Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Ulterior motives?" Who here doesn't have motives in anything they write or post? Tell us, what are your motives in trying to say that those groups listed are not linked under one banner of right wing terrorism?
I've made clear the reason why I put this thread up. It's to show the terrorism that is so often denied in these threads. Do with it what you will, but the fact that it exists is there, clear as any eye can detect.
It's easy for us to criticize Islamic extremism when we're not Muslims...
...but it appears to be very difficult for some of our fellow members to criticize Christian extremism or right-wing extremism.
Thank you for reaffirming what I posted with your response.It is easy for us to criticize Islamic extremism because of the ever lengthening trail of dead bodies left in its wake. Three guys who stole a water truck and then crawled off into the desert to die doesn't really inspire much discussion concerning a world wide threat.
Timothy McVeigh was put to death. How long do you want to beat that dead horse? No one in Christianity claimed McVeigh, or any of the other people listed in the OP article as having been convicted of a crime, should get a pass because they were Christian. However many adherents to Islam seem to believe they should.
Hyderabad man accused of sexually assaulting four-year-old girl blames the child for the crime
A 46-year-old Hyderabad man accused of sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl in his home has blamed the child for the crime. The sexual predator, who has been arrested and identified as Mohammad Akram Khan, claims that the girl had approached him and came close to him.
But later he said that he had made a mistake and should be pardoned. The incident caught on CCTV camera installed in his house came to light after a technician was taking a backup of the the footage and saw the horrific act and informed the police about it.
Source: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/h...l-blames-the-child-for-the-crime-1178612.html
Let's look at this from a slightly different method of specifying a group and their actions.... Comparing "Right Wing vs. Muslims" isn't a valid comparison. You're comparing a conglomeration of a wide variety of different groups, vs. a single group. ... but to circle back around to my original point, if you want to do an accurate comparison, you compare groups on a one-on-one basis
Look mini, I found the SPLC link from a site that wasn't in any way connected to right wing extremism. Saw it, saw the incredible length of it and thought it would be a good FYI for people to look at. If you want to divide up 4 or 5 different groups who are inclined to be right wing, have at it. As it is, it stands for what it is....if you want to point out the extremism that's being ignored, that's fine. But why the need to combine the cases from 4-5 different groups, and put them all under the banner of right-wing? if not just to attempt to point out a flaw with your political opponents?
Comparing "Right Wing vs. Muslims" isn't a valid comparison. You're comparing a conglomeration of a wide variety of different groups, vs. a single group. (and by "you're", I'm referring to the articles that you're posting to support your claims)
The make an analogy, that's as logically incorrect as saying
"There are more traffic crashes in all white cars combined than there are in 2011 Blue Chevy 4x4 Silverados, so that means driving a white car is more dangerous than driving the blue silverado"
"White cars" includes a wide variety of years, makes, and models
as to where "2011 Blue Chevy 4x4 Silverados" refers to a very specific year, make, and model
I don't think that analogy works. Muslims, or even Islamic terrorists, are not a "single" homogenous group.
Let's look at this from a slightly different method of specifying a group and their actions.
Right Wing Conservatives generally do not support gun control and fight against it vociferously.
In the 21st Century over 150,000 Americans have been shot and killed on American soil because guns are readily available. Guns are readily available because of the actions of Right Wing Conservatives.
Well sure, they'll be slight deviations within any group, I realize that.
However, as it pertain to the word you used,
Homogeneous is an adjective that means all of the same or similar kind or nature, or sharing a common origin.
So while they might not be mirror images of each other, I think it's fair to say that 2 radical Islamic groups are similar to say the least, and have more in common with each other, than say, an Anti-abortion extremist group and Neo-Nazis would have with each other.
It's easy for us to criticize Islamic extremism when we're not Muslims, but it appears to be very difficult for some of our fellow members to criticize Christian extremism or right-wing extremism. I've also noticed that those that have trouble criticizing Christian extremism are Christians and that those that have trouble criticizing right-wing extremism are right-wing.
Maybe these criticisms hit too close to home for these people.
And you know the inner workings of those two groups how? Along with each different anti abortion faction? The tie is clear to those who open their eyes. But if you want to argue semantics, which you do very well, go ahead but it doesn't change the fact of right wing terror.
I don't think it's about who has a bigger body count - it's really about the denial of the existence of right-wing or Christian extremists and terrorists.I'm not a Christian, nor would I consider myself "right wing" by any means, I'm certainly conservative leaning on certain economic matters and on the topic of guns...however, for a wide variety of social issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, corruption within the criminal justice system, etc...), I'd actually be closer to the left wing than the right by societies definition.
The issue I take with this isn't the fact that people are criticizing "right wing extremism", it's the fact that their relying on word-play in order to play numbers game in efforts to try to prove a point.
You and I have interacted enough on these forums (and get along fairly well even though we don't agree on everything), that I think I can be candid in replying to you...
This thread gotten to the point now where I think we can quit dancing around the idea of what people (not referring to you in particular) are trying to convey, and just come right out and say it:
Republicans & Christians (and other people who have views that lean toward the right end of the spectrum) have been the most vocal and expressed the most concern about the threat of Islamic terrorism, many on the political left are trying to point out what, they, perceive as hypocrisy by saying "Hey, your ilk has caused more terror than Islamic extremists", and in efforts to prove that point, they're aggregating the instances of terrorism from a wide range of groups that might happen to be "right wing", by their standard, in order to get the grand total up to a number that allows them to make their point.
The fact that people have to combine the total stats from Anti-abortionists+NeoNazis+KKK+White Nationalists+Anti-government radicals+Christian radicals to come up with a number that exceeds the number from Islamic terrorism just so they can say "See, you're crew is worse, you've got no right talk about extremists from other groups!" is quite telling in my opinion.
There are even other atheist liberals who are coming out and starting to say the same things now. Bill Maher and Sam Harris are two such examples...both atheists, both liberals...and both have gone on record as saying that Islamic extremism has caused more grief in the world today than any other single form of extremism that's around in present times.
I don't think it's about who has a bigger body count - it's really about the denial of the existence of right-wing or Christian extremists and terrorists.
I think it might also be a reaction to recent calls to ban Muslims from entering our country because of Islamic terrorism. You should check out the thread about bombing Agrabah. If you see the tables and figures I posted in that thread from the poll, you might understand why people are taking this stance.To be honest, I'm not even really seeing that much denial about it coming out of the Christian camp...sure, there's always a handful that will succumb to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, take the bait, and say "They're not really one of us".
However, there's a growing sentiment coming from some folks on the left that are suggesting that because Christian terrorism does indeed exists, that means Christians aren't allowed to criticize Islamic terrorism. And in efforts to solidify the point they're trying to make, they hell-bent on trying to demonstrate that "Right wing terrorism is worse so you've got not right to talk"
The reality of the situation is this, while Christian extremism does exist, and it's a bad thing...people aren't fleeing the US by the thousands because they're scared and want to get away from the anti-abortion extremists...Canada isn't having to take in thousands of US citizens due to anti-government conservative extremists making cities uninhabitable.
As an Atheist, I'm just trying to be candid about it, I tend to agree with Sam Harris on the matter:
What about anti-flouride; anti-animal testing; anti-vaxxers; et al? The fact is that you CAN break large umbrella concepts into smaller groups but there is no intellectual obligation to do it. If you are discussing large umbrella terms, then that's what you discuss.To me,
Anti-abortion extremism
Anti-government extremism
Racial-extremism
Religious-extremism
...are all distinct entities and should be evaluated as such.
Why not? Are pro big government socialists going to bomb their own big government?From the OP article, here is an example of how the SPLC classifies "right-wing terror plots," quote:
October 9, 1995
Saboteurs derail an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Ariz., killing one person and injuring about 70 others. Several antigovernment messages, signed by the "Sons of Gestapo," are left behind. The perpetrators remain at large.
The perpetrators were never found, therefore right-wing terrorism. Surprised they didn't apply the term Christian as well. Regardless the term "Sons of Gestapo" refers to a train derailment which occurred in 1995 near Palo Verde, Arizona. Four copies of an identical note were found at the scene, citing that the "Sons of Gestapo" had taken credit. The FBI has since concluded the "Sons of Gestapo" never even existed, that the derailment was actually part of a plan to rob a freight train.
Yet right-wing terror plot.
Here! Read:http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=aryan_republican_army_1January 18, 1996
[clip]
I find it uncomfortable that people I politically align with (i.e. palaeocon right) have such difficulty accepting any potential criticism of their "side". I can admit there are right wing extremists and terrorisms. But for the tribal minded, where it's no about specific ideological ideas, but which "side" you belong to, it's a real problem.Why not? Are pro big government socialists going to bomb their own big government?
Here! Read:http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=aryan_republican_army_1
I find it uncomfortable that people with whom I could probably politicaly align with (ie...animal liberation front, for example) may carry out terrorist attacks but I'm man enough to admit it. I mean, it's not like I'M doing it. What's so bad about right wing terror groups? Are you too affraid to think there is an ugly side to that side of the political spectrum?
And I can't remember who had a problem with one person carrying out 4 different attacks. This article was a list of attacks NOT perpetrators of attacks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?