's plans for a call center in North Carolina while expanding services in the Middle East.
PayPal withdraws planned N.C. expansion due to anti-gay law
Network International and PayPal launch Middle East’s first e-Merchant Portal for Payment Transfers

 

I recommend looking into Operation Gladio