NLBS 03.07: Radical Right Wing Terrorism; That's Right, We Said it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: cuckooold

If ATS was the mouthpiece of the Obama administration and wanted to ban the speech they disagree with, do you think they would allow the conservative Muslim bashing pro-Trump anti-global warming threads that dominate the main page to exist?

Of course legally it can't be done, at least yet... But why else proclaim and try to brainwash other ATS members into thinking that talking against abortion equals to inciting violence?...

Actually, this is a privately owned site, and I think there is no legal problem with the owners removing whatever threads and posts they feel like removing.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

First let me just say I really enjoy this site and I think you guys do a pretty good job of running it. I also think it is great that you and other owners or mods, etc. give your opinions on issues, regardless if I agree with them or not. In fact, I usually enjoy the posts more that I disagree with, because it challenges my opinions and makes me consider all sides of an issue.

Having said all of that, I am frustrated by this thread. Not because I think this video is immoral or anything like that, just on factual merits. Many people defending the video have clamored that no one against it has argued the facts, they were just in denial.

I attempted to look at the study that this video was primarily based on and gave several problems with ith on page 29. Since then, you and many of the people that were asking people to look at the facts of the video have offered ZERO responses to that post. I find that to be curious.

Again, the video is making the claim that right wing terrorism is worse than Isamic terrorism in the US.

My post on page 29 not only showed how more people have been killed since 1990 from Islamic terrorism than right wing terrorism, but also showed that the one study that was used as evidence for this has serious flaws (like assuming only white crimes against other races is terrorism).

I understand that you and Joe (or all others defending the video) don't have time to respond to every post, but you did respond to several other posts, and seemed to ignore mine where I tried to look at your evidence. It seems to me like it is easier to just claim right wingers are emotional and blind than to actually defend your claims from serious criticism.

Again, I have no problem personally with the staff of ATS and I really enjoy the site. I am just questioning the facts of this video.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

An occasional rare right wing nutjob does something like that, but there are, as already shown in this thread, far more on the other side who are of that sort.

Rare??? what alternate universe do you live in ???. ..

The data from the government is already in the thread. It confirms what I stated.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
In particular,

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's different to a lot of us.

How so?
Did this used to be a right-wing partisan Bible-thumping site?

Huh. Must have been way before my time.
I thought we were here to discuss current events with intelligent discourse.
my bad?? o_O

"How so?" Really??? This used to be a site that called "BS" on either side when one or the other was attacking all members of their opposition, and now it's a site where a bashing thread is site-approved and promoted.

Exactly. I understand many have joined CT sites to counter what they believe is RW only beliefs. However, this has never been a solely RW site. Ie See the Bush years.

I don't want it to be right- or left-wing. A site like this should be neutral in such matters, and concerned with facts, conspiracies, and the like, instead of pushing the official government/MSM position, as we see so often these days.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I know what rhetorical means. I add it to questions I type in response to neo - because neo doesn't like being asked questions, or answering them. It upsets him so. So, I'm refraining from pressing for an actual answer when a question comes to mind after he posts something. Trying to be respectful.


Anyway - thanks for the link.

Ah, gotcha. I can see Neo's point, though. If guns are a protected right, then questioning someone as to why they need them is akin to questioning someone on why they feel they need free speech. If one can question the reasons, one can possibly try and undermine the right itself.

You are welcome for the link.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

If guns are a protected right, then questioning someone as to why they need them is akin to questioning someone on why they feel they need free speech.

Only if you are paranoid.....
asking questions is how to find out where the person is coming from.

I meant no judgment.
Just wanted to know where his head is focused, and why. It's my nature to say, "why do you think that?".

If one can question the reasons, one can possibly try and undermine the right itself.

Okay, point taken.
My approach, however, is more about understanding. About compassion. About communication.
I guess that's a no-go also with some folks, though.

I see.

So ----
Excuse the hell out of me for attempting to break the ice and begin an actual dialogue.

originally posted by: Kali74

I've not seen one post that states that opposing gun restrictions is terrorism or any of the rest of it.

You disagree that Dear is a terrorist?

What people are disagreeing with is that ATS is officially claiming that videos like the undercover PP were a hoax, and such statements incite violence. Not only that, but ATS is parroting the claims from left wing sites like think progress, and West point which have published papers claiming that conservatives, and people with ideology to the right are a threat to the nation... what we are disagreeing with is that people who lean to the right politically in the U.S. are being all labeled as "possible extremists"... And ATS is officially participating in this brainwashing of the masses.

Yes Dear was/is a terrorist... but Dear doesn't represent all Americans with a political view that leans to the right...And certainly having a point of view that is anti-abortion and talking about it doesn't make one a "possible terrorist" or "inciting violence"...

ATS also CONTINUOUSLY ignore cases of violent extremism from the left...

Not ONE video from ATS has officially branded Black Lives Matter as a "violent, and extremist group".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We just had a violent attack by a Muslim liberal and not a peep officially from ATS... But conservatives and Americans who lean to the right politically?... We are all branded with a label that we are "possible extremists/possible terrorists" not only by the left wing government, but even by ATS...

Claiming that the PP undercover videos were the cause for the murders, and trying to blame everyone who is anti-abortion for the acts of this lone madman, is trying to suppress/ban one point of view on the topic of abortion... Which many left wingers are doing.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Not ONE video from ATS has officially branded Black Lives Matter as a "violent, and extremist group".

Because it is not and that would be a bald faced LIEEEEE!!! but you believe that because Pappy Bear O Riley sayz so.

originally posted by: Grambler
The video goes on to suggest that right wing terrorism is WORSE than Islamic terrorism (in the US). It is not saying there are extremist on all sides, it says right wing terrorism is a bigger threat. So it is not the innocent even handed thread that many on here have suggested.

Not worse but more prevalent.

As Grimpachi stated, this article shows that since 1990, 670 people have been killed and 3,053 injured in attacks by far-right extremists in the United States. Islamic terrorist killed 2752 on 9-11 alone, so just looking at the numbers, this seems to show Islamic terrorism has caused more damage than right wing terrorism.

Grimpachi's graph shows attacks initiated by far-right group/individuals per year.

When you look deeper, you see that the statistics for what qualified as right wing terrorism were as follows

The dataset documents all violent attacks that: (1) were perpetrated by groups or individuals affiliated with far-right associations; and/or (2) were intended to promote ideas compatible with far-right ideology, based on the ideological analysis presented in the first part of this study

So any hate crime committed by a white person against a minority is considered right wing terrorism. The problem with this is that it is wrong to claim racism is just a conservative problem.

Yes, a hate crime would be terrorism.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

a. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
b. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
c. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. FBI

If all white racists are to be considered right wing terrorists, then to be fair we should consider all anti white racists as left wing. In this case, all black on white violence such as the knock out game would be left wing terrorism.

If we do that, we see statistics that show that blacks are 27 times more likely to commit crimes against whites than the other way around. This seems to suggest left wing terrorism is a far more serious problem.
www.vdare.com...

I'm pretty sure we already call these gangs. Which could be loosely labeled as terrorism but not so much.

originally posted by: Spider879

Because it is not and that would be a bald faced LIEEEEE!!! but you believe that because Pappy Bear O Riley sayz so.

Really?... SHOW ME... Show me an ATS official thread from NLBS not only condemning Black Lives Matter's violence, and hatred, but labeling left wing hatred speech as "inciting violence from left wing extremists"... You won't find it, and it is not because it doesn't exist.

The Young Couple Accused in Massacre in San Bernardino

By Brian Ross
ALEX HOSENBALL
Rhonda Schwartz
Matthew Mosk

Dec 3, 2015, 8:02 AM ET
...
Motive Still a Mystery in San Bernardino Shooting as Police Investigate Shooters

Another profile portrayed a man trying to balance his faith and modern life.

“I try to live as a good Muslim,” Farook writes. “Looking for a girl who has the same outlook, wear hijab, but live the life to the fullest."

On the same page, Farook, who graduated in 2010 from Cal State San Bernardino, preaches his love of snowboarding, camping, and working on cars, and further describes his personality as cautious, reserved, skeptical and very liberal.
...

abcnews.go.com...

‘Black Lives Matter’ leader demands new constitution or ‘it will be the bullet’

October 8, 2015

Victor Skinner

BERKELEY, Calif. – Blake Simons, a self-described Black Lives Matter leader at the University of California-Berkeley, has a message for America: It’s a new constitution or “the bullet.”

The Cal senior is a member of the Black Student Union and “Deputy Comms Director” of the Afrikan Black Coalition at UC Berkeley, where he’s led repeated protests in recent months over police shootings and the allegedly racist learning environment at the school, according to the Berkeleyside.

Now, Simons is peddling an enlightening article about his ideas on racism in America that centers on an ultimatum: either the U.S. rewrites its beloved Constitution with special considerations for black people, or “it will be the bullet,” he threatens.
...

eagnews.org...

afrikanblackcoalition.org...

Or the calls from the Black Lives Matter movement to murder police officers reminiscent of the old Black Panther "revolutionary socialist/communist movement in the 60s?...

Black Lives Matter Chant Called ‘Disgusting’ By Police Leader
August 30, 2015 10:22 PM By Bill Hudson

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Traffic disruptions and loud messages aren’t the only things memorable about Saturday’s Black Lives Matter march to the gates of the Minnesota State Fair.
...
But along the way, protesters broke into a pointed refrain that has St. Paul police officers upset.

Marchers chanted in unison, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

What officers and many others find offensive is also protected free speech. But in this particular case what is ironic is that those voicing the chant were also being protected by very officers targeted.

“Statements and chants like that are just ignorant – I find it absolutely disgusting,” Officer Titus said.

Titus called the protester’s chant both dangerous and outrageous. All the more so Titus says, because it came just hours after a Texas deputy was gunned down in cold blood.

“I don’t think chanting or singing what’s basically promoting killing police officers is peaceful,” Titus said.

Black Lives Matter organizer Rashad Turner says there’s a big difference between rhetorical chanting and somebody’s actions.

“It definitely wasn’t a threat. I don’t know if they would have received it differently if we would have said on a stick. We’re there chanting, using our voices,” Turner said.
...

Let's see what the Black Lives Matter organizer said again about the threats made by the protesters against police officers...

...
Black Lives Matter organizer Rashad Turner says there’s a big difference between rhetorical chanting and somebody’s actions.
...

minnesota.cbslocal.com...

Or what about ALL of the Black Lives Matter protesters who chanted in unison "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!.....



So yeah, left wing extremism does exist in groups like Black Lives Matter, and it is rampant, and the Obama administration is too busy labeling regular Americans as "right wing extremists" for believing abortion is murder. Because abortion is murder, it does not give the right to anyone to murder those who do this.

Anyway, meanwhile the Obama administration is trying to suppress the opinions, and views from Americans who lean to the right, we get groups committing violence, calling for violence, and these groups are not called out by either the Obama administration, nor left wing media sites like ATS officially.

a reply to: Grambler

This was a very well written and clear response.

I have read through this thread and while your post is unlikely to change the views of most posters on this thread I appreciate the response.

a reply to: Grambler

Funny reply, very funny indeed.

For starters you sold the official 9/11 narrative as a fact, regardless of all the evidence opposing your OT. And then you went completely out on a limb to state, that all cases of crimes against whites are actually acts of 'left-wing' terrorism in your universe.
Such a bright warm ray of light! And now you complain that nobody took your crapola seriously. Seriously?

Now thats some compelling spin-doctoring here! Completely Bollocks, but absolutely awesome. I'll give you that.

Thanks for making my day before it really started!

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Not only that, but ATS is parroting the claims from left wing sites like think progress, and West point which...

Wait... since when did West Point become left wing?

That's an insanely misinformed statement.

Since 9/11, there were 48 people killed in the US as a result of homegrown right wing terrorist attacks. In the same time frame, there were 45 people killed as a result of homegrown Jihadist attacks. Yet muslims make up around 1% of US population, while right wing recruiting pool (white people? christians? GOP supporters?) is much larger. This is a clear and very significant overrepresentation of US muslims in terrorism.

securitydata.newamerica.net...

More importantly, the share of muslims in US population doubled over the last decade and is still rising fast. That is what changed recently, and unless this trend is reversed, you can expect more homegrown attacks and more regular terrorist attacks occurring in the future. This is fairly analogous to situation in western Europe, by the way, where a similar transformation is happening but on an even larger scale.

Admitting what the problem is is the necessary first step towards a solution. And when expressed in per capita rate, muslims are much more dangerous than right wing terrorism. After all, thats one reason why middle east looks like it does, and such mentality wont change overnight..

Maybe allowing a fake right wing propaganda news network to spread fear, lies, misinformation and hate isn't such a good idea after all. You would think that would work really well as a way to bring people together. Maybe they just need to amp up the patriotism, condemn more muslims, liberals, immigrants, and unemployed people. Maybe that will help.

It's just so hard to understand how someone who listens to right wing propaganda could come away so hateful. Such a mystery no one saw coming.

originally posted by: ATSmediaPRO


Not worse but more prevalent.

The video and the op clearly states right wing terrorism is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism.

Grimpachi's graph shows attacks initiated by far-right group/individuals per year.

I read the study from the op. I would link again but I am on a mobile and I am terrible with it, but check for yourself the study claims around 650 have died since 1990 as a result of right wing terror. This is far less than 9/11 alone, which seems to disprove the videos claim.

Yes, a hate crime would be terrorism.

I'm pretty sure we already call these gangs. Which could be loosely labeled as terrorism but not so much.

:

OK if all hate crimes are terrorism why is black on white violence only loosely and not so much considered it. Regardless of semantics, once you see that this study uses this in its definition of terrorism it now is laughable to consider what it calls right wing terrorism a huge threat. Gang violence alone, which I guess would be considered left wing terror given this studies interpretation, is far more serious.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

First addressing 9/11, read my previous posts on this sight. I have many times expressed skepticism with the official story of 9/11. You can even see in my posts on this thread that I say all of these threats of terrorism are overblown and used to strip us of our rights.

I brought up 9/11 because the author of the study that the nlbs video US would consider this an act of Islamic terrorism. Also, despite problems I have with the 9/11 is, I still think there is a very good chance that radical Islam was involved but that is for another topic.

If you think 9/11 was shady, do you think the Oklahoma city bombing of other incidents of right wing terrorism cited in this study are legit? If so, why not criticize the video for pushing a false narrative from the get go?

As far as my definition of left wing terrorism, this isn't my interpretation, it is an extension of the studies author. He cites all hate crimes from whites against other races as right wing terrorism. I merely said if we do that, then we have to lable all black hate crimes as left wing terrorism.

a reply to: Grambler

Let's put 9/11 aside as long as we can't read the 28 censored Saudi Papers.

Your source is highly biased, but besides from getting into trumpet-sh!t the real problem with those statistics is the lack of all terror-related cases where nobody got hurt physically.
Here in Germany we have right-wingers marching up in front of asylum-seeker housings, yelling their usual crap and constantly creating an atmosphere of fear. Gangs can create a similar atmosphere with their demeanor, I know. But now ask yourself: do they intentionally terrorize families and little children at home, just for their colour and place of birth? Is that even remotely comparable? You'll catch my drift.

That being said, now take the sheer numbers regarding the violence from 9/11 onward and Joe's report is still spot on. Everybody knows about the victims of 9/11, but what many people are obviously not aware of is the rise of right-wing terror. You may be able to marginalize that, but why would you wanna do that? Just to make a point that is obviously moot?

Granted, in Germany we didn't have one victim of alleged Muslim terror yet. What we do have is hundreds of deads due to Neonazis and a big scandal (NSU), in which some state-actors were involved as well. That would be enough stuff for another episode, just to show you folks what actually happens on the other side of the great water.

a reply to: PublicOpinion
To start with I am not sure what you mean by my source is biased. Just about the entirety of my post was on the source from the op video. I agree that source does seem bias. It lists all instances of white hate criwithout right wing terrorism but not the reverse. The one link I did definitely has a horse in the race (as all sources do) but it just shows the FBI numbers for violent crime and I don't see how those numbers are biased.

As far as right wing groups terrorizing families without injury, I think that this does happen and is horrible. Groups like the kkk still preach hate and they should be shouted down whenever they preach hate. However, there credibility has declined so much that they are almost thought of a joke by everyone in this country. There is also groups on the black side that all reasonable people decry we hen they incite violence, like some of the black panthers.

However i don't see how you can say that this intimidation equates to terrorism like shooting up people in San Bernardino. In fact, racists whites that want things like segregation are shunned and laughed at, but a cursory look at campuses in the USA will show that it is the norm to bash white people blame all problems on them, and demand they be excluded from areas.

Yes gangs deliberately terrorize people. Not only that but they actually do kill many people. I don't know how anyone can consider white racists as terrorist, but not people of other color. Either you count both or neither. If you don't count hate crimes as terror, then the entire study in the video falls apart. If you count both, then you have to take into account the disproportionate amount of black crime against white people, which makes left wing terrorism worse.

a reply to: Grambler

To start with I am not sure what you mean by my source is biased

Of course you don't. Forget what you've posted, wasn't really interesting either. I am Not Sure and this is Idiocracy? Got me!

However i don't see how you can say that this intimidation equates to terrorism like shooting up people in San Bernardino.

All you're about to witness, is this nice Straw-Man ending our little chat. Have a hard time finding that in my posts, context is your friend.

Anyway... stay a while and listen if ya like.