It was still slanted. There’s been much more actual violence for left-wing activists. Actually, routine violence. The tea Party has proved that you can actually have demonstrations that don’t involve throwing things and breaking things and setting fires.
The report (PDF) is quite clear: In the section on “Disgruntled Military Veterans,” it states, “DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” Had Hasan’s ideology been right-wing, he would have fallen right into this assessment of domestic terrorism, but apparently they’ve parsed him out of that category.
I think it matters in the sense that after the trial, I’m guessing that Congress will press the Pentagon to re-classify the incident so that the victims can get the medals and benefits. I agree that they’re won’t be any particular political blowback over this.
I’m waiting for the bit that classifies attackers as terrorists only if they’re motivated by rightwing ideology. That seems to be outside the scope of this report, which is about trends and issues they’re concerned with, not who is a terrorist and who isn’t. The Times Square bombers and the Tsarnaevs were domestically-based and not motivated by conservative ideology and everybody agrees they’re terrorists. Here are some details on why Hasan is not being charged with anything directly related to terrorism. Short version: there’s no such charge in military courts, transferring him to civilian courts would be unprecedented, and it’d make the prosecution’s jobs harder with no benefits. Maybe Purple Hearts will be awarded after he’s convicted.
The bigger player on wanting to keep the incident classified as a common crime rather than operational enemy-action casualty has apparently been the Dept. of the Army itself, which has the terrible PR effect of looking like it’s cheaping out on benefits and compensations the fallen would get in the latter case, but which they may also be doing with the intention of allowing the case to go forward by the regular court-martial process rather than civilianize it or bump it to “commission” proceedings: a bit of “I won’t give you the satisfaction of treating you like an actual war enemy, I’ll just prosecute you as a criminal turncoat” attitude. The Army seems to prefer that when their own turn against them.
ETA: And what Marley23 said.
Radical Islam isn’t a right wing ideology?
It means that a house divided cannot stand. And America is no exception.
Then the right wing of America should stop trying to divide the country, shouldn’t it?
That wing is still pissed off that secession failed…
That would be an example of what I’m referring to, not a solution.
So what is your solution? Seriously.
Should we just give the conservatives everything they want in the interest of harmony? Or should the right wing stop this idea that ANY compromise is traitorous and bad and actually start acting like grownups again? Recognize that the other side can have good ideas and work to implement them in such a way that both side’s goals can be achieved - if only to a limited extent.
It should be noted that the only time this country has actually been existentially threatened (your ‘house divided cannot stand’), it was due to conservative (in the sense of ‘change is bad’) forces refusing any compromise and turning to force of arms. Funny that.
If Obama commute the death sentence in this case, he’s definitely not getting reelected.
True and if does sign off on the execution he’s still not getting reelected.
Man, the guy just can’t win!
I’m not sure how the various suggestions that there are non-ideological reasons for caring about how terrorism and non-terrorism are distinguished disagree with me, so I will bow to the wisdom of the group. 
Beats me.
I don’t think so. I think a more accurate way of looking at it is to say that radical Islam defies the right-left paradigm and trying to use the left wing and right wing categories to classify them is at best simplistic and at worst quite eurocentric.
We certainly don’t debate whether or not Sitting Bull and Geronimo were “right wing” or “left wing.”
Let’s look at the Islamic Revolutionary government which is loaded with all sorts of left-wing influences.
To plagiarize a friend of mine, it’s constitution is is at its heart a revolutionary document, the product of a revolution which overthrew the old social order and introduced a new one which was totally different from that which it replaced. That doesn’t strike me as particularly conservative. It is also characterized by the sort of anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist rhetoric that is typical of leftist movements throughout the Third World. It espouses such typically leftist concepts such as state-provided universal education and a centrally planned economy, in which all major industries are firmly under the control of the state. Articles 19 and 20 establish freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, language, and gender (yes, I know, that’s rather rich, but it’s in there, trust me). Article 29 establishes a universal right to welfare, including unemployment, disability, healthcare, and other such things that are anathema to conservatives here in the West. The right to universal healthcare includes state-funded gender reassignment surgery for those that request it, something I do not EVER anticipate seeing here in the US even in the bluest of blue states. Article 31 provides for public housing and the redistribution of land to the rural proletariat.
You’ll also note that in his last election fight against Mousavi, Ahmadinejad vigorously attacked Mousavi for wanting to privatize a number of industries and other western style economic reforms and he also called for various petrol regulations to benefit the poor.
If Iran isn’t an example of Islamic radicalism then nothing is and if Ahmadinejad is a right-winger then so was his close friend and ally, Hugo Chavez.
Now, that’s not to say that Iran is a leftist government, but on balance, it is a revolutionary republic with a decidedly authoritarian and leftist bent while also having some elements to it that many might view as right-wing.
I never understood the idea that not executing someone makes you soft. Rotting in a cell for 50 years must be torturous. I’d imagine death would be a sweet release.
And thus the death penalty is not cruel and unusual. Unless we ban life sentences, which some countries have actually done. A slippery slope indeed.
I used to think that until I saw how desperately people on death row are to avoid it and how they consider a commutation to life in prison to be a huge victory.
Life in prison certainly sucks, but it’s better than no life at all.
[quote=“Zakalwe, post:50, topic:665666”]
So what is your solution? Seriously.
The Founders already had the “solution” and put it in writing in the form of something called The US Constitution and its Amendments.
One of the first things I’d like to see restored is the full and rightful sovereignty initially given the states. That way, liberals, conservatives, moderates etc. could focus on a state, converge on it, and run it as they see fit. This way, the successes of failures of each state would be on display and the knowledge gleaned would eventually work to serve Americans for the better.
Of course, that only applies to the Northern states* (and whatever Western states they held on to) - since the Southern states would have separated in 1861. That’s not a serious solution. Try again.
- As “Americans” anyway.