> "After 911, our government correctly took bold steps to defend American lives against foreign terrorism, and prevent another attack against our nation." said Rep. Lou Correa (CA-46).
I haven't followed this Act at all (not a US citizen), but a direct comparison to the Patriot Act does not bode well.
As an outsider to the US, I wonder how Americans contrast the nights of burning cities for the BLM movement to the capitol protest? I don't know how to ask it in a more sensitive way
From what I've seen, Americans on either side of the political spectrum react exactly as you might suspect.
Those on the left have often maintained BLM movement was largely peaceful and characterise the rioting elements as a symptom of oppression rather than terrorism. They often make the comparison that even the most violent aspects of BLM were not trying to overthrow federal government and a democratic election (which they call treason). There are also comparisons drawn between videos of peaceful BLM protestors being pepper sprayed for sitting down on the floor and videos of capitol police taking selfies with the capitol protest moments before it became an insurrection (and removing barriers).
Those on the right often view this as hypocrisy, say that the BLM protests were acts of domestic terrorism and largely not peaceful. There is a divide within the right as to whether the election was indeed "stolen" and therefore tend to be either sympathetic or massively condemn the invasion of the capitol.
This is just my opinion from what I've seen on the internet over the last few weeks and months, I'm aware it's essentially anecdata.
From what I've seen/heard, the vast majority of Americans on both sides condemn the violence at the capitol hill protest, and also condemn violence at the BLM protests. Most recognize that there were legitimate protests and protesters there, but are opposed to the violence that broke out in both cases.
I think the main difference between people in the parties is in what percentage of the protesters they believe were peaceful in either case, and perception of who was behind each of the protests. Oddly, I would say both are near mirror images of each other, just holding to "their team"-- but mostly condemning the violence even if they support the wider cause or grievances.
They are really desperate to tie this in with "white" people, aren't they? In every single one of those quotes they couldn't wait to make the association.
Does any objective observer of those events view it as some white nationalist movement, let alone a white supremacist one? I saw more of the crowd desperate to advertise their anti-racism.
The overwhelming sentiment among actual white nationalists is that this was a bizarre and harmless lashing out by boomers and Qtards. The types who sleep with a constitution in their nightstand. Not the ones who dream of a homeland for their grandchildren.
This an act of overt racist hostility against white Americans, perpetrated by their own (former?) government.
Goodbye, America. I still dream of a homeland for my grandchildren; grateful to be very far away from the land of the free.
> “Homegrown, violent domestic terrorism from white supremacists, and other racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, remains a serious ongoing threat that demands the full coordination and efforts of our federal law enforcement agencies. We must provide the necessary tools for our law enforcement to investigate, prevent, and prosecute these heinous, violent crimes,” said Rep. Fitzpatrick (PA-01). “This bill would also direct resources for investigations into hate crimes incidents with a nexus to domestic terrorism. As a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent, I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation that would codify offices within our federal law enforcement agencies to combat and prevent domestic terrorist activities and threats.”
> “White supremacy and domestic terrorist organizations have no place in America. Rhetoric from the outgoing President and right-wing political leaders have emboldened white nationalist groups to pursue violence as a means to an end. On January 6, we experienced the terror of white nationalism in full display as domestic terrorists attacked our Nation’s Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. This bill would provide federal agencies with the resources they need to keep Americans safe from the threat of home-grown terrorism and strengthen partnerships with state and local law enforcement to combat hateful violence. The Domestic Terror Prevention Act is more important than ever as we work to root out and rid America of this cancer,” said Rep. Vincente González (TX-15).
Could someone help me understand why people thought the Capitol protestors were white nationalists? I'm not saying there were no white nationalists among the thousands there (obviously), but it seems rather divisive (and a huge stretch) to label the entire thing as a white nationalist terror attack?
Am I the only one who also thinks the threat of white nationalism is being way over exaggerated to push new surveillance and censorship policies? I'm sure I'm being ignorant here, but I genuinely can't think of a single white nationalist terror attack that's happened in the US in recent history. Perhaps the worst thing that comes to mind was the Charlottesville rally, but that wasn't exactly a terror attack.
What's more, there have been actual domestic terror threats which have resulted in deaths and millions of dollars of property damage. Groups like Antifa literally pride themselves on their violent and destructive methods to bring about political change, yet this seem to be of little concern.
Am I being unreasonable to think the threat of white nationalism is being exaggerated to push policies which restrict our civil liberties? Obviously we need to ensure we have the right tools to prevent terrorism, but I often get the feeling this is less about preventing terrorism.
8 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] threadI haven't followed this Act at all (not a US citizen), but a direct comparison to the Patriot Act does not bode well.
Those on the left have often maintained BLM movement was largely peaceful and characterise the rioting elements as a symptom of oppression rather than terrorism. They often make the comparison that even the most violent aspects of BLM were not trying to overthrow federal government and a democratic election (which they call treason). There are also comparisons drawn between videos of peaceful BLM protestors being pepper sprayed for sitting down on the floor and videos of capitol police taking selfies with the capitol protest moments before it became an insurrection (and removing barriers).
Those on the right often view this as hypocrisy, say that the BLM protests were acts of domestic terrorism and largely not peaceful. There is a divide within the right as to whether the election was indeed "stolen" and therefore tend to be either sympathetic or massively condemn the invasion of the capitol.
This is just my opinion from what I've seen on the internet over the last few weeks and months, I'm aware it's essentially anecdata.
I think the main difference between people in the parties is in what percentage of the protesters they believe were peaceful in either case, and perception of who was behind each of the protests. Oddly, I would say both are near mirror images of each other, just holding to "their team"-- but mostly condemning the violence even if they support the wider cause or grievances.
Does any objective observer of those events view it as some white nationalist movement, let alone a white supremacist one? I saw more of the crowd desperate to advertise their anti-racism.
The overwhelming sentiment among actual white nationalists is that this was a bizarre and harmless lashing out by boomers and Qtards. The types who sleep with a constitution in their nightstand. Not the ones who dream of a homeland for their grandchildren.
This an act of overt racist hostility against white Americans, perpetrated by their own (former?) government.
Goodbye, America. I still dream of a homeland for my grandchildren; grateful to be very far away from the land of the free.
> “White supremacy and domestic terrorist organizations have no place in America. Rhetoric from the outgoing President and right-wing political leaders have emboldened white nationalist groups to pursue violence as a means to an end. On January 6, we experienced the terror of white nationalism in full display as domestic terrorists attacked our Nation’s Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. This bill would provide federal agencies with the resources they need to keep Americans safe from the threat of home-grown terrorism and strengthen partnerships with state and local law enforcement to combat hateful violence. The Domestic Terror Prevention Act is more important than ever as we work to root out and rid America of this cancer,” said Rep. Vincente González (TX-15).
Could someone help me understand why people thought the Capitol protestors were white nationalists? I'm not saying there were no white nationalists among the thousands there (obviously), but it seems rather divisive (and a huge stretch) to label the entire thing as a white nationalist terror attack?
Am I the only one who also thinks the threat of white nationalism is being way over exaggerated to push new surveillance and censorship policies? I'm sure I'm being ignorant here, but I genuinely can't think of a single white nationalist terror attack that's happened in the US in recent history. Perhaps the worst thing that comes to mind was the Charlottesville rally, but that wasn't exactly a terror attack.
What's more, there have been actual domestic terror threats which have resulted in deaths and millions of dollars of property damage. Groups like Antifa literally pride themselves on their violent and destructive methods to bring about political change, yet this seem to be of little concern.
Am I being unreasonable to think the threat of white nationalism is being exaggerated to push policies which restrict our civil liberties? Obviously we need to ensure we have the right tools to prevent terrorism, but I often get the feeling this is less about preventing terrorism.
- Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 2012 (6 killed)
- Overland Park, Kansas 2014 (3 killed)
- Charleston, South Carolina, 2015 US (9 killed)
- New York City 2017, (one killed)
- Portland, Oregon, 2017 (2 killed)
- Charlottesville, Virginia, 2017 (one killed) : you talk about it but how is that not a terror attack in your mind?!
- Kentucky, 2018 (2 killed)
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2018 (11 killed)
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/16/a-history-of-r...
Note: the source is almost two years-old. The most recent are missing, most notably El Paso, Texas, 2019 (23 killed).