Current Events > What ideology is most responsible for terrorism in the USA?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I had a user on here telling me I was wrong about this the other day. The fact was that he was actually wrong, and ghosted away after being presented with evidence. I will present evidence of both: What ideology is responsible for terrorism more than the other in the United States?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism
---

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/75469651

Right wing terrorism if you conveniently ignore 9/11
---

foreveraIone posted...

Right wing terrorism if you conveniently ignore 9/11

9/11 was right wing as fuck.
---

idiology
---

Amputation posted...

9/11 was right wing as fuck.

*Shrugs*

You might be right. But it was a foreign attack and doesn't reallt fall into our usual left vs. right debate. If you count Americans only I am well aware that right-wing terrorists like Roof are a bigger threat.
---

foreveraIone posted...

Amputation posted...

9/11 was right wing as fuck.

*Shrugs*

You might be right. But it was a foreign attack and doesn't reallt fall into our usual left vs. right debate. If you count Americans only I am well aware that right-wing terrorists like Roof are a bigger threat.

I agree, statistically they are. 9/11 is part of that, though. There was nothing leftist about the 9/11 attackers or their motives. The exact opposite, actually.
---

Well let's not discuss it. Some right-wingers might be wrongfully thought to be terrorists for sharing some of the same beliefs.
---

shnangyboos posted...

Well let's not discuss it. Some right-wingers might be wrongfully thought to be terrorists for sharing some of the same beliefs.

What?
---

Amputation posted...

foreveraIone posted...

Right wing terrorism if you conveniently ignore 9/11

9/11 was right wing as fuck.

no it wasn't
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

It's nowhere near that simple, though many will use it as an excuse to simply bash whatever political side they don't like.

For example, the right-wing is much more likely to criticize Islam and Islamism, yet when terror happens in the name of Islam, it's still deemed right wing by people who are aiming to (and rather unintelligently, though it is all about identity politics with said people) dump it off on being associated with a wing in politics.

Of course, it's not as simple as pointing at something like this (especially when they would be considered the opposite in said country) and just saying "omg right-wing! right wing!", as the people who believe and follow Islamism couldn't give a crap what western people think of it, let alone what category they want to dump them in with usual regressive identity politics.

This entire statement has nothing to do with the question.
---

MakoReizei posted...

Amputation posted...

foreveraIone posted...

Right wing terrorism if you conveniently ignore 9/11

9/11 was right wing as fuck.

no it wasn't

Lol, how was it not?
---

Amputation posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

It's nowhere near that simple, though many will use it as an excuse to simply bash whatever political side they don't like.

For example, the right-wing is much more likely to criticize Islam and Islamism, yet when terror happens in the name of Islam, it's still deemed right wing by people who are aiming to (and rather unintelligently, though it is all about identity politics with said people) dump it off on being associated with a wing in politics.

Of course, it's not as simple as pointing at something like this (especially when they would be considered the opposite in said country) and just saying "omg right-wing! right wing!", as the people who believe and follow Islamism couldn't give a crap what western people think of it, let alone what category they want to dump them in with usual regressive identity politics.

This entire statement has nothing to do with the question.

and your gimmick has nothing to do with honest discussion, so eat it clown
---

i dunno what the attacks had to do with limited government or laissez faire economics
---

NonDairyMiltank posted...

Amputation posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

It's nowhere near that simple, though many will use it as an excuse to simply bash whatever political side they don't like.

For example, the right-wing is much more likely to criticize Islam and Islamism, yet when terror happens in the name of Islam, it's still deemed right wing by people who are aiming to (and rather unintelligently, though it is all about identity politics with said people) dump it off on being associated with a wing in politics.

Of course, it's not as simple as pointing at something like this (especially when they would be considered the opposite in said country) and just saying "omg right-wing! right wing!", as the people who believe and follow Islamism couldn't give a crap what western people think of it, let alone what category they want to dump them in with usual regressive identity politics.

This entire statement has nothing to do with the question.

and your gimmick has nothing to do with honest discussion, so eat it clown

My gimmick is actually honest as fuck: call people out for the shit they have said and immortalize it in meme form.
---

MakoReizei posted...

i dunno what the attacks had to do with limited government or laissez faire economics

The fact that you think these things are what separates left wingers from right wingers compels me to not engage you.
---

Amputation posted...

MakoReizei posted...

i dunno what the attacks had to do with limited government or laissez faire economics

The fact that you think these things are what separates left wingers from right wingers compels me to not engage you.

okay?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

This entire statement has nothing to do with the question.

It has quite a lot to do with it if we ignore the usual (and very uninspired) right-wing bashing in this topic - which of course does invalidate the topic as a whole.

Maintaining (and lumping in) the right with something like Islamism is utterly pointless, as the "right" already are far more vocal against it than the left.

NonDairyMiltank posted...

and your gimmick has nothing to do with honest discussion, so eat it clown

Precisely, he's just after cheap shots, nothing even remotely intelligent let alone honest about it.

I didn't even bring up Islam in the first post. Try again.
---

MakoReizei posted...

Amputation posted...

MakoReizei posted...

i dunno what the attacks had to do with limited government or laissez faire economics

The fact that you think these things are what separates left wingers from right wingers compels me to not engage you.

okay?

Every right winger I know in the USA says they are for limited government, but their wishes, demands, and votes say otherwise.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

I didn't even bring up Islam in the first post. Try again.

Deliberately being obtuse doesn't invalidate valid criticism, unless one is to believe that you're only accountable for opening posts. Now you certainly did mention something drowned in Islam in the 4th post, pretending that because that wasn't directly quoted means you can pull "try again" (not a defense) shows gimmicks that rely entirely on emotional e-arguments, which isn't all that shocking given the mentality.

Amputation posted...

Every right winger I know in the USA says they are for limited government, but their wishes, demands, and votes say otherwise.

-Gavirulax- posted...

It has quite a lot to do with it if we ignore the usual (and very uninspired) right-wing bashing in this topic - which of course does invalidate the topic as a whole.

Islam was only addressed because it was brought up. I could have went this entire topic without it. Nobody was being obtuse - you're just looking for a scapegoat for your right-wing beliefs being intertwined with the majority of terrorism in the USA. The best way to do that is "but.. Islam!"

It's like the "but, Hillary!" or "But, Obama!" for Trump defenders.

*eats the red herring*
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

you're just looking for a scapegoat for your right-wing beliefs

What exactly are you basing this on? I'm actually curious, the most simple of thought processes are often given the best explanations.

The fact that you are centered on Islam in your responses. I wasn't even considering that in the original post and did not bring it up until questioned about it.
---

MakoReizei posted...

i dunno what the attacks had to do with limited government or laissez faire economics

---

One isn't worse than the other, it's people going to both extremes that causes contention.

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

I wasn't even considering that in the original post and did not bring it up until questioned about it.

But you did bring it up, correct?
The relevance of who brought what up is lost on you, let's try something else then.
Even if you didn't bring it up, and my post contained nothing else but "Islam", did you seriously think that making a topic about terrorism in the United States wouldn't somehow be linked to the actual ideology behind the worst terror attack in the country's history?
It is very easy to get caught on simple things such as this, I would encourage you to expand your thinking beyond right-wing bashing.

I didn't bring it up intially, I responded.

Anyways, all Islamic terror in America is right-wing; religiously motivated in an attempt to modify progressive behavior.

You aren't helping the case I think you are trying to make.
---

Woodger posted...

One isn't worse than the other, it's people going to both extremes that causes contention.

The question is which ideology is most prevalent in terror.
---

Article published from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says."
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

Anyways, all Islamic terror in America is right-wing; religiously motivated in an attempt to modify progressive behavior.

You aren't helping the case I think you are trying to make.

The only point I've made has been spelled out (and re-quoted by myself), more than once. I didn't expect that you would change the right-wing bashing however there is something to be said for naming a behavior.

It's not "right-wing bashing". It's an absolute fact that RW's are responsible for the most violent terror incidents in the United States.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

Amputation posted...

Anyways, all Islamic terror in America is right-wing; religiously motivated in an attempt to modify progressive behavior.

You aren't helping the case I think you are trying to make.

The only point I've made has been spelled out (and re-quoted by myself), more than once. I didn't expect that you would change the right-wing bashing however there is something to be said for naming a behavior.

It's not "right-wing bashing". It's an absolute fact that RW's are responsible for the most violent terror incidents in the United States.

In a very simple world that would mean something I guess...
Indeed, right wing extremists come in all shades, genders and colors, white, brown, yellow, black and from all walks of life (straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, etc).

Thankfully some of us can differentiate an angry Christian who blows up a place because of abortion and a Muslim who shoots 49 LGBT members because he thinks ISIS is the truest form his religion takes because they literally follow the Quran and Hadiths and thus, being a martyr for the cause will equate to instant paradise as per the teachings.

While the question initially posed is both easy and expected (no great surprise), we have the luxury of delving much further into what makes people tick, which in the majority of terrorist cases (especially by fatality), is religion. Thus dissecting said religion and having as the foolish leader of the UK says "embarrassing conversations" (about text people quite literally live their lives by, as crazy as it may sound) is indeed necessary.

Yeah, not sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe I'm just tired, but it appears you are proving my point whilst.. Arguing it? The examples you gave to "differentiate" were both examples of RW terrorism.
---