ADL Report on extremist violence

[JosephZ]

And you realize just because he complains about these things doesn't mean they motivated his actions.

After all, none of his victims were black or, to my knowledge, gay.

That wasn't all he said over the many years he posted on alt-right and right-wing forums. He also praised President Trump and his immigration policies, and even had "Build Wall" marked on his left leg.

Faint ink markings and a symbol are on the skin, generally oriented upside-down, as follows:
1. On the left, upper thigh are markings that appear as "SS", "AMOG" and a swastika symbol.
2. Above the left knee is a marking that appears as "BUILD WALL".
3. In the right groin is a marking that appears as "your home".
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/Atchison-Autopsy-Report.pdf

Both of his victims were Hispanic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There have been numerous plots uncovered where right-wing extremists planned on using weapons of mass destruction to cause a mass casualty event. Just because they haven't succeed yet doesn't mean they're not trying.

It's not possible to measure "potential" danger based on things that haven't happened.

The entries I included in my list came straight from the START Global Terrorism Database. If they are on the list and labeled as being right-wing extremists, then experts agreed that this is what they were.

You keep saying "experts" and keep failing to provide any.

Here is the bio of the director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)

Where's his quote claiming that right wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic extremists?

The Department of Homeland Security is a large organization and operates Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, TSA, Counterterrorism, and U.S. Immigration.

DHS actually has quite a few counter terrorism experts in their ranks.

What's the name of their counter terrorism agency?

You provided testimony from *snip*

Experts. I provided testimony from the two agencies that fight terrorism at home and abroad.

No, the Icel movement is more complex than that.

No...the only requirements are that you want to have sex but don't. Incels can be female, liberal, LGBT, etc.

What makes you feel that everyone from both groups aren't capable of doing harm? Are you capable of doing harm to others? I'll answer this one for you, of course you are, just as I am.

I can't measure how dangerous a group might be based on things they haven't done....neither can you.

That's your opinion and I have no problem with that


As expected, the ADL definition is in line with those I provided.



Misogyny is an element of the alt-right, so Incels would fit the above definition.

The ADL definition makes no mention of misogyny....which can be found anywhere, not just the alt right.

In an Incel forum

You couldn't find one either, huh? I guess it doesn't exist then.

Yes, there are plenty of people who are involuntarily celibate that don't hold extremist views.

Then I guess being an incel doesn't automatically make you an extremist. We can say the same about racists, people who oppose immigration, people who oppose abortion, etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That wasn't all he said over the many years he posted on alt-right and right-wing forums. He also praised President Trump and his immigration policies, and even had "Build Wall" marked on his left leg.

Faint ink markings and a symbol are on the skin, generally oriented upside-down, as follows:
1. On the left, upper thigh are markings that appear as "SS", "AMOG" and a swastika symbol.
2. Above the left knee is a marking that appears as "BUILD WALL".
3. In the right groin is a marking that appears as "your home".
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/Atchison-Autopsy-Report.pdf

Both of his victims were Hispanic.

And? He never said "I'm going to target Hispanics because of my extremist views!"

 

[JosephZ]

It's not possible to measure "potential" danger based on things that haven't happened.

Actually historical data is a key component in terrorism risk assessment. It's not only used in counter terrorism, but insurance companies also use it to determine premiums and areas of coverage for travel, kidnapping, and terrorism insurance. Knowing that certain groups or individuals in the past have shown an intent to carry out attacks and have possessed the means to do it, confirms the potential danger.

You keep saying "experts" and keep failing to provide any.

I thought when I said that I got the list from the START Global Terrorism Database, you would naturally assume that I was talking about the experts who did the investigations and research in putting the database together.

Where's his quote claiming that right wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic extremists?

I doubt he has ever said that verbatim, but did find this quote that suggests that the threat from each group is equal.

"It’s as if you go to the doctor and he tells you you’re at risk for diabetes and heart disease, you can’t deal with only one issue and feel good about your health. You have to address both. After all, both groups, have the same behavior, and look to accomplish similar goals: to polarize society, to intimidate communities, to initiate violent acts." -- William Braniff

What's the name of their counter terrorism agency?

The Department of Homeland Security came about because of the events that took place on 9/11. Counter terrorism is at the heart of the Department of Homeland Security.

Our Mission

The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.
Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security

Experts. I provided testimony from the two agencies that fight terrorism at home and abroad.

Those are heads of government agencies. Neither of those testimonies came from experts in fighting terrorism.

Christopher A. Wray FBI director since August 2, 2017. Majored in Law and specialized in white collar and internal investigations.
Christopher A. Wray

Mike Pompeo CIA Director since January 23, 2017. Majored in mechanical engineering.
Mike Pompeo — Central Intelligence Agency

These men hold politically appointed positions and will have a bias towards the current administrations policies. It's the experts who have been criticizing these agencies in recent years for not giving more attention to right-wing extremism.

No...the only requirements are that you want to have sex but don't. Incels can be female, liberal, LGBT, etc.

The original intent of the Incel movement was to be an inclusive group for people of all genders. Here is where it all started over 20 years ago. Involuntary Celibacy Article

It has since been hijacked by extremists.

The ADL definition makes no mention of misogyny....which can be found anywhere, not just the alt right.

Here is a portion of the definition:

In the United States, the extreme right consists primarily of two large, slightly overlapping spheres. In one sphere is the white supremacist movement, including its various submovements, such as neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and the alt right, among others.

Among others would include misogyny/Incels.

You couldn't find one either, huh? I guess it doesn't exist then.

Try Google.

Then I guess being an incel doesn't automatically make you an extremist. We can say the same about racists, people who oppose immigration, people who oppose abortion, etc.

This is true, except for racists. Someone who discriminates against, shows prejudice against another person, or feels they are superior to another person only because they are of a different race is an extremist. Even then, those who hold the other views you mentioned, and even racists, who become extremists will never commit an act of violence.

And? He never said "I'm going to target Hispanics because of my extremist views!"

I haven't read everything he ever posted online, but based on what I have read from him, he was clearly a right-wing extremist who planned in advance to carryout a school shooting, and since his victims belonged to a group he clearly despised, it's obvious what motivated him to carry out an attack. That event should definitely be included in the list of right-wing attacks.

Unfortunately there is going to be another attack in the US carried out by an extremist at some point in the future. Since this is a certainty, who do you believe is most likely to carry out the next attack? A right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, or an Islamic extremists?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually historical data is a key component in terrorism risk assessment. It's not only used in counter terrorism, but insurance companies also use it to determine premiums and areas of coverage for travel, kidnapping, and terrorism insurance. Knowing that certain groups or individuals in the past have shown an intent to carry out attacks and have possessed the means to do it, confirms the potential danger.

Read what you wrote here...

Because you argued against counting 9/11...for some nonsense reason about it distorting the results. Yet, here you are arguing that we should consider failed and foiled plots that never happened to get an accurate understanding of the threat lol.

And you have the nerve to sit there and call the experts biased.

I thought when I said that I got the list from the START Global Terrorism Database, you would naturally assume that I was talking about the experts who did the investigations and research in putting the database together.

What experts? College students?

I doubt he has ever said that verbatim, but did find this quote that suggests that the threat from each group is equal.

"It’s as if you go to the doctor and he tells you you’re at risk for diabetes and heart disease, you can’t deal with only one issue and feel good about your health. You have to address both. After all, both groups, have the same behavior, and look to accomplish similar goals: to polarize society, to intimidate communities, to initiate violent acts." -- William Braniff

Context?

The Department of Homeland Security came about because of the events that took place on 9/11. Counter terrorism is at the heart of the Department of Homeland Security.

Our Mission

The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.
Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security

View attachment 250901

So no counter terrorism agency then.

Those are heads of government agencies. Neither of those testimonies came from experts in fighting terrorism.

That's what those agencies do. Those foiled attacks you mentioned earlier? Did you look at who foiled them? It's not DHS.

The original intent of the Incel movement was to be an inclusive group for people of all genders. Here is where it all started over 20 years ago. Involuntary Celibacy Article

It has since been hijacked by extremists.

Proof?

Here is a portion of the definition:

In the United States, the extreme right consists primarily of two large, slightly overlapping spheres. In one sphere is the white supremacist movement, including its various submovements, such as neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and the alt right, among others.

Among others would include misogyny/Incels.

Only in your imagination.

Try Google.

I did...I couldn't find any ideology.

Neither could you.

This is true, except for racists. Someone who discriminates against, shows prejudice against another person, or feels they are superior to another person only because they are of a different race is an extremist.

No....those are just racists. That's literally the definition of racist.

Even then, those who hold the other views you mentioned, and even racists, who become extremists will never commit an act of violence.


I haven't read everything he ever posted online, but based on what I have read from him, he was clearly a right-wing extremist who planned in advance to carryout a school shooting, and since his victims belonged to a group he clearly despised, it's obvious what motivated him to carry out an attack. That event should definitely be included in the list of right-wing attacks.

What group is that? Former schoolmates?

Unfortunately there is going to be another attack in the US carried out by an extremist at some point in the future. Since this is a certainty, who do you believe is most likely to carry out the next attack? A right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, or an Islamic extremists?

What difference does it make? What kind of sick guessing game are you trying to play?

 

[JosephZ]

Read what you wrote here...

Because you argued against counting 9/11...for some nonsense reason about it distorting the results.

The reason 9/11 is excluded is because 98% of all deaths from terrorism on US soil from 1970 to 2017 occurred on that single day. It was also the only time in US history that a terrorist attack caused such a high number of casualties. To give some perspective on how rare the attack on 9/11 was, there were only 17 attacks in the entire world between 1970 and 2017 that claimed more than 300 lives, and none of those were even close to having the same death toll.

9/11 was a Black Swan event, an outlier. An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a random sample from a population. You don't include an abnormal occurrence in a data set to determine risk because you already know that it doesn't reflect what is normally expected.

Let's say you lived in a town that averaged 9 murders a year over a 50 year period. The demographics of that town are 45% White, 45% Black, and 10% Hispanic.

Murders in that town have historically been divided equally among the demographic make up of the community. On average there were roughly 4 murders committed by Whites each year, 4 by Blacks, and 1 by Hispanics.

One day a Hispanic man walked into a restaurant randomly shooting at people and setting it on fire killing 250 people. Would that town be any more dangerous to live in than it was prior to this murderous rampage? Would that one event now make Hispanic population more dangerous than that of other races in the town?

If you wanted to find a true and accurate risk of being murdered in that town by Hispanics, would it be fair to include the events of that day to make that determination since it was an extremely rare and unusual event rather than the more common but less spectacular ones that have taken place over the past 50 years? Of course not because outlier events don't necessarily reflect what is generally true, therefore, they aren't very useful in making such determinations.

If you want to create a report on the threats from right-wing and Islamic extremism, then you would want to base your report on what is generally true of extremists. This is exactly why you see study after study excluding the events of 9/11 to make a comparison between right-wing terrorism and Islamic terrorism because the events of that day went above and beyond what is generally true about extremist attacks in the US. Now if someone has an anti-Islamic bias, then they would include the events of 9/11 to make the threat from Islamic extremist appear to be much worse than it actually is.

Yet, here you are arguing that we should consider failed and foiled plots that never happened to get an accurate understanding of the threat lol. And you have the nerve to sit there and call the experts biased.

How exactly is that showing a bias? Failed and foiled plots occur in both groups.

What experts? College students?

Here is some information on START from their website.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism—better known as START—is a university-based research and education center comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. START experts apply a range of research methods to the exploration of these questions in order to deliver findings based on the best available open-source evidence and data. At the heart of START's work are the principles that the research it is conducting must be both scientifically rigorous and directly relevant to homeland security professionals.

START is committed to the widespread dissemination of its research findings not only to homeland security professionals through tailored research, education and training efforts, but also to students of all levels and to the general public. START has developed educational materials and programs specifically designed for instructors and students at the secondary, university, and graduate levels. Educational resources available through START include relevant teaching tools and a range of unique data sources that can be integrated into an array of courses to deepen students' understanding of the dynamics of terrorism. START also has internships and funding opportunities available to undergraduate and graduate students engaged in terrorism research.

In addition, START has developed educational programs, including an Undergraduate Global Terrorism Minor Program available to students at the University of Maryland and an online Graduate Certificate in Terrorism Analysis Program, available to qualified students around the world.

Since its launch in 2005, START has been headed by Dr. Gary LaFree, a professor of criminology at the University of Maryland, and START's work is managed by a small staff of terrorism experts and university administrators at Maryland, who work closely with the collection of scholars and students that comprise the START Consortium.

Who makes the decisions about what to include as an incident?

The basic criteria were formulated by the GTD Advisory Board, and were reflected in the data collection process. In practice, individual data collectors decide whether a case they are working on fulfills these criteria, and this decision is reviewed by GTD supervisory staff. In cases where determination is difficult, the decision is made by the senior GTD management. If uncertainty persists, exceptionally difficult cases can be referred to the GTD Advisory Board for discussion and adjudication.

START.umd.edu |

There are no college students making up the supervisory staff or the advisory board. It's the experts who decide which incidents finally make it into the Global Terrorism Database.

If START was not reliable, do you think the US State Department would use them in comprising their annual Country Reports on Terrorism?

From the State Department's website:

Title 22, Section 2656f of the United States Code requires the Department of State to include in its annual report on terrorism "to the extent practicable, complete statistical information on the number of individuals, including United States citizens and dual nationals, killed, injured, or kidnapped by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year." The definition found in Title 22 of the U.S. Code provides that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Beginning in June 2012, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) contracted with the U.S. Department of State to collect a Statistical Annex dataset and provide a report to include in the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism. Since 2001, START has maintained the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), an unclassified event database compiled from information in open-source reports of terrorist attacks. The first version of the GTD was released in 2006 and included information on worldwide terrorism from 1970 to 1997. START routinely updates and improves the accuracy of the data.

The GTD research staff continually evaluates and enhances the methodology to promote comprehensive, accurate, and systematic data collection. In particular, in 2012 START developed data collection tools that expand the number of sources available for analysis and automate the selection of potentially relevant articles from which GTD staff identify unique attacks and record their specific details.

Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism: Annex of Statistical Information

Context?

Does Charlottesville horror make the case for a U.S. domestic terrorism law?

So no counter terrorism agency then.

The Department of Homeland Security is one big counter terrorism agency. There is a lot more to counter terrorism than arresting terrorists.

Here is a flow chart of the departments found in the DHS. Within these departments, there are even more sub-departments.

The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, ICE, USCIS, US Coast Guard, Secret Service, and TSA all have counter terrorism divisions.

The link below is an older report, but it discusses some of the counter terrorism capabilities of the DHS.
https://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/091007chertoff.pdf

That's what those agencies do.

Yes, that's what those agencies do, but that doesn't necessarily make the person heading the agency an expert in violent extremism or counter terrorism. The bios of the directors of the FBI and the CIA show that neither have experience in those fields. They hold appointed positions, they didn't move up the ranks because of their experience and expertise to become heads of these agencies.

It would be the same as a plumber with no background in law enforcement or firearms experience running for sheriff in my home county in NC and winning the election. He would go from being a plumber in the county to being the chief law enforcement officer. He's now in charge of a large team of experienced law enforcement officers and a variety of law enforcement departments from investigations, forensics, intelligence, to patrol. He can carry a gun and has the power to arrest people, but being sheriff still doesn't make him an expert in law enforcement, firearms, or any of the other departments he would be overseeing.

Those foiled attacks you mentioned earlier? Did you look at who foiled them? It's not DHS.

Do you not think the DHS had a hand in many of those foiled plots? Counter terrorism involves a consorted effort of many government and non-government agencies and individuals.

Proof?

Woman behind 'incel' says angry men hijacked her word 'as a weapon of war'

Only in your imagination.

I guess it's also in the imagination of the experts who decide to include incidents involving Incels as right-wing attacks and law makers in Canada who decided to Include misogyny/Incels in the definition of right-wing extremists.

I did...I couldn't find any ideology.

Neither could you.

You can Google Incel and a Wikipedia article should be at the top. That would be a good place to start as there are several sources cited.

Ideology
Many incel communities are characterized by resentment, self-pity,[10] misogyny, misanthropy, narcissism, and racism.[1][8][10][12][37][25][26][36][41]... Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology.[51][52] Other concepts that incels may believe in include female hypergamy.... Incel communities are a part of the broader manosphere.[2][61][62] According to The New York Times, involuntary celibacy is an adaptation of the idea of "male supremacy".[63] The Southern Poverty Law Center described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem", which they began including in their list of hate groups in 2018.[16] The New York Times wrote that "the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people—some celibate, some not—who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights".
Incel - Wikipedia

No....those are just racists. That's literally the definition of racist.

Yes it is. Don't you also believe that a person who feels they are superior to another because of their race or a person who discriminates against another person because they are a different race holds an extreme position? It's certainly not normal.

What group is that? Former schoolmates?

Immigrants and Hispanics.

What difference does it make? What kind of sick guessing game are you trying to play?

It wasn't a game, it was to see how or if you would answer the question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The reason 9/11 is excluded is because 98% of all deaths from terrorism on US soil from 1970 to 2017 occurred on that single day.

Or to put it in simple terms....Islamic extremists are guilty of 98% of all terrorist related deaths on US soil.

Yet here you are arguing that right wing extremism is "just as dangerous".

9/11 was a Black Swan event, an outlier. An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a random sample from a population. You don't include an abnormal occurrence in a data set to determine risk because you already know that it doesn't reflect what is normally expected.

You don't include events that didn't happen when determining risk. If I were trying to determine how risky it was to drive a car....I can't include all the times someone "almost" crashed and died. There's simply no way to determine the danger of events that never happened.

Let's say you lived in a town that averaged 9 murders a year over a 50 year period. The demographics of that town are 45% White, 45% Black, and 10% Hispanic.

Murders in that town have historically been divided equally among the demographic make up of the community. On average there were roughly 4 murders committed by Whites each year, 4 by Blacks, and 1 by Hispanics.

One day a Hispanic man walked into a restaurant randomly shooting at people and setting it on fire killing 250 people. Would that town be any more dangerous to live in than it was prior to this murderous rampage? Would that one event now make Hispanic population more dangerous than that of other races in the town?

If you wanted to find a true and accurate risk of being murdered in that town by Hispanics, would it be fair to include the events of that day to make that determination since it was an extremely rare and unusual event rather than the more common but less spectacular ones that have taken place over the past 50 years? Of course not because outlier events don't necessarily reflect what is generally true, therefore, they aren't very useful in making such determinations.

This is a terrible analogy. I'll give you a better one.

Let's imagine that there's a tiny nation of 1 million people. In that nation, 3 extremist groups are actively using violence to further an agenda. In one 10 year period....

Group #1 has committed 12 attacks....killed about 50 people....and injured 200.

Group #2 has committed 50 attacks....but only managed to kill 25 people....and injured about 100.

Group #3 has committed only 1 attack....but because it was well planned, and highly effective....they managed to 100,000 people and injured 200,000 people.

If you were in charge of this tiny nation (let's say you were the king) and you had an agency devoted to stopping these extremists....which of the three groups would you hace them focus on? Group 1, 2, or 3?

Keep in mind, the agency has limited resources....so they cannot possibly track every member of every group all the time. You could, of course, tell the agency to split their efforts evenly....or you could have them prioritize one group over the others. I'll also add that a certain number of the population will call you "Group#3 phobic" if you choose to focus on them because their attack was a "black swan" event and is an outlier if you compare all the attacks together.

If you want to create a report on the threats from right-wing and Islamic extremism, then you would want to base your report on what is generally true of extremists.

I disagree. There's no point in lumping them all together and pretending they're basically the same thing. You've got one group that consistently does more damage and killing per attack, a group that is better coordinated, better funded, and generally more effective in their methods.

To sit there and lump it in with a bunch of loosely associated people with no real agenda, commit poorly planned and poorly executed attacks, and generally fail far more than the effective group of violent extremists....simply because they're all extremists....is the fallacy in logic here.

Yes, they may all be extremists who commit violence...but that doesn't make them equally dangerous.

This is exactly why you see study after study excluding the events of 9/11 to make a comparison between right-wing terrorism and Islamic terrorism because the events of that day went above and beyond what is generally true about extremist attacks in the US. Now if someone has an anti-Islamic bias, then they would include the events of 9/11 to make the threat from Islamic extremist appear to be much worse than it actually is.

People who study what the average extremist attack looks like aren't operating under the same considerations as those who actually fight terrorism and have a sworn duty to protect the American people.

You need to realize that those who actually fight terrorism, who actually are tasked with saving lives, know who the biggest threats are and they pursue those threats. They aren't doing it because they dislike Islam....they aren't doing it because the president says "I want you to ignore these people....and go after these people because I hate them."

How exactly is that showing a bias? Failed and foiled plots occur in both groups.

Because you cannot accurately assess the damage of a failed attack. I already showed that Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than right wing extremists and I used the exact same list you did. They kill and injure far far more people. You're padding the stats because of your personal biases. You're trying to include events that should be considered as hate crimes....not extremist/terrorist attacks. When I dismissed those examples...you decided to try and include attacks that never happened to prop up your argument.

Here is some information on START from their website.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism—better known as START—is a university-based research and education center comprised of an international network of scholars

Here's the definition of scholar....

Definition of SCHOLAR

So when I say you're talking about students....I'm 100% accurate.

committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. START experts apply a range of research methods to the exploration of these questions in order to deliver findings based on the best available open-source evidence and data.

The highlighted portion means they're using news reports, and perhaps some declassified information made publicly available.

They will never be as informed as those who actually fight terrorism and extremism and have access to classified information.

That's why even if we are talking about a guy with a degree in economics who has only been head of the CIA for a month....he's going to know more than these college students do. He's in a far better position to say what the biggest threats are to the US.

If START was not reliable, do you think the US State Department would use them in comprising their annual Country Reports on Terrorism?

From the State Department's website:

Title 22, Section 2656f of the United States Code requires the Department of State to include in its annual report on terrorism "to the extent practicable, complete statistical information on the number of individuals, including United States citizens and dual nationals, killed, injured, or kidnapped by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year." The definition found in Title 22 of the U.S. Code provides that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Well now you've got a bigger problem with your list. Mainly, the "premeditated" part and "politically motivated". That stabbing on the bus that was on your list? Clearly not premeditated or politically motivated. Racially motivated? Sure. Politically motivated? Not a chance.

Does Charlottesville horror make the case for a U.S. domestic terrorism law?

It sure wasn't premeditated....so according to the definition above, I'm guessing they concluded it wasn't terrorism.

The Department of Homeland Security is one big counter terrorism agency. There is a lot more to counter terrorism than arresting terrorists.

Sure....but when we're discussing those who actually stop a terror attacks....which two agencies are we talking about? Hint- I've already given you the opinions of their directors.

Yes, that's what those agencies do, but that doesn't necessarily make the person heading the agency an expert in violent extremism or counter terrorism.

It does make them uniquely knowledgeable about all domestic and foreign terrorist threats. Since these are the agencies actually investigating and arresting extremists and terrorists....I'd say they know more than some college students from Maryland who put together some spreadsheets.

It would be the same as a plumber with no background in law enforcement or firearms experience running for sheriff in my home county in NC and winning the election. He would go from being a plumber in the county to being the chief law enforcement officer. He's now in charge of a large team of experienced law enforcement officers and a variety of law enforcement departments from investigations, forensics, intelligence, to patrol. He can carry a gun and has the power to arrest people, but being sheriff still doesn't make him an expert in law enforcement, firearms, or any of the other departments he would be overseeing.


Do you not think the DHS had a hand in many of those foiled plots? Counter terrorism involves a consorted effort of many government and non-government agencies and individuals.



Woman behind 'incel' says angry men hijacked her word 'as a weapon of war'


I guess it's also in the imagination of the experts who decide to include incidents involving Incels as right-wing attacks and law makers in Canada who decided to Include misogyny/Incels in the definition of right-wing extremists.


You can Google Incel and a Wikipedia article should be at the top. That would be a good place to start as there are several sources cited.

Ideology
Many incel communities are characterized by resentment, self-pity,[10] misogyny, misanthropy, narcissism, and racism.[1][8][10][12][37][25][26][36][41]... Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology.[51][52] Other concepts that incels may believe in include female hypergamy.... Incel communities are a part of the broader manosphere.[2][61][62] According to The New York Times, involuntary celibacy is an adaptation of the idea of "male supremacy".[63] The Southern Poverty Law Center described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem", which they began including in their list of hate groups in 2018.[16] The New York Times wrote that "the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people—some celibate, some not—who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights".
Incel - Wikipedia


Yes it is. Don't you also believe that a person who feels they are superior to another because of their race or a person who discriminates against another person because they are a different race holds an extreme position? It's certainly not normal.


Immigrants and Hispanics.


It wasn't a game, it was to see how or if you would answer the question.

I'll address the rest of this in my next post.

 

[JosephZ]

This is a terrible analogy.

It came straight from a college level course on terrorism risk analysis, I just reworded it to fit this discussion.

Here's the definition of scholar....

Definition of SCHOLAR

So when I say you're talking about students....I'm 100% accurate.

Words can have more than one meaning. Even the definition you provided shows this.

scholar
noun
schol·ar | \ ˈskä-lər \
Definition of scholar
1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
2a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b: a learned person

Here's is another example.

schol·ar
Dictionary result for scholar
/ˈskälər/
noun

1. a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.
   "a Hebrew scholar"
   synonyms: academic, intellectual, learned person, professor, man of letters, woman of letters, mind, intellect, savant, polymath, highbrow, bluestocking; More

Scholar doesn't necessarily mean student. While START does have students doing research and internships, the students don't decide what is included in the Global Terrorism Database or write the reports that are distributed by START.

The highlighted portion means they're using news reports, and perhaps some declassified information made publicly available.

They will never be as informed as those who actually fight terrorism and extremism and have access to classified information.

That's why even if we are talking about a guy with a degree in economics who has only been head of the CIA for a month....he's going to know more than these college students do. He's in a far better position to say what the biggest threats are to the US.

It does make them uniquely knowledgeable about all domestic and foreign terrorist threats. Since these are the agencies actually investigating and arresting extremists and terrorists....I'd say they know more than some college students from Maryland who put together some spreadsheets.

START isn't made up of a bunch of college students putting together spreadsheets. It's led and managed by top experts in the field on terrorism counter terrorism, and extremism.

Mission: To advance science-based knowledge about the human causes and consequences of terrorism as a resource for homeland security policymakers and practitioners.

START is the national leader in cutting-edge research on the behavior of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and communities threatened by terrorism.

START has Conducted more than 175 training events for more than 5,800 law enforcement and homeland security personnel.

START trains and mentors the next generation of homeland security scholars and analysts with an in-depth understanding of the causes and consequences of terrorism, while giving current homeland security officials opportunities to expand their knowledge and skills.

START partners with leading social scientists at 50-plus academic and research institutions throughout the world.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism-START.pdf

Sure....but when we're discussing those who actually stop a terror attacks....which two agencies are we talking about? Hint- I've already given you the opinions of their directors.

You clearly do not have an understanding of The Department of Homeland Security or how government agencies, including the two you mentioned, work hand in hand in fighting terrorism.

Let's imagine that there's a tiny nation of 1 million people. In that nation, 3 extremist groups are actively using violence to further an agenda. In one 10 year period....

Group #1 has committed 12 attacks....killed about 50 people....and injured 200.

Group #2 has committed 50 attacks....but only managed to kill 25 people....and injured about 100.

Group #3 has committed only 1 attack....but because it was well planned, and highly effective....they managed to 100,000 people and injured 200,000 people.

If you were in charge of this tiny nation (let's say you were the king) and you had an agency devoted to stopping these extremists....which of the three groups would you hace them focus on? Group 1, 2, or 3?

Keep in mind, the agency has limited resources....so they cannot possibly track every member of every group all the time. You could, of course, tell the agency to split their efforts evenly....or you could have them prioritize one group over the others. I'll also add that a certain number of the population will call you "Group#3 phobic" if you choose to focus on them because their attack was a "black swan" event and is an outlier if you compare all the attacks together.

You've pretty much described what is taking place here in Mindanao which is an island about half the size of my home state of North Carolina. The Philippines has limited financial resources, limited military hardware and intelligence gathering capabilities, and inadequate salaries for its personnel. You have the ISIS affiliated groups which carry out large scale attacks against both military and civilian targets, there was an attack just two weeks ago that killed 22 people and left over 100 injured; the NPA that carries out more attacks than the ISIS affiliated groups, but they have far fewer casualties and rarely target civilians; and several smaller militant groups that rarely carry out attacks, but when they do, civilians are often the victims.

Despite its limitations, the Philippine government is going after all of these groups simultaneously with the same level of commitment to destroy each of them.

I disagree. There's no point in lumping them all together and pretending they're basically the same thing. You've got one group that consistently does more damage and killing per attack, a group that is better coordinated, better funded, and generally more effective in their methods.

To sit there and lump it in with a bunch of loosely associated people with no real agenda, commit poorly planned and poorly executed attacks, and generally fail far more than the effective group of violent extremists....simply because they're all extremists....is the fallacy in logic here.

I already showed that Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than right wing extremists and I used the exact same list you did. They kill and injure far far more people. You're padding the stats because of your personal biases.

I already showed that Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than right wing extremists and I used the exact same list you did. They kill and injure far far more people. You're padding the stats because of your personal biases. You're trying to include events that should be considered as hate crimes....not extremist/terrorist attacks. When I dismissed those examples...you decided to try and include attacks that never happened to prop up your argument.

Well now you've got a bigger problem with your list. Mainly, the "premeditated" part and "politically motivated". That stabbing on the bus that was on your list? Clearly not premeditated or politically motivated. Racially motivated? Sure. Politically motivated? Not a chance.

It's not my list and I'm not the one who decided how to categorize those attacks. Experts in the field of violent extremism created the list and made the decision to include the events. I just used the examples on their lists. If you go to the Global Terrorism Database, you will find that they include many more than I did. When I chose the ones I did, it was because I felt there was no doubt in the motivation of the perpetrator.

You seem to have your own definition of right-wing extremism, so it's really hard to have a discussion with you on this subject. Your argument isn't just with me, it's also with experts from various organizations who are far more knowledgeable than either one of us when it comes to violent extremism and study after study that has been done on extremism in the United States. In other words, it's pretty much you against everybody.

 

[rambot]

I find it so weird how quickly people get up in arms over reports that right wing extremist is increasing.

Many stories and articles put up here in CF that deal with these events get greeted with a "it's probably fake because [sooooo many different possibilities fit here] just like all the other events".

So I'm not sure if I should be surprised when data comes out showing, wholistic rises across broad spectrums supports it. Personally, I don't find it surprising.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It would be the same as a plumber with no background in law enforcement or firearms experience running for sheriff in my home county in NC and winning the election. He would go from being a plumber in the county to being the chief law enforcement officer. He's now in charge of a large team of experienced law enforcement officers and a variety of law enforcement departments from investigations, forensics, intelligence, to patrol. He can carry a gun and has the power to arrest people, but being sheriff still doesn't make him an expert in law enforcement, firearms, or any of the other departments he would be overseeing.

But it would make him in charge of the most knowledgeable people on the topic who would be informing him daily on the important issues they work on.

I gave you two statements from two directors....both contradicting what you want to believe. Where do you think they got the information they gave in those statements? Do you think they pulled them out if thin air? Do you think they asked the president what he'd like them to say?

Or do you think they took their best analysts, their most knowledgeable agents, and compiled the relevant information they had available?

Do you not think the DHS had a hand in many of those foiled plots? Counter terrorism involves a consorted effort of many government and non-government agencies and individuals.

If they did, they would be credited. I know you like to imagine the various departments of the federal government working hand in hand with each other all the time....but it's the exception more often than the rule. As a matter of keeping intelligence from being misused or leaked, they tend to deal with each other only when necessary.

Woman behind 'incel' says angry men hijacked her word 'as a weapon of war'

Still avoiding any direct sources I see. Why not just ask some incels about this yourself? They aren't hiding. You could at least look at some interviews done with them.

I guess it's also in the imagination of the experts who decide to include incidents involving Incels as right-wing attacks and law makers in Canada who decided to Include misogyny/Incels in the definition of right-wing extremists.

Imagination? No. Part of a political agenda? Absolutely. Ever since the left decided that straight white men are the perfect scapegoat for society's ills....they've taken advantage of every opportunity to blame them for any group that wants to claim victimhood.

You can Google Incel and a Wikipedia article should be at the top. That would be a good place to start as there are several sources cited.

i saw it....and the sources were rather lacking.

Ideology
Many incel communities are characterized by resentment, self-pity,[10] misogyny, misanthropy, narcissism, and racism.[1][8][10][12][37][25][26][36][41]...

Notice the words "community" and "many". Which are things you wouldn't typically find in an extremist group. It's not as if "many" neo-nazis are characterized by the belief that whites are racially superior....they all are.

Other than that, you're going a long way towards proving my point.....those aren't ideologies....those are just characteristics.

Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology.[51][52]

Here's the first two things we could sort of cobble together an ideology from....actual ideas. It doesn't really tell us anything about them (although after looking into the topic, I know what they mean)....but at least we sort of have a couple of vague ideas that some incels buy into.

Other concepts that incels may believe in include female hypergamy.... Incel communities are a part of the broader manosphere.[2][61][62]

Here's one more idea we can add to the list....female hypergamy.

According to The New York Times, involuntary celibacy is an adaptation of the idea of "male supremacy".[63]

Well this doesn't do much for the NYT's reputation. Everything I've read shows that incels believe they are anything but male supremacists. Quite the contrary, they believe modern feminism has left women at the top of the social heirarchy....a matriarchy of sorts.

The Southern Poverty Law Center described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem",

Again, they may be somewhat misogynistic....sometimes....but even a cursory glance into the community shows they in no way believe themselves superior to women.

which they began including in their list of hate groups in 2018.[16] The New York Times wrote that "the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people—some celibate, some not—who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights".
Incel - Wikipedia

There is some of that....but it seems pretty far off to generalize the whole community that way. They generally believe themselves to be the victims of genetics, and a society where women chase after a small group of attractive and successful men.

One has to wonder what happened to the NYT....and how much effort they genuinely put into investigating this community. The only goal of an incel, as far as I can tell, is to no longer be an incel.

More to the point, is that nowhere in that entire and generally awful attempt at an ideology was anything even remotely resembling the conservative end of the political spectrum. To the contrary, after taking a hard look at them....they have far more in common with the identity and victimhood politics of the progressive left.

Yes it is. Don't you also believe that a person who feels they are superior to another because of their race or a person who discriminates against another person because they are a different race holds an extreme position? It's certainly not normal.

No...I don't. I think most people have at least a couple racial prejudices, even if they don't realize it.

Let's suppose you're right though....that would make a large chunk of the left racial extremists. After all, they believe in "white privilege"....the idea that white skin alone gives people an untold number of socio-political advantages and power that those without white skin do not have. They believe even those with white skin whose lives are difficult still have it far easier than they would if they were not white.

So tell me...are you a racial extremist? Or, lemme guess, your racial prejudices are "true" so they aren't really racist?

Immigrants and Hispanics.

Aztec high school gunman posed as student; thumb drive may reveal motive: officials

Apparently, the shooter snuck in by mixing with other students. He then went to the restroom to prep for his shooting spree when he was interrupted by victim 1 whom he promptly shot. He then exited the restroom and shot the first person he saw...victim 2.

No one investigating believes he targeted either...so much for that theory.

It wasn't a game, it was to see how or if you would answer the question.

Seems like a rather pointless question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I find it so weird how quickly people get up in arms over reports that right wing extremist is increasing.

Many stories and articles put up here in CF that deal with these events get greeted with a "it's probably fake because [sooooo many different possibilities fit here] just like all the other events".

So I'm not sure if I should be surprised when data comes out showing, wholistic rises across broad spectrums supports it. Personally, I don't find it surprising.

Some of the blowback to these sorts of reports comes from people actually looking into the reports. They blur the line between a genuine right wing extremist attack (let's say a gunman who kills a group of Jewish people because he's a white supremacist) and things that clearly aren't attacks by right wing extremists (a group of guys in a park get into a fight where someone gets cut with a knife, and racial slurs are reportedly made).

It's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate misinformation in service of a political agenda.

 

[JosephZ]

But it would make him in charge of the most knowledgeable people on the topic who would be informing him daily on the important issues they work on.

It still wouldn't make him an expert. The president of the United States is also informed daily on the important issues that these agencies are addressing. Does that make the president an expert on counter terrorism and violent extremism?

If they did, they would be credited. I know you like to imagine the various departments of the federal government working hand in hand with each other all the time....but it's the exception more often than the rule. As a matter of keeping intelligence from being misused or leaked, they tend to deal with each other only when necessary.

This comment once again demonstrates your lack of understanding on how the DHS, FBI, CIA and other government agencies work together in fighting terrorism. They literally work hand in hand with each other.

The Terrorist Threat Integration Center coordinates strategic analysis of threats based on intelligence from the FBI, CIA, DHS, and DOD. Analysts from each agency work side-by-side in one location to piece together the big picture of threats to the U.S. and our interests.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing10/mueller_fbi_report.pdf

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, or JTTFs, are our nation’s front line on terrorism: small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all: chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment’s notice.

Today, the JTTFs include approximately 4,000 members nationwide—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—hailing from over 500 state and local agencies and 55 federal agencies (the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, to name a few).

The JTTFs provide one-stop shopping for information regarding terrorist activities. They enable a shared intelligence base across many agencies. They create familiarity among investigators and managers before a crisis. And perhaps most importantly, they pool talents, skills, and knowledge from across the law enforcement and intelligence communities into a single team that responds together.

Their contributions are more than we could possibly capture here, but JTTFs have been instrumental in breaking up cells like the “Portland Seven,” the “Lackawanna Six,” and the Northern Virginia jihad. They’ve foiled attacks on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey, on the JFK International Airport in New York, and on various military and civilian targets in Los Angeles. They’ve traced sources of terrorist funding, responded to anthrax threats, halted the use of fake IDs, and quickly arrested suspicious characters with all kinds of deadly weapons and explosives. Chances are, if you hear about a counterterrorism investigation, JTTFs are playing an active and often decisive role.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-task-forces

The reason you hear about the FBI so much is because they have the lead role in infiltrating extremist groups and arresting terrorists and potential terrorist. There role is just one piece of a large puzzle when it comes to counter terrorism and combating violent extremism.

Still avoiding any direct sources I see.

I felt that the founder of the group and the person who coined the phrase "Incel" would be the most direct source to provide. Wouldn't she be the one who would know better than anyone else if her group and its intended purpose had been hijacked?

Imagination? No. Part of a political agenda? Absolutely. Ever since the left decided that straight white men are the perfect scapegoat for society's ills....they've taken advantage of every opportunity to blame them for any group that wants to claim victimhood.

START, the organization I took my list from, is a bipartisan organization and has experts from all types of backgrounds. Many are prior military and former government employees with extensive backgrounds in counter terrorism and violent extremism who are both Republican and Democrats and its work has been funded by the US government under both conservative and liberal administrations.

As for the ADL which is the source of the report in the OP, they don't just address right-wing extremism or take the position of the left on such issues. Have you ever read some of their past reports on Left-wing extremism or Islamic extremism? They give a balanced approach to all types of extremism in the US regardless of the perpetrators. Here is a report the did on Islamic extremism several years ago.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/CR_5062_Domestic Islamic Extremism Report_vF1.pdf

They have even made the Council on American Islamic relations angry in the past.

It is unfortunate that the ADL would employ rhetorical tactics that are used routinely by anti-Semites. These tactics raise questions about the sincerity of the ADL's stated mission to "secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.

How can the ADL ensure fair treatment of fellow Americans if it demonizes and smears one of the leading Muslim organizations advocating for equal rights in our society? How can the ADL assure justice when it attempts to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American Muslims by smearing them for simply seeking to ensure that a leading Muslim charity receives a fair trial?
An Open Letter from CAIR to the ADL

Notice the words "community" and "many". Which are things you wouldn't typically find in an extremist group. It's not as if "many" neo-nazis are characterized by the belief that whites are racially superior....they all are.

You seem to be confusing the term "Incel" and those who identify as such, and the extremist Incel movement.

Other than that, you're going a long way towards proving my point.....those are ideologies....those are just characteristics.

Here's the first two things we could sort of cobble together an ideology from....actual ideas. It doesn't really tell us anything about them (although after looking into the topic, I know what they mean)....but at least we sort of have a couple of vague ideas that some incels buy into.

Here's one more idea we can add to the list....female hypergamy.

Well this doesn't do much for the NYT's reputation. Everything I've read shows that incels believe they are anything but male supremacists. Quite the contrary, they believe modern feminism has left women at the top of the social heirarchy....a matriarchy of sorts.

Again, they may be somewhat misogynistic....sometimes....but even a cursory glance into the community shows they in no way believe themselves superior to women.

There is some of that....but it seems pretty far off to generalize the whole community that way. They generally believe themselves to be the victims of genetics, and a society where women chase after a small group of attractive and successful men.

One has to wonder what happened to the NYT....and how much effort they genuinely put into investigating this community. The only goal of an incel, as far as I can tell, is to no longer be an incel.

More to the point, is that nowhere in that entire and generally awful attempt at an ideology was anything even remotely resembling the conservative end of the political spectrum. To the contrary, after taking a hard look at them....they have far more in common with the identity and victimhood politics of the progressive left.

Here is a good report on the Incel movement. I included the portions that address what you have written above.

Who are Incels?

Incel, shorthand for ‘involuntarily celibate,’ is a violent political ideology based on a new wave of misogyny and white supremacy. Incel ideology is predicated on the notion that feminism has ruined society, therefore there is a need for a ‘gender revolt’ in order to reclaim a particular type of manhood based on both male and white superiority.

Incel ideology presents a mythologized view that prior to the sexual revolution in the ‘60s, every man had access to a female partner; subsequent to the women’s empowerment movement, fewer and fewer men have access to a partner. They frame this shift as a profound injustice to men who cannot find a sexual partner, suggesting that society has failed to give men what they are entitled to (access to women’s bodies) and that the only recourse is violent insurrection.

...the nature of incel violence meets the requirement of the U.S. State Department’s description, which defines the term ‘terrorism’ as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” While incels have not yet formed organized violent groups or cells, the existing attacks have been premeditated, politically motivated and perpetrated violence against civilians. These factors clearly designate incel attacks as a form of terrorism and require incel ideology to be explored as a form of violent extremism.

At the heart of this ideology are hardened misogynistic notions of traditional gender roles. Rather than focusing on a particular religious or ethnic group, these attacks are motivated by shared beliefs about sexuality, male supremacy and the need to violently reestablish ‘traditional’ gender norms.

Incel ideology is just one of many forms of misogynistic violence. Addressing this misogyny and the violence it produces is the most effective way to prevent some of the conditions which lead to domestic terrorist attacks. Early action will also go a long way towards addressing the core tenets of far-right ideologies, which are increasingly impacting and unsettling the American public at large.

It may be easy to believe that incels are an extreme fringe group that do not pose a threat to national or international security. However, Incels represent just one end of a spectrum of extremist groups spanning a vast range of political ideologies, all united by militant misogyny. These groups range from white-supremacists and neo-Nazis to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Incels are just one aspect of a violent ideological masculinity, an ideology that is growing.
https://www.wiisglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Policybrief-Violent-Extremists-Incels.pdf

No...I don't. I think most people have at least a couple racial prejudices, even if they don't realize it.

Prejudice and racism are not the same. Racists are extremists.

So tell me...are you a racial extremist? Or, lemme guess, your racial prejudices are "true" so they aren't really racist?

No, I'm not a racist extremists. I have however been guilty of being prejudice.

A perfect example would be my attitude towards members of the Badjao tribe here in the Philippines. When I first arrived in the the country I was warned about these people and how I should avoid them. I was told they carried diseases, that they were violent, beggars and thieves. News reports and statements made by government officials backed up these assertions, so naturally I avoided them and held a strong distrust for them. When I walked downtown if I saw a Badjao ahead of me I would alter my course in order to avoid them completely. Sometimes this worked, but other times it didn't. It was only after I had encountered the Badjao and got to know them on a personal level that I learned that these accusations being made about them were unfounded. My ignorance was replaced with knowledge and my prejudice feelings towards them were replaced by love and understanding.

Aztec high school gunman posed as student; thumb drive may reveal motive: officials Apparently, the shooter snuck in by mixing with other students. He then went to the restroom to prep for his shooting spree when he was interrupted by victim 1 whom he promptly shot. He then exited the restroom and shot the first person he saw...victim 2. No one investigating believes he targeted either...so much for that theory.

That article was written the day after the shooting, much more has been discovered since then.

The article also said this.

"Officials said they were still baffled as to a motive but they believe further information on the thumb drive, which has been turned over to the FBI, will help authorities understand what led up to the shooting."

Since that article was written we learned that the shooter was a racist, he hated immigrants, had for years visited many right-wing hate sites and participated in online forums where white supremacy and anti-immigration were discussed in great detail, his autopsy showed he had neo-Nazi symbols and the term "Build Wall" on his body.

He was a poster boy for right-wing extremism and it's pretty obvious why he chose a school with an almost 50% population of Hispanics and other minorities to target.

Why are you so intent on trying to prove that this man was not a right-wing extremists?

Seems like a rather pointless question.

The point was to see how or if you would even answer. I already expected that you wouldn't answer it, and your refusing to do so only goes to show that you yourself can't distinguish between which group is the most dangerous.

The truth of the matter is that all violent extremists, regardless of their ideology, are equally as dangerous and deserve equal attention.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It still wouldn't make him an expert. The president of the United States is also informed daily on the important issues that these agencies are addressing. Does that make the president an expert on counter terrorism and violent extremism?

Not the same....the president gets a summary, bullet points, the "short version".

The directors have access to every detail of intelligence in their respective agencies....the vast majority of which isn't available to the START or whoever.

It's not even remotely comparable.

This comment once again demonstrates your lack of understanding on how the DHS, FBI, CIA and other government agencies work together in fighting terrorism. They literally work hand in hand with each other.

The Terrorist Threat Integration Center coordinates strategic analysis of threats based on intelligence from the FBI, CIA, DHS, and DOD. Analysts from each agency work side-by-side in one location to piece together the big picture of threats to the U.S. and our interests.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing10/mueller_fbi_report.pdf

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, or JTTFs, are our nation’s front line on terrorism: small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all: chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment’s notice.

Today, the JTTFs include approximately 4,000 members nationwide—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—hailing from over 500 state and local agencies and 55 federal agencies (the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, to name a few).

The JTTFs provide one-stop shopping for information regarding terrorist activities. They enable a shared intelligence base across many agencies. They create familiarity among investigators and managers before a crisis. And perhaps most importantly, they pool talents, skills, and knowledge from across the law enforcement and intelligence communities into a single team that responds together.

Their contributions are more than we could possibly capture here, but JTTFs have been instrumental in breaking up cells like the “Portland Seven,” the “Lackawanna Six,” and the Northern Virginia jihad. They’ve foiled attacks on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey, on the JFK International Airport in New York, and on various military and civilian targets in Los Angeles. They’ve traced sources of terrorist funding, responded to anthrax threats, halted the use of fake IDs, and quickly arrested suspicious characters with all kinds of deadly weapons and explosives. Chances are, if you hear about a counterterrorism investigation, JTTFs are playing an active and often decisive role.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-task-forces

Nah.

The reason you hear about the FBI so much is because they have the lead role in infiltrating extremist groups and arresting terrorists and potential terrorist.

Oh good, we agree I'm quoting the experts.

I felt that the founder of the group and the person who coined the phrase "Incel" would be the most direct source to provide. Wouldn't she be the one who would know better than anyone else if her group and its intended purpose had been hijacked?

No....those within it now would be the best to tell about what it is now.

START, the organization I took my list from, is a bipartisan organization and has experts from all types of backgrounds. Many are prior military and former government employees with extensive backgrounds in counter terrorism and violent extremism who are both Republican and Democrats and its work has been funded by the US government under both conservative and liberal administrations.

Do you work as their PR or something?

Does START have access to current intel regarding terrorist groups and the threats they pose....today?

As for the ADL which is the source of the report in the OP, they don't just address right-wing extremism or take the position of the left on such issues. Have you ever read some of their past reports on Left-wing extremism or Islamic extremism? They give a balanced approach to all types of extremism in the US regardless of the perpetrators.

Let's imagine they were accurate in their reporting in the past....does that make this report accurate?

Imagine if I wrote a report called "Left Wing Feminist Violence on the Rise"....what would you expect that to be about? A bunch of feminists committing violence because of feminism.....right?

But when you look at the actual cases I've listed....you find stuff like a woman who posted on a feminist chat board killed someone in a drunk driving accident....or some guy who attended the women's march got into a fistfight with a guy over his electric bill.

That's the problem here....it's deliberately misleading for the purposes of getting liberals to read it, and sell ad space. That, or they're working an agenda. Regardless....it's about 50-60% garbage.

They have even made the Council on American Islamic relations angry in the past.

Lol I bet that's really tough to do.

You seem to be confusing the term "Incel" and those who identify as such, and the extremist Incel movement.

What are the stated political goals for the "extremist incel movement"?

Here is a good report on the Incel movement. I included the portions that address what you have written above.

Who are Incels?

Incel, shorthand for ‘involuntarily celibate,’ is a violent political ideology based on a new wave of misogyny and white supremacy. Incel ideology is predicated on the notion that feminism has ruined society, therefore there is a need for a ‘gender revolt’ in order to reclaim a particular type of manhood based on both male and white superiority.

False. Two of the "incel shooters" were of mixed race. Any race can be an incel.

Incel ideology presents a mythologized view that prior to the sexual revolution in the ‘60s, every man had access to a female partner; subsequent to the women’s empowerment movement, fewer and fewer men have access to a partner. They frame this shift as a profound injustice to men who cannot find a sexual partner, suggesting that society has failed to give men what they are entitled to (access to women’s bodies) and that the only recourse is violent insurrection.

False. Although incels do have a rather bleak and delusional opinion on why they are an incel....their unofficial motto is "Rope or Cope"....a reference to either dealing with their problems or suicide.

...the nature of incel violence meets the requirement of the U.S. State Department’s description, which defines the term ‘terrorism’ as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” While incels have not yet formed organized violent groups or cells, the existing attacks have been premeditated, politically motivated and perpetrated violence against civilians. These factors clearly designate incel attacks as a form of terrorism and require incel ideology to be explored as a form of violent extremism.

False. What political motivation are we talking about here? Again, this is a highly insular suicidal group....and with any group in such a bubble, there will be those who externalize their problems and lash out.

At the heart of this ideology are hardened misogynistic notions of traditional gender roles. Rather than focusing on a particular religious or ethnic group, these attacks are motivated by shared beliefs about sexuality, male supremacy and the need to violently reestablish ‘traditional’ gender norms.

This feels like a joke at this point. How does one "violently reestablish traditional gender norms" lol?

Incel ideology is just one of many forms of misogynistic violence. Addressing this misogyny and the violence it produces is the most effective way to prevent some of the conditions which lead to domestic terrorist attacks. Early action will also go a long way towards addressing the core tenets of far-right ideologies, which are increasingly impacting and unsettling the American public at large.

It may be easy to believe that incels are an extreme fringe group that do not pose a threat to national or international security. However, Incels represent just one end of a spectrum of extremist groups spanning a vast range of political ideologies, all united by militant misogyny. These groups range from white-supremacists and neo-Nazis to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Incels are just one aspect of a violent ideological masculinity, an ideology that is growing.
https://www.wiisglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Policybrief-Violent-Extremists-Incels.pdf

There's literally no political ideology in this group.

Thank you for providing the feminist website you got this nonsense from.

Prejudice and racism are not the same. Racists are extremists.

Worst graph ever. On the racism side....it says that racism is derived from prejudice. On the prejudice side....it says it can lead to racism.

So when we are talking about racial prejudices.....we are talking about racism. It's just like when we talk about gender prejudices....we're talking about sexism.

No, I'm not a racist extremists. I have however been guilty of being prejudice.

So you hold no prejudice beliefs about any race whatsoever? You don't believe that white people are privileged because of their white skin?

That article was written the day after the shooting, much more has been discovered since then.

The article also said this.

"Officials said they were still baffled as to a motive but they believe further information on the thumb drive, which has been turned over to the FBI, will help authorities understand what led up to the shooting."

Since that article was written we learned that the shooter was a racist, he hated immigrants, had for years visited many right-wing hate sites and participated in online forums where white supremacy and anti-immigration were discussed in great detail, his autopsy showed he had neo-Nazi symbols and the term "Build Wall" on his body.

And yet no officials involved in the investigation have stated they believe the victims were targeted.

He was a poster boy for right-wing extremism and it's pretty obvious why he chose a school with an almost 50% population of Hispanics and other minorities to target.

He went to that school. That's why he choose it. He knew the layout.

We're also talking about New Mexico. It's a fair guess that almost every school had a decent sized latino population.

Why are you so intent on trying to prove that this man was not a right-wing extremists?

I never said that. I said that he didn't kill anyone for extremist reasons. That's the problem you aren't seeing. His example is just one of many many on the list that you provided.

Answer this please....what's the difference between an "extremist attack", a "hate crime", and a "spree killer"?

The point was to see how or if you would even answer. I already expected that you wouldn't answer it, and your refusing to do so only goes to show that you yourself can't distinguish between which group is the most dangerous.

I didn't answer because it's a pointless question.

If I guessed correctly....does it make my argument correct? No. If I guessed wrongly, does it make your argument correct? No.

Utterly pointless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You've pretty much described what is taking place here in Mindanao which is an island about half the size of my home state of North Carolina. The Philippines has limited financial resources, limited military hardware and intelligence gathering capabilities, and inadequate salaries for its personnel. You have the ISIS affiliated groups which carry out large scale attacks against both military and civilian targets, there was an attack just two weeks ago that killed 22 people and left over 100 injured; the NPA that carries out more attacks than the ISIS affiliated groups, but they have far fewer casualties and rarely target civilians; and several smaller militant groups that rarely carry out attacks, but when they do, civilians are often the victims.

Despite its limitations, the Philippine government is going after all of these groups simultaneously with the same level of commitment to destroy each of them.

Sorry.....did you move there yesterday or something? Perhaps you just woke up from a 5 year coma?

The Struggle for Mindanao: Jihad and Counterterrorism in Duterte’s Philippines

Did you miss the war they fought against Islamic jihadists who controlled an entire city? The thousands of people who died? The destruction and devastation done to the city itself?

"President Roderigo Dutertedeclared the city of Marawi "liberated", after a 4-months long siege that ended in the death of at least 1,200 people, with dozens of civilians killed.

Marawi, with a population of 200,000, had been captured in May by hundreds of fighters from an odd coalition of different jihadist groups – Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-Khilafah and the Maute group– who claimed their allegiance to Daesh in 2014 and waved ISIS black flags."

And the NPA....a communist guerrilla army that's been operating for decades.....

These are what you're comparing to a suicidal kid who sits on his computer all day and has revenge fantasies about the people who "wronged" him?

It's just getting harder and harder to take you seriously here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It came straight from a college level course on terrorism risk analysis, I just reworded it to fit this discussion.


Words can have more than one meaning. Even the definition you provided shows this.

scholar
noun
schol·ar | \ ˈskä-lər \
Definition of scholar
1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL
2a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b: a learned person

Here's is another example.

schol·ar
Dictionary result for scholar
/ˈskälər/
noun

1. a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.
   "a Hebrew scholar"
   synonyms: academic, intellectual, learned person, professor, man of letters, woman of letters, mind, intellect, savant, polymath, highbrow, bluestocking; More

Scholar doesn't necessarily mean student. While START does have students doing research and internships, the students don't decide what is included in the Global Terrorism Database or write the reports that are distributed by START.




START isn't made up of a bunch of college students putting together spreadsheets. It's led and managed by top experts in the field on terrorism counter terrorism, and extremism.

Mission: To advance science-based knowledge about the human causes and consequences of terrorism as a resource for homeland security policymakers and practitioners.

START is the national leader in cutting-edge research on the behavior of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and communities threatened by terrorism.

START has Conducted more than 175 training events for more than 5,800 law enforcement and homeland security personnel.

START trains and mentors the next generation of homeland security scholars and analysts with an in-depth understanding of the causes and consequences of terrorism, while giving current homeland security officials opportunities to expand their knowledge and skills.

START partners with leading social scientists at 50-plus academic and research institutions throughout the world.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism-START.pdf


You clearly do not have an understanding of The Department of Homeland Security or how government agencies, including the two you mentioned, work hand in hand in fighting terrorism.


You've pretty much described what is taking place here in Mindanao which is an island about half the size of my home state of North Carolina. The Philippines has limited financial resources, limited military hardware and intelligence gathering capabilities, and inadequate salaries for its personnel. You have the ISIS affiliated groups which carry out large scale attacks against both military and civilian targets, there was an attack just two weeks ago that killed 22 people and left over 100 injured; the NPA that carries out more attacks than the ISIS affiliated groups, but they have far fewer casualties and rarely target civilians; and several smaller militant groups that rarely carry out attacks, but when they do, civilians are often the victims.

Despite its limitations, the Philippine government is going after all of these groups simultaneously with the same level of commitment to destroy each of them.





It's not my list and I'm not the one who decided how to categorize those attacks. Experts in the field of violent extremism created the list and made the decision to include the events. I just used the examples on their lists. If you go to the Global Terrorism Database, you will find that they include many more than I did. When I chose the ones I did, it was because I felt there was no doubt in the motivation of the perpetrator.

You seem to have your own definition of right-wing extremism, so it's really hard to have a discussion with you on this subject. Your argument isn't just with me, it's also with experts from various organizations who are far more knowledgeable than either one of us when it comes to violent extremism and study after study that has been done on extremism in the United States. In other words, it's pretty much you against everybody.

I just want to be clear, because I think we're about done here....

In your mind...

Islamic jihadists organized into an army capable of taking a city of 200,000 and responsible for 1,000s of deaths
=
Communist guerrilla army with 5,000+ organized members that have existed for decades and regularly attack law enforcement and military targets
=
18-25 year old white kid from the US that likely has mental problems ranging from autism to depression and anxiety, who is angry about not getting any sex, and might one day take it out on others.

That's where you're at? These would all be equally valid concerns to which resources and time should be equally divided on?

 

[JosephZ]

Not the same....the president gets a summary, bullet points, the "short version".

The directors have access to every detail of intelligence in their respective agencies....the vast majority of which isn't available to the START or whoever.

It's not even remotely comparable.

Regardless, having access to top secret intelligence data doesn't make the current directors of the CIA and FBI experts in the fields of terrorism and violent extremism. If you were to ask either of them if they considered themselves to be experts in these fields they would probably say no.

Nah.

The comments you have made speak for themselves.

Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a counter-terrorism agency.

What's the name of their counter terrorism agency?

Those foiled attacks you mentioned earlier? Did you look at who foiled them? It's not DHS.

I know you like to imagine the various departments of the federal government working hand in hand with each other all the time....but it's the exception more often than the rule. As a matter of keeping intelligence from being misused or leaked, they tend to deal with each other only when necessary.

You clearly have no understanding of the DHS or how our government is responding to violent extremism and terrorism.

No....those within it now would be the best to tell about what it is now.

If you started a movement or a group 20 years ago and called it something like "TGIF" and gave clear instructions on it's purpose, rules for belonging, and its goals at the time, and then someone you never met comes along in 2018 and claims they are a member of the "TGIF" movement and their actions and beliefs differ from what you originally intended for the "TGIF" movement; if someone wanted to know the true purpose and beliefs of the original "TGIF" movement, who should they consult? You, the founder of the original movement, or a person who has no connection to you or the members of the original "TGIF" movement?

Do you work as their PR or something?

No, but I have taken courses and listened to lectures given by the experts at START on terrorism and violent extremism in the past.

Does START have access to current intel regarding terrorist groups and the threats they pose....today?

Not that I'm aware of, but it doesn't make those who work there any less an expert on violent extremism or terrorism for not having current access to that information.

Let's imagine they were accurate in their reporting in the past....does that make this report accurate?

The report in the OP was pretty straight forward and accurate. It even states that many of the murders listed were not primarily driven by ideological motives.

Imagine if I wrote a report called "Left Wing Feminist Violence on the Rise"....what would you expect that to be about? A bunch of feminists committing violence because of feminism.....right? But when you look at the actual cases I've listed....you find stuff like a woman who posted on a feminist chat board killed someone in a drunk driving accident....or some guy who attended the women's march got into a fistfight with a guy over his electric bill.

I didn't see any examples like this in the ADL report that were considered to be motivated by ideology.

What are the stated political goals for the "extremist incel movement"?

Having political goals are not a requirement to be considered an extremist group.

False. Two of the "incel shooters" were of mixed race. Any race can be an incel.

Then they would likely fall under the category of multiracial white supremacists. Yes, they do exist.

This feels like a joke at this point. How does one "violently reestablish traditional gender norms" lol?

This is exactly why people who believe this way are labeled as extremist. Only an extremist would believe that they have to violently reestablish traditional gender norms.

Thank you for providing the feminist website you got this nonsense from.

What's the problem with women forming an organization to "advance the leadership and professional development of women in the field of international peace and security?"

Worst graph ever. On the racism side....it says that racism is derived from prejudice. On the prejudice side....it says it can lead to racism.
So when we are talking about racial prejudices.....we are talking about racism. It's just like when we talk about gender prejudices....we're talking about sexism.

Read the row on the racism side and the prejudice side of the graphic separately. You should be able to see the difference between the two.

So you hold no prejudice beliefs about any race whatsoever?

Not that I'm aware of. I've traveled to 28 countries on four continents so far and found that people are people wherever I go regardless of their race.

You don't believe that white people are privileged because of their white skin?

I don't even think about things like this.

He went to that school. That's why he choose it. He knew the layout.

Source?

Answer this please....what's the difference between an "extremist attack", a "hate crime", and a "spree killer"?

There is none, they are all carried out by one or more people who hold extreme points of view.

I didn't answer because it's a pointless question.

If I guessed correctly....does it make my argument correct? No. If I guessed wrongly, does it make your argument correct? No.

Notice how you worded this response. You said "If I guessed." Once again, your response shows that you can't make a distinction between which type of extremists is more dangerous.

Sorry.....did you move there yesterday or something? Perhaps you just woke up from a 5 year coma?

The Struggle for Mindanao: Jihad and Counterterrorism in Duterte’s Philippines

Did you miss the war they fought against Islamic jihadists who controlled an entire city? The thousands of people who died? The destruction and devastation done to the city itself?

Let's look at this part of the discussion again.

It started with this post from you:

Let's imagine that there's a tiny nation of 1 million people. In that nation, 3 extremist groups are actively using violence to further an agenda. In one 10 year period....

Group #1 has committed 12 attacks....killed about 50 people....and injured 200.

Group #2 has committed 50 attacks....but only managed to kill 25 people....and injured about 100.

Group #3 has committed only 1 attack....but because it was well planned, and highly effective....they managed to 100,000 people and injured 200,000 people.

If you were in charge of this tiny nation (let's say you were the king) and you had an agency devoted to stopping these extremists....which of the three groups would you have them focus on? Group 1, 2, or 3?

I then responded with this:

You've pretty much described what is taking place here in Mindanao which is an island about half the size of my home state of North Carolina. The Philippines has limited financial resources, limited military hardware and intelligence gathering capabilities, and inadequate salaries for its personnel. You have the ISIS affiliated groups which carry out large scale attacks against both military and civilian targets, there was an attack just two weeks ago that killed 22 people and left over 100 injured; the NPA that carries out more attacks than the ISIS affiliated groups, but they have far fewer casualties and rarely target civilians; and several smaller militant groups that rarely carry out attacks, but when they do, civilians are often the victims.

The attack on Marawi by the BIFF, Abu Sayyaf, AKP, and the Maute group would be a prime example of what I was referring to when I said the ISIS affiliated groups carry out large scale attacks.

...did you move there yesterday or something? Perhaps you just woke up from a 5 year coma?

I have been a missionary whose ministry takes me to the conflict regions of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago for going on eight years now. I haven't missed anything and have a firm understanding of what's happening on the ground here.

These are what you're comparing to a suicidal kid who sits on his computer all day and has revenge fantasies about the people who "wronged" him?

No. I was comparing them to the three types of groups in the scenario you gave.

Group #1 has committed 12 attacks....killed about 50 people....and injured 200.

Group #2 has committed 50 attacks....but only managed to kill 25 people....and injured about 100.

Group #3 has committed only 1 attack....but because it was well planned, and highly effective....they managed to 100,000 people and injured 200,000 people.

which of the three groups would you have them focus on? Group 1, 2, or 3?

In my answer to your question as to which group should be focused on, I continued with the real world example of what is taking place in Mindanao:

Despite its limitations, the Philippine government is going after all of these groups simultaneously with the same level of commitment to destroy each of them.

Despite one of the groups taking a city of 200,000 and being responsible for 1,000s of deaths and the other being a Communist guerrilla army with 5,000+ organized members that have existed for decades and regularly attack law enforcement and military targets (The NPA by the way was responsible for one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in the Philippines when members killed 39 people, many of them children, while they were attending church in the town of Digos and beheaded the pastor and his brother) the government is currently responding the same to both groups.

If we look at some recent headlines from the Philippines, we can see that despite the different threat levels between the ISIS affiliated groups and the NPA, the government is going after both groups with the same level of commitment

Duterte to deal with ISIS, NPA “like Marawi;” -- February 11, 2018

Government forces will deal with the ISIS-inspired groups and the New People’s Army (NPA) like how the military and the police “reacted during the Marawi siege,” President Rodrigo Duterte said.

“And for the communists, no quarters given, no quarters asked,” Duterte told a press briefing at the Matina Enclaves here on Friday...

In a statement on February 8, Rev. Daniel R. Palicte, vice chair of the Solidarity Action Group for Indigenous Peoples and Peasants (Sagipp), said they are alarmed that Duterte is turning communities in the Davao Region into another Marawi.
Duterte to deal with ISIS, NPA “like Marawi;” offers Lumads 20,000 pesos for every NPA killed

Here are some recent headlines in relation to the NPA.

Army intensifies operation uses airstrikes vs. NPA in NoCot -- February 9, 2019

Cops, soldiers clash with suspected NPA rebels in Davao City beach -- November 26, 2018

2 NPA members fall, 14 others escape in Davao City -- September 22, 2018

Air strikes near ‘Lumad’ school traumatize kids -- September 1, 2018

3 soldiers killed in clash with NPA -- August 3, 2018

Soldiers kill 2 NPA rebels, 1 a minor, in Davao City clash -- June 30, 2018

Hundreds flee from Army-NPA clash in NoCot -- May 9, 2018

Army readies battalions to fight NPA terrorists -- March 5, 2018

Duterte wants 5 more SAF battalions vs. NPA, terrorism -- February 22, 2018

Add'l Army battalion to secure Northern Mindanao vs NPA -- January 11, 2018

15 NPA rebels killed in a clash with the military -- November 29, 2017

Military air strikes against NPA sow fear in Mabini, ComVal -- March 14, 2018

300 families flee homes in Davao del Sur as troops, NPA clash -- February 25, 2017

AFP-NPA clashes in Davao City on Thursday: 5 killed, 15 injured -- Feb. 17, 2017


Some recent headlines in relation to ISIS related groups.

5 gov't troops, 3 Abu Sayyaf terrorists killed in Sulu clash -- February 2, 2019

Soldiers kill 4 BIFF men in Maguindanao -- January 17, 2019

4 dead, 2 others wounded in clash in southern Philippines -- December 13, 2018

Child, two others killed in crossfire in Zambo clash with Abu Sayyaf -- November 23, 2018

5 soldiers killed, 23 injured in Patikul ambush -- November 17, 2018

2 Abu Sayyaf killed, 2 wounded in Sulu clash -- October 30, 2018

3 soldiers killed in clash with Abu Sayyaf members in Sulu -- Oct 26, 2018

7 Abu Sayyaf killed, 17 soldiers wounded in Sulu clash -- September 15, 2018

6 killed in Army-Maute clash in Lanao Sur -- September 7, 2018

Abu Sayyaf killed, 20 soldiers hurt in Sulu encounter -- August 23, 2018

5 Abu Sayyaf militants, 1 soldier killed in clash -- July 23, 2018

Troops clash with BIFF in Maguindanao town center -- July 4, 2018

5 Abus, 6 soldiers killed in Sulu clash -- March 16, 2018

6 BIFF killed in Maguindanao armed encounter -- Mar 9, 2018

5 Abu Sayyaf members killed in Sulu clash -- February 11, 2018

In your mind... Islamic jihadists = Communist guerrilla army = 18-25 year old white kid from the US...

That's where you're at? These would all be equally valid concerns to which resources and time should be equally divided on?

No, that's not what's in my mind, nor is it where we are at. You weren't comparing an 18-25 year old white kid from the US to organized terrorist groups in your post I responded to.

I think we're about done here....

Finally something we agree on.