• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

"Islamic Extremism" vs "Right-wing Terrorists"

n10sive

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Location
NorNev
Moto(s)
F850GS
BARF perks
AMA #: 2822359
:laughing

Poor 2SYS. He is now higher on the government watch list than a muslim.

DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat

I guess there is no problem calling someone a terrorist...as long as they are not in your party. Not long ago you were "un-American" if you didn't follow the governments idology-du-jour. Now you're a "terrorist/extremist" for basically being a libertarian? :wtf

Kiss liberty good bye, as soon any form of protest will be met with an orange jumpsuit and a trip to a warm climate.
 
the flavor of the month, call anyone opposed to you a terrorist.
They are probably groups or individuals that are brain storming plots for violence against their "oppressors" but most will fail pathetically.
 
Next thing you know Obama will be turning the IRS on his political enemies...wait wat?
 
I guess saying "Islamic Extremism" is forbidden by Obummer.

But "Domestic Right Wing" extremism is ok to say.

Never mind that just because someone believes in "personal sovereignty" doesn't necessarily make them right-wing.

And never mind that domestic LEFT wing extremism ALSO exists.
 
And never mind that domestic LEFT wing extremism ALSO exists.

ding ding ding! WINNER!

WTO protests, Occupy, Hands-up, PETA etc all known to use violence and are more left-wing in nature (guess they soon forget all the looted and burned businesses). But yeah...label it "right wing" just to further polarize the country.
 
Or my favorite word, "militia"

All those crazy red-staters, they've got AR's and camo, yo!
 
ding ding ding! WINNER!

WTO protests, Occupy, Hands-up, PETA etc all known to use violence and are more left-wing in nature (guess they soon forget all the looted and burned businesses). But yeah...label it "right wing" just to further polarize the country.

The real distinction is that so-called left-wing groups rarely oppose government while right-wing groups sometimes do. It's just a case of the government looking out for its own interest.
 
The real distinction is that so-called left-wing groups rarely oppose government while right-wing groups sometimes do. It's just a case of the government looking out for its own interest.

you're right...left wing groups usually want more government control of our lives not less. Ooops...there I go...being a terrorist again :laughing
 
It is the truth. Sorry it offends you.

Thinking outloud: Would and Islamic terror threat from in the united states be considered right wing?

The United States faces a far greater threat from homegrown “lone wolf” terrorists than jihadists, according to a newly released report — but political concerns prevent authorities from tackling them head-on.

The Department of Homeland Security essentially disbanded its team devoted to non-Islamic domestic terrorism in early 2009 over complaints that President Barack Obama was targeting all conservatives and military veterans, rather than radical elements plotting violence.

That leaves Americans vulnerable to terrorist attacks carried out by U.S. citizens, according to a report issued Thursday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


The report – “Age of the Wolf: A Study of the Rise of Lone Wolf and Leaderless Resistance Terrorism” – found that right-wing radicals or homegrown jihadists carried out violent attacks every 34 days, on average, between April 1, 2009, and Feb. 1, 2015.

Many of these attacks are carried out by individuals who sought no assistance and told no one else of their plans – making them particularly difficult to detect until they act.

“What keeps me up at night is these guys – the lone wolf,” said Chief Art Acevado, of Austin, Texas, police.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/...acks-by-lone-wolf-right-wing-radicals-report/
 
Last edited:
It is the truth. Sorry it offends you.

Thinking outloud: Would and Islamic terror threat from in the united states be considered right wing?



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/...acks-by-lone-wolf-right-wing-radicals-report/

What is the distribution between right wing radicals and the jihad radicals? Are they considered the same?
The quote seems misleading as (at least me) the aims of typical home grown right wing wackos are quite different than radical dirka dirka style radicals.
 
What is the distribution between right wing radicals and the jihad radicals? Are they considered the same?
The quote seems misleading as (at least me) the aims of typical home grown right wing wackos are quite different than radical dirka dirka style radicals.

I agree, it does seem to be lumping both together, and I think this admittedly left leaning website is framing it up with a slant. However, I am not sure it really matters if there is a distinction.

They are both extremists. You generally do not find many left extremists causes killing folks. Certainly destruction of property etc, but not as many bombings and shootings.
 
It is the truth. Sorry it offends you.

Nutjobs exist everywhere. Most of them are isolationists too. Isolationism generally means "get off my lawn" and all that other baggage that goes with this like "don't interfere with my drive home", "don't make me pay taxes" etc.

The TRUTH is, these people are not "right-wing" by modern definition (religious/conservative) but somewhere in another realm entirely. The left tends to place anyone or view they don't like to their "right" making them "right wing". The report also completely ignores mental illness and magically lumps them into the right wing category. Is this a bit disingenuous? Example, the guy who walked into the iHop in Carson City and shot several people was mentally insane (proven before hand). Did we know what he planned beforehand? Was he "easy to track?" The people who shot up the walmart in Vegas (used as a stat in the report)...were they "jihadists" or just mentally ill?

The fact that this article uses inflammatory language (which seems to be a common tactic) like "homegrown Jihadists" is a clear example of the reports bias. Your link is even inflammatory is that is says "conservative media tantrum" which means its really not worth reading. Sorry if that offends you.

As far as "these jihadists are not easy to track", seems like an open door to increase surveillance against the population which has already been shut down by our constitution. Sorry the left is having such a tantrum over that, and if you agree with the premise that we need more government to keep oversight over us due to statistical insignificant threats, then maybe we are looking for the terrorists in the wrong direction.
 
When they said "right wing" terror I thought they were referring to McVeigh-like rogues.
 
Nutjobs exist everywhere. Most of them are isolationists too. Isolationism generally means "get off my lawn" and all that other baggage that goes with this like "don't interfere with my drive home", "don't make me pay taxes" etc.

The TRUTH is, these people are not "right-wing" by modern definition (religious/conservative) but somewhere in another realm entirely. The left tends to place anyone or view they don't like to their "right" making them "right wing". The report also completely ignores mental illness and magically lumps them into the right wing category. Is this a bit disingenuous? Example, the guy who walked into the iHop in Carson City and shot several people was mentally insane (proven before hand). Did we know what he planned beforehand? Was he "easy to track?" The people who shot up the walmart in Vegas (used as a stat in the report)...were they "jihadists" or just mentally ill?

The fact that this article uses inflammatory language (which seems to be a common tactic) like "homegrown Jihadists" is a clear example of the reports bias. Your link is even inflammatory is that is says "conservative media tantrum" which means its really not worth reading. Sorry if that offends you.

As far as "these jihadists are not easy to track", seems like an open door to increase surveillance against the population which has already been shut down by our constitution. Sorry the left is having such a tantrum over that, and if you agree with the premise that we need more government to keep oversight over us due to statistical insignificant threats, then maybe we are looking for the terrorists in the wrong direction.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Some of it not so much. None of it offends me.

I don't label myself a liberal, even though I am sure I fit in certain regards. In others not so much. I also don;t think liberal is bad word. I do however think getting obsessed so much over a team think that you are offended by these articles is kind of an issue on both sides.

I already admitted I thought the article was slanted. That website is definitely left leaning.

However they say in the article
found that right-wing radicals or homegrown jihadists

Not that one is the other. Even if the headline was misleading and antagonistic. What else is new though?

I will however say that certain types of people tend to get so upset about their beliefs be it religion, politics, or a mix of both that they tend to act out in dangerous ways. In that regard I do not see a difference between a Timothy McVeigh, or a Islamic jihadist.

Like I said, it isn't far fetched to lump an anti government militia man or lone wolf together with an anti american/government jihadist.
 
Nutjobs exist everywhere. Most of them are isolationists too. Isolationism generally means "get off my lawn" and all that other baggage that goes with this like "don't interfere with my drive home", "don't make me pay taxes" etc.......
{edited here}
Nicely stated. Thanks for the fresh air.
 
Back
Top