U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists

Posted in the Guns Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1 Apr 19, 2014
From CNN:

Since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology.

According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11.

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

----------

Since 9/11, jihadists have killed 21 people in five attacks in the US while rightwing extremists have killed 34 people in FIFTEEN attacks.

In the waning years of the Bush administration, Bush's DHS commissioned a study of the threat of rightwing extremist violence in the US. When that report was announced in the second or third month of 2009, the entire Republican party threw such a hysterical hissy-fit that the report was never released and DHS funds to continue studying the problem were re-allocated.

And the nation continues to reap the horrible consequences of those decisions.

Why do we overlook rightwing violence and refuse to call it terrorism? Why is the government prevented from even STUDYING it?

And how many more innocent Americans have to die at the hands of these domestic terrorists before we take this threat seriously?
Independent

United States

#2 Apr 19, 2014
They may be more active, but no more deadly.
Dead is dead, no matter who planted the bomb.

There are deadly extremists on both sides of the political isle.
Your article only points to one side, why is that?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3 Apr 19, 2014
Independent wrote:
They may be more active, but no more deadly.
Dead is dead, no matter who planted the bomb.
The number of dead matter. Killing anyone is bad. Killing higher numbers is worse. So the problem of rightwing domestic terrorists is worse in this nation since 9/11 than jihadists. How do you not get that?

But nice attempt to minimize the problem. Why would you do that? Why wouldn't you aggressively and angrily condemn this real problem?
Independent wrote:
There are deadly extremists on both sides of the political isle.
Your article only points to one side, why is that?
The article points to where the problem is.

Because there aren't any left wing extremists who have killed anybody.

There isn't another side. This is a rightwing problem and NOT a leftwing problem.

This isn't an issue where "both sides do it." This isn't an issue where you can find equivalence. Rightwing extremism is a real and present danger to this nation and there is nothing like it happening on the left.

Why would you try to divert blame? Why would you try to minimize the problem by trying to find other people who do the same thing instead of directly, aggressively, and angrily condemn what these domestic terrorists are doing?
Independent

United States

#7 Apr 19, 2014
Meh...

The story is nothing more than a one sided smear tactic.
Check out the New America Foundation and then check out who sponsors them. Democrats all.

Pretty biased source, Dan
Independent

United States

#8 Apr 19, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
But nice attempt to minimize the problem. Why would you do that? Why wouldn't you aggressively and angrily condemn this real problem?
Okay, I actually did laugh out loud at that one, Dan.
Asking for all the numbers from both sides is hardly minimizing, it would be more akin to maximizing the problem.

Yeah, I see how you can take my post as aggressive and angry. NOT

:^`P

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9 Apr 20, 2014
Independent wrote:
Meh...
The story is nothing more than a one sided smear tactic.
Check out the New America Foundation and then check out who sponsors them. Democrats all.
Pretty biased source, Dan
Jihadists have killed 21 people in the US since 9/11.

Rightwing extremists have killed 34 people in the US since 9/11.

Leftwing extremists have killed 0 people in the US since 9/11.

Facts are facts. What's the other side? Where is the bias?

If you can't answer those simple questions, then all you're doing is minimizing, denying, and blaming - classic avoidance tactics.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10 Apr 20, 2014
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I actually did laugh out loud at that one, Dan.
Asking for all the numbers from both sides is hardly minimizing, it would be more akin to maximizing the problem.
Yeah, I see how you can take my post as aggressive and angry. NOT
:^`P
There are no numbers from the left and you know it. Asking for those numbers is a diversion tactic.

I didn't take your post as angry or aggressive. Learn to read.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11 Apr 20, 2014
Why does the right defend these extremists and their terroristic activities?

Why wouldn't they instead unconditionally condemn their actions?

The only explanation is that they support rightwing domestic terrorism.
Independent

United States

#13 Apr 20, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
There are no numbers from the left and you know it. Asking for those numbers is a diversion tactic.
LOL

Only in Danspeak.

:^`P
Independent

United States

#14 Apr 20, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Why does the right defend these extremists and their terroristic activities?
Why wouldn't they instead unconditionally condemn their actions?
The only explanation is that they support rightwing domestic terrorism.
Who on the right defends killers?

Your "explanation" is nothing more than your opinion. Which as we all know, means nothing, Dan.

:^`P

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#15 Apr 20, 2014
What is a right wing extremist ?

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were left wing extremists.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#16 Apr 20, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Jihadists have killed 21 people in the US since 9/11.
Rightwing extremists have killed 34 people in the US since 9/11.
Leftwing extremists have killed 0 people in the US since 9/11.
Facts are facts. What's the other side? Where is the bias?
If you can't answer those simple questions, then all you're doing is minimizing, denying, and blaming - classic avoidance tactics.
You do realize that "Law Enforcement" kill many more innocent citizens yearly than that don't you? Do you support removing weapons from cops to save those lives?

I can't wait for your answer to this one.

I have a dollar on him trying to dodge the question, any takers?
Patriotic American

Mount Joy, PA

#17 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that "Law Enforcement" kill many more innocent citizens yearly than that don't you? Do you support removing weapons from cops to save those lives?
I can't wait for your answer to this one.
I have a dollar on him trying to dodge the question, any takers?
So there's no difference between intentionally targeting and murdering people to advance an extremist political agenda and accidentally killing people while trying to maintain law and order?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#18 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
So there's no difference between intentionally targeting and murdering people to advance an extremist political agenda and accidentally killing people while trying to maintain law and order?
Where did I say "accident"? Police shoot citizens WILLFULLY yearly. It just happens that many times those shot are not guilty of any crime or a threat to anyone. In fact many are just corrupt cops. However having a badge most of the time exempts them from actions ordinary citizens could not. even in an accident situation cops usually get a pass as "in the line of duty". Ordinary citizens are held to a higher standard of being responsible for the death of others even if by accident. If I fire my gun in self defense and miss my attacker and kill an innocent bystander then I am liable criminally for my actions. If a cop fires and misses it is in most cases in the line of duty. I personally don't know of any cases where a cop was charged with murder after hitting the wrong person.

Regardless of accident or intentional the point is gun control for citizens regardless of intention to murder or not. Why not apply the same measure to police. A life saved (be it an accident or intentional death) the death is still the same. Or do you ONLY want lives saved if they meet your agenda?
Patriotic American

Mount Joy, PA

#19 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I say "accident"? Police shoot citizens WILLFULLY yearly. It just happens that many times those shot are not guilty of any crime or a threat to anyone. In fact many are just corrupt cops. However having a badge most of the time exempts them from actions ordinary citizens could not. even in an accident situation cops usually get a pass as "in the line of duty". Ordinary citizens are held to a higher standard of being responsible for the death of others even if by accident. If I fire my gun in self defense and miss my attacker and kill an innocent bystander then I am liable criminally for my actions. If a cop fires and misses it is in most cases in the line of duty. I personally don't know of any cases where a cop was charged with murder after hitting the wrong person.
Regardless of accident or intentional the point is gun control for citizens regardless of intention to murder or not. Why not apply the same measure to police. A life saved (be it an accident or intentional death) the death is still the same. Or do you ONLY want lives saved if they meet your agenda?
I support aggressively prosecuting any cop who kills any innocent person. I also support aggressively prosecuting anyone committing acts of domestic terrorism.

But it looks like you only care about prosecuting cops but want to ignore domestic terrorists. Is that about right?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#20 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
So there's no difference between intentionally targeting and murdering people to advance an extremist political agenda and accidentally killing people while trying to maintain law and order?
Here is another example. Teachers can not carry guns in school to even "maintain law and order". The reasoning of "gun control" crowds are the teacher may miss their target or fire wildly and kill innocent or none threat children. However police can and have carried guns into schools and killed none threat children with no charges filed for the death of these children. Police have killed children when they "thought" the child was a danger when in reality they were not. Try that as a teacher and see how fast you are locked up.

Police Report on Brownsville School Shooting Won't Be Released to Public

The family has hired an attorney from McAllen. Attorneys say they are requesting police reports and other information about the shooting.

BROWNSVILLE - A state report is shedding new light on the shooting death of a Brownsville middle school student. The report says the student was shot and killed by police officers while brandishing a realistic-looking pistol.

Police claim it was a justified shooting. No charges will be filed. Even though the child did not have a real gun the shooting was in the line of duty.
Patriotic American

Mount Joy, PA

#21 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Here is another example. Teachers can not carry guns in school to even "maintain law and order". The reasoning of "gun control" crowds are the teacher may miss their target or fire wildly and kill innocent or none threat children. However police can and have carried guns into schools and killed none threat children with no charges filed for the death of these children. Police have killed children when they "thought" the child was a danger when in reality they were not. Try that as a teacher and see how fast you are locked up.
Police Report on Brownsville School Shooting Won't Be Released to Public
The family has hired an attorney from McAllen. Attorneys say they are requesting police reports and other information about the shooting.
BROWNSVILLE - A state report is shedding new light on the shooting death of a Brownsville middle school student. The report says the student was shot and killed by police officers while brandishing a realistic-looking pistol.
Police claim it was a justified shooting. No charges will be filed. Even though the child did not have a real gun the shooting was in the line of duty.
This has nothing to do with domestic terrorism by conservative extremists. Why are you trying to divert attention away from that problem? Do you support what they are doing?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#22 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
I support aggressively prosecuting any cop who kills any innocent person. I also support aggressively prosecuting anyone committing acts of domestic terrorism.
But it looks like you only care about prosecuting cops but want to ignore domestic terrorists. Is that about right?
How is invading homes with no proof or evidence of ANY illegal action present saying I want police to ignore terrorist? I want police to do their job "within the confines" of the job "without" using the issue as grounds to violate rights.

A terrorist purpose is to inflict terror and unreasonable fear in their victims. When we curb liberties and rights in response to terrorist acts then they have achieve their goal. Any time the government uses these actions as an excuse to violate rights then they are as much a danger to citizens as the terrorist.

Actions like Boston now has citizens in fear of police as well as the terrorist.
Ask any black man stopped by police at 1:00 am. Seeing a cops lights does nothing to instill calm and trust that a cop is near.
Patriotic American

Mount Joy, PA

#23 Apr 20, 2014
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>How is invading homes with no proof or evidence of ANY illegal action present saying I want police to ignore terrorist?
By trying to change the subject. By diverting from the issue of right wing domestic terrorism.

Why can't you just unconditionally condemn right wing domestic terrorism instead of diverting?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#24 Apr 20, 2014
Patriotic American wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with domestic terrorism by conservative extremists. Why are you trying to divert attention away from that problem? Do you support what they are doing?
You need to catch up. The thread and posts made were for gun control of U.S citizens. Nothing to do with terrorism. The post was a diversion of his other posts. Two deaths per year is not a problem or even grounds for any control of citizens rights. The post was to twist numbers to make them seem to be an issue. The deaths were not as important as trying to find ANY reason to claim guns in the hands of citizens is a danger to the population as a whole. Again twisting numbers makes it "seem" to be a big problem when more people by far will die slipping in tubs than by "domestic terrorist". The deaths only count in they fit the "agenda".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 31 min emperorjohn 10,860
Opinion Line 39 min woodtick57 61
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... 8 hr Squach 10
Fact or Fiction: Push-Feed Rifles Won't Cycle R... Sep 16 Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives Sep 15 Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Sep 15 Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry Sep 15 Tory II 1
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••