What's new

Home Grown Terrorists?

How much more dead is a 9/11 victim vs someone killed by a "domestic terrorist/group?"

From the article:
The numbers in the New America Foundation database may well understate the toll of violence from right-wing extremists. Another FBI study reported that between January 1, 2007, and October 31, 2009, white supremacists were involved in 53 acts of violence, 40 of which were assaults directed primarily at African-Americans, seven of which were murders and the rest of which were threats, arson and intimidation. Most of these were treated as racially motivated crimes rather than political acts of violence, i.e. terrorism.
In the past year, the FBI has concluded investigations into a number of right-wing extremists, in some cases securing lengthy sentences for violent plots. In December, Kevin Harpham of Spokane, Washington, was sentenced to 32 years for planting a bomb at the site of a Martin Luther King Jr. parade. City workers found the bag containing the bomb an hour before the streets filled with parade-goers.

Right-wing extremist individuals over the past decade in the United States were as likely to use violence as a means to express their political or social beliefs as those motivated by Osama bin Laden's ideology. Even more worryingly, during the same time period, right-wing and left-wing extremist groups and individuals have been far more likely to acquire toxins and to assemble the makings of radiological weapons than al Qaeda sympathizers.

Why shouldn't these folks be considered terrorists? Bombs and WMDs? If you replace right-wing extremists with al Qaeda everyone would refer to them as terrorists. So why should replacing al Qaeda with right-wing extremists change them from terrorists to racially motivated criminals?
 
Can home-grown terrorists also be a term used to describe terrorists created by the U.S. Army bombing certain innocent people who are close to a certain target and making said innocent people's families and friends into terrorists?
 
Can home-grown terrorists also be a term used to describe terrorists created by the U.S. Army bombing certain innocent people who are close to a certain target and making said innocent people's families and friends into terrorists?

The short answer would be no.
 
terrorism like beauty. it is in the eye of the beholder.

to some guys the us army are terrorist.
but to the majority of united states they are heroes
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/07/opinion/bergen-terrorism-wisconsin/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Should American based groups (such as the KKK and New Black Panthers) that have members engage in acts of violence and intimidation be lumped in with foreign groups such as the ones blamed for 9/11?

Individuals that conduct violence to promote social/political goals are terrorists. Organizations that facilitate these activities (as opposed to those which may promote hate, but not violence) are terrorist groups. this would not include organizations that preach responding to violence with violence, just those that support non-retaliatory violence.

For the KKK specifically, I don't think that groups is so centrally organized that you could say it is a terrorist organizagtion. I'm sure there are a few KKK groups that do not support such violence, there may be few that do. The New Black Panthers, to my knowledge, don't support such violence.
 
In my opinion, racially motivated crimes are much worse than political acts of violence

Isee the technical difference but not a moral one. You are still hating them because of what/who they are. Allt hat is happening is that you are switching the label as a reason to attack them.

Muslim, liberal, mormon, russian, blacks...you simply hate them becasue they are not part of the group you identify with. The moral differance is non existant in my eyes.
 
terrorism like beauty. it is in the eye of the beholder.

to some guys the us army are terrorist.
but to the majority of united states they are heroes

My stance is:
US Militia/Army/Navy/etc. following orders are heroes. These are your everyday Joes of the US Army. It sucks for that the heroes' quality of life is diminished after war because of PTSD and such.
Upper generals who make bad decisions not so much.

Basically, I think that the US is creating more terrorists than they are killing by trying to kill terrorists.
 
Isee the technical difference but not a moral one. You are still hating them because of what/who they are. Allt hat is happening is that you are switching the label as a reason to attack them.

Muslim, liberal, mormon, russian, blacks...you simply hate them becasue they are not part of the group you identify with. The moral differance is non existant in my eyes.

Which is why I care not for hate crime legislation. If you kill someone because they are Muslim or simply kill them for their wallet they are dead regardless and have been murdered.
 
this would not include organizations that preach responding to violence with violence, just those that support non-retaliatory violence.

isnt al queda and other terroist group like hamas responding to violence?
so they are no terrorist?
or is my english this bad
 
In summary, he makes the perfect case that they both aren't much of a threat....or am I reading that article wrong?

"Hey vato, where's the love?"

MS13.jpg


Now they might actually warrant a terrorist organization designation.


But seriously, what a ****ty article. Al Qaeda is a real group(as in they exist - in what form is debatable) vs. a right-wing extremist umbrella term that they throw unconnected individuals with some matching ideology under ? That makes no sense. And it's not like all Muslims that do bad things are connected to Al Qaeda either. They could only loosely connect 2.1 murders/year between all these "terrorist" groups since 9/11? You can come out from under your bed now. White Al Qaeda isn't going to get you.

I love this too:

After 9/11, there was great concern that al Qaeda or an allied group would launch a terrorist attack involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons. But in the past decade, there is no evidence that jihadist extremists in the United States have acquired or attempted to acquire material to construct CBRN weapons.

By contrast, 11 right-wing and left-wing extremists have managed to acquire CBRN material that they planned to use against the public, government employees or both.


I thought this article was about right wing extremists? Way to add to your case. Those right...er left wing....er....dammit....individuals...... Some people can be dangerous. There, I got it. Not quite as sensational as Al Qaeda versus right wing extremists.....but....you know....that's not what CNN pays me for.
 
Took a graduate-level Terrorism class this past spring. Really shows how little people know about Terrorism.

Long story short, they are already considered terrorists. Articles coming up like this are just proof that Americans really don't understand the history and breadth of Terrorism. They largely think it begins and ends with Al Qaeda. Domestic news media is largely to blame, which is why watching mediocre American news channels to actually get world news is a bad idea.

As for the KKK, they are idealistic terrorists, in the sense that they have no plan for when they supposedly would take over society. Al Qaeda actually has a long-term plan, and that's restoring a truly Islamic state... whatever that actually means (their goals are actually pretty nonsensical - most of them involve getting Western influence out of their geographical area), but they consider their acts as a means of defense. The KKK just kinda.. kills people they don't know and don't have any real reason to hate. Honestly, if you look at the history and rationale behind terrorist acts, the KKK is actually worse than Al Qaeda in my opinion (numbers disregarded, of course). Al Qaeda is more powerful, but they actually believe the stuff they do is to protect themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ema
Which is why I care not for hate crime legislation. If you kill someone because they are Muslim or simply kill them for their wallet they are dead regardless and have been murdered.

Would you agree burning a cross on a person's lawn is a greater threat than lighting a campfire with the same amount of wood? Hate crime legislation recognizes the reality that some crimes are designed not just to attack one person, but to intimidate others at the same time. they need to be carefully written, and the moties are often hard to prove, but they have a role.
 
isnt al queda and other terroist group like hamas responding to violence?
so they are no terrorist?
or is my english this bad

Yes, in the sense that in this context, "respond to violence" refers to a direct response to immediate violence. King taught people to not respond to violence, X taught people to respond. X did not mean blowing up buildings or mass shooting, but self-defense.
 
Back
Top