I don’t see that stated or implied on the page linked to; I’m not aware SPLC has maintained there is some overarching right-wing conspiracy.
Not everyone assumes there is some large, coordinated conspiracy behind every bad event; the SPLC acts against acts of terrorism and racism and xenophobia, among other things, committed by individuals and small hate groups as well. I don’t see the evidence from which you inferred they believe in “a [single] right-wing conspiracy”.
I’m not going to challenge your idiosyncratic definition of organization, other than to share thesepages, but I will add that if you read the first page linked, you will see that the FBI has investigated, if not actively infiltrated, some of the listed groups.
WTF are you talking about, funding Islamic terrorists? I have never heard that mentioned by the snipers. Having lived through it, I followed the case closely.
Yep, and it’s long overdue to shove a right-wing talking point right down their throats (“Why are you refusing to call religious fundamentalist terrorism by its right name?”)
It is a little-known fact that sugar and porridge combine to anesthetize the organizational centers of the brain, thus disqualifying anyone who eats that meal from being counted as part of an “organization”.
Hokay, we’ve got the “sugared porridge” category, the “cinnamon porridge” category… maybe you should just give us the full list up front.
Not to mention that, if the Underpants Bomber had succeeded, he would have killed about 250 people all on his own. It was pure dumb luck that he failed.
Oh, please. Just say you were wrong about all organized terrorism being left-wing.
Plenty of Islamic terrorist groups not only have the backing of government officials but are openly and officially sponsored by a state. Doesn’t make them a “different category.”
If you think of the Klan as some kind of right-wing organization, you’re mistaken. The Klan of today arguably is, but the Klan of today consists of toothless rednecks meeting in trailer parks. The Klan of the 1870s does not map onto the political categories of the modern era, and the Klan at its peak in the 1910s and 20s was, if anything, more in alignment with the progressives of era than the conservatives, and reached its zenith at the 1924 Democratic National Convention.
“Over the past decade, political scientists have learned a great deal about terrorism. For a while, the conventional wisdom held that groups commit terrorism because it’s strategically effective. For this reason, the dominant paradigm is sometimes referred to as the Strategic Model of Terrorism. Its logic seemed self-evident: To avert additional pain to their civilians, governments were presumed to adopt a more dovish stance by granting the perpetrators their political demands.”
“There was only one problem with this emerging scholarly orthodoxy. It wasn’t supported by the evidence. Increasingly, empirical evidence has revealed that terrorism is a remarkably ineffective tactic for groups to induce government concessions.”
Christian terrorism. That’s what I’ve been referring to these PP attacks. If Christians don’t like it, maybe the moderate ones should speak up and denounce it
I have not contested the premise that the clinic shooting was an act of terrorism. However, IMO the reason for bringing it up is the suggestion of parity I mention, even if OP does not come right out and say so.
Red herring. Per Wiki in the case of abortion clinics the risk is minuscule: 11 killed in the US since 1993 (none for 6 years prior to 11/27/15) and 13 injured since 1977. Surely the risk vanishes to nearly zero for other medical facilities.
I think is is safe to say terrorist that Islam is the surpassing religious threat to the international world order today.
OP and almost all other threads on this board limit the case to recent past, although an extensive historical discussion would be interesting.
Briefly, though, without recourse even to Wiki: international Muslim violence began immediately after Mohammed’s death in about 630ME. Its first wave consisted of about 80 years of violent conquest aimed at all its neighbors north, south, east and west. What are now the entire ME (originally less Turkey), central Asia approximately to the present Indian and Russian borders, and all North Africa were completely taken over by Muslim rulers, and gradually but quickly islamicized. In Europe Islamic violence reached as far as a conquest of almost all the Iberian peninsula, and an invasion of France. I don’t think there is any doubt that an even more successful world-wide repetition of this jihad is alive in the dreams of modern Islamic terrorists.
This deceitful post does not directly inform us that there have been only 48 right-wing murders since 2001- less than 4 a year. Ingrown toenails have probably killed more. If that is all there is to the RW threat then it would be fair to call the threat trivial (and thankfully the so far almost entirely loyal US Muslims are even less of a threat).
Now, in the interests of transparency, I worry greatly over the possible implications of incidents such as the Cliven Bundy ranch stand-off, with its masses of RW stupid people armed to the teeth and loaded for bear. We have enough problems without them going haywire, so let us hope we are keeping as close tabs on that type as we need to.
But there are more Muslims who need watching in the world today, and since they are not going to disappear eternal vigilance is our fate.
You’re right, you’ve got me. The party that elected Woodrow Wilson and stood against Calvin Coolidge had nothing to do with progressivism and was in fact deeply conservative. Clearly, I was unprepared for your devastating critique.
Terrorism is first and foremost homicidal. The severity of the threat is IMO defined by the number of people it kills and tries to kill. I do not want anyone to die or be hurt, and all threats to kill should be investigated to the fullest capacity of the law. But only one person has been killed every three years since 1977 so that kind of terror threat is among the least severe.
