The report is biased and blind to the fact that an established category "racial terrorism" exists. Investigate and include the races of rioters / looters who came forth in American cities and calculate the immense damage they did in 2020. None of us witnessed any Proud Boy types or right wingers burning down buildings and looting stores . . . but quite a few "fed up" right wingers came down with assault rifles and such to protect the property of scores of struggling business owners they didn't even know.
Millions have been plunged into poverty, millions of jobs lost, all kinds of medical issues acute and chronic going untreated and undiagnosed, medical bills still ruin lives, huge addiction problems, suicides on the rise, life expectancy down for some demographics, the list goes on.
But yeah, the big problem we need to be worrying about is "terrorism".
This report is written well and provides a very balanced perspective that spares no part of the political spectrum. For that intellectual honesty, I appreciate it.
However it is also from June 2020 and needs an update. Terrorism is defined as using criminal acts to move political goals forward. Throughout 2020 and even as recently as yesterday (see https://www.wsj.com/articles/inauguration-day-protests-in-po...), the political left has been using terrorism to push their social justice agenda on the backs of the George Floyd tragedy. The end goal of groups engaging in such violence (eg antifa, BLM-affiliated groups, socialist groups, etc) has been to leverage this incident (or really any crisis) and use virtuous packaging like “social justice” to ultimately implement ideas like highly redistributive tax schemes. This type of behavior is outside the acceptable norms of how political debate and civil discourse is meant to be carried out in our society. Additionally the amount of economic damage and the number of deaths stemming from left-wing riots throughout 2020 is far greater than right-wing ones, such as the recent Capitol riots.
However the calls to curb extremism, and the actions to curb extremist actors and organizations, all seem to only be directed at the right. This double standard prevents the kind of deescalation strategy this article proposes at its conclusion. One side is not going to back down if the other side is given a pass whenever they use dirty tactics to further their cause. The only way out is mutual disarmament and fair (evenly applied) mutual accountability.
Protesting in the streets is actually a right; it's in the First Amendment as the right to petition for redress [0].
You have redefined terrorism; the legal code emphasizes that the crimes do not have to have political ends other than terrorizing the population at large [1].
Please consider not repeating racist talking points. Equivocating protests for racial justice, whose main call is for police officers to use less violence against the population, with protests as a cover for insurrection, whose main goal is to infiltrate government buildings and kidnap/lynch/kill elected officials, is not just disgusting but an abrogation of the facts and claims that we've collected about the last year.
So the percentage of 'terrorist' attacks that occurred have shifted towards right wing extremist groups... of course that either requires that we don't classify certain destructive behaviors by certain groups of people as terrorism (because they aren't convenient), or we are misclassifying right wing behaviors as terrorism (because it is convenient).
Of course the article's title is sensationalism, which is expected, but I see a lot more danger in the attacks on free speech than I do in this 'escalating' terrorism problem that is mostly a problem because the media makes it into one.
> So the percentage of 'terrorist' attacks that occurred have shifted towards right wing extremist groups... of course that either requires that we don't classify certain destructive behaviors by certain groups of people as terrorism (because they aren't convenient), or we are misclassifying right wing behaviors as terrorism (because it is convenient).
Or maybe you're conflating terrorism and protest? I expect statistically there's been an increase in right wing extremist attacks in the past year so the shift is most likely real. Case in point, Nashville. I can't think of any other group that's executed an domestic attack as destructive as that one was since 9/11. And I don't think it wrong to classify that as right wing terrorism.
It is more likely the guy in Nashville took out that particular location because it was being used as an NSA collection node. He was a nut, but he clearly didn't want to hurt anyone.
Can Nashville be classified as right-wing? Was a motive uncovered that isn't yet presented on Wikipedia?
Surely the Bostom bombings and El Paso, Foot Hoo, Orlando & San Bernardino shootings count as more destructive domestic terror attacks (assoicated with various groups). Perhaps I have misundertood and you are speaking specifically of structural damage.
I think that both you and the article are actually underselling the problem. The problem is not that terrorism has slanted towards right-wing extremism, so much as that terrorism is still a right-wing extremist tactic, and the overall amount of terrorist attacks have increased.
The most famous terror attacks in the USA [0][1][2][3][4][5] were perpetrated by right-wing folks: These were religiously-motivated, racially-motivated, in protest of large and overly anxious government, and stand in stark contrast to ELF blowing up SUVs late at night.
WP has a list of terror attacks in the USA [6], if you want to peruse a complete list and see for yourself how often people are motivated by religion, race, or other hateful right-wing delusions.
Which events would you say that the original article has gotten wrong? How is it "convenient" that terrorism is being committed in a lopsided way?
That is some very selective concern you have about free speech. We just spent 4 years under a president directly attacking the free press and any individual dating to criticize him in any way, an absolute assault on free speech by the head of our government, which is exactly what the first amendment protects us against.
In terms of right wing terrorism vs. left wing facts are just a simple google search away. Protests which are free speech are not terrorism.
> of course that either requires that we don't classify certain destructive behaviors by certain groups of people as terrorism (because they aren't convenient), or we are misclassifying right wing behaviors as terrorism (because it is convenient).
What destructive behaviors by certain groups of people aren't being classified as terrorism that you think should be?
What right wing behaviors are being misclassified as terrorism that shouldn't be?
18 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.9 ms ] threadBut yeah, the big problem we need to be worrying about is "terrorism".
However it is also from June 2020 and needs an update. Terrorism is defined as using criminal acts to move political goals forward. Throughout 2020 and even as recently as yesterday (see https://www.wsj.com/articles/inauguration-day-protests-in-po...), the political left has been using terrorism to push their social justice agenda on the backs of the George Floyd tragedy. The end goal of groups engaging in such violence (eg antifa, BLM-affiliated groups, socialist groups, etc) has been to leverage this incident (or really any crisis) and use virtuous packaging like “social justice” to ultimately implement ideas like highly redistributive tax schemes. This type of behavior is outside the acceptable norms of how political debate and civil discourse is meant to be carried out in our society. Additionally the amount of economic damage and the number of deaths stemming from left-wing riots throughout 2020 is far greater than right-wing ones, such as the recent Capitol riots.
However the calls to curb extremism, and the actions to curb extremist actors and organizations, all seem to only be directed at the right. This double standard prevents the kind of deescalation strategy this article proposes at its conclusion. One side is not going to back down if the other side is given a pass whenever they use dirty tactics to further their cause. The only way out is mutual disarmament and fair (evenly applied) mutual accountability.
What behavior do you consider inside the acceptable norms, and what behavior do you consider outside?
You have redefined terrorism; the legal code emphasizes that the crimes do not have to have political ends other than terrorizing the population at large [1].
Please consider not repeating racist talking points. Equivocating protests for racial justice, whose main call is for police officers to use less violence against the population, with protests as a cover for insurrection, whose main goal is to infiltrate government buildings and kidnap/lynch/kill elected officials, is not just disgusting but an abrogation of the facts and claims that we've collected about the last year.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
Of course the article's title is sensationalism, which is expected, but I see a lot more danger in the attacks on free speech than I do in this 'escalating' terrorism problem that is mostly a problem because the media makes it into one.
Or maybe you're conflating terrorism and protest? I expect statistically there's been an increase in right wing extremist attacks in the past year so the shift is most likely real. Case in point, Nashville. I can't think of any other group that's executed an domestic attack as destructive as that one was since 9/11. And I don't think it wrong to classify that as right wing terrorism.
Surely the Bostom bombings and El Paso, Foot Hoo, Orlando & San Bernardino shootings count as more destructive domestic terror attacks (assoicated with various groups). Perhaps I have misundertood and you are speaking specifically of structural damage.
The most famous terror attacks in the USA [0][1][2][3][4][5] were perpetrated by right-wing folks: These were religiously-motivated, racially-motivated, in protest of large and overly anxious government, and stand in stark contrast to ELF blowing up SUVs late at night.
WP has a list of terror attacks in the USA [6], if you want to peruse a complete list and see for yourself how often people are motivated by religion, race, or other hateful right-wing delusions.
Which events would you say that the original article has gotten wrong? How is it "convenient" that terrorism is being committed in a lopsided way?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_atta...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
What destructive behaviors by certain groups of people aren't being classified as terrorism that you think should be?
What right wing behaviors are being misclassified as terrorism that shouldn't be?
Can you be more specific, please?