Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[Page]

The acts of terrorism committed by white supremacists and right-wing extremists cannot accurately be described as lone wolf attacks, even in such cases when a single individual plans an attack without the assistance of anyone else.

The alt-right promotes stochastic terrorism. It is a game of probability. Incite millions and at least one person will act. There are no targets specified, there is no contract between a terrorist and an organization. There is only incitement with the knowledge that someone somewhere will do something.

Daesh uses this tactic. Many individuals who have committed acts of terrorism in the name of Daesh have never spoken to anyone about their plans. It is understood by those spreading propaganda that someone will eventually act. Yet when an individual carries out an attack, Daesh will claim credit despite the fact there was never a conspiracy between the terrorist and the ones who incited them. We do not call these terrorists "lone wolves" and we should not refer to alt-right terrorists any differently.

We tend not to call them "ISIS/Daesh terrorist attacks" until that organisation claims responsibility for them though. Until then, they're just radical Islamist terrorist attacks, with no real implication of an organisation's involvement until we have good reason to believe an organisation was involved. How many times has that oh-so-organised and united entity known as "the alt-right" actually made a claim of responsibility for any of the attacks committed by individual white supremacists, neo-nazis, or whatever else?

The only reason why Daesh claims responsibility for attacks that result from their stochastic terrorism tactics while the alt-right does not is because the leadership of Daesh are already wanted men in the crosshairs, while the leaders of the alt-right still have the benefit of denying they had anything to do any acts of terrorism. The central figures of the alt-right may not claim responsibility but they do celebrate things like the Christchurch mosque massacre when the cameras aren't on them.

[Fedel]

They used the word “church” to stand in as a generic house of worship. IE the right wing terrorists who shoot up synagogues and mosques are targeting “churches.”

Is there a problem with that? Churches have always been used to define a place of worship as far as I'm aware.

I am claiming that these people who shoot up “churches” are a real threat because, well, they’ve killed people.

Apparently, Emerald Legion disagrees with your implication that radical leftists don't also kill people.

The Emerald Legion is saying leftist political forces are the real threat and that their efforts aren’t “imaginary” just because they don’t shoot up “churches.” IE houses of worship.

Ah, my apologies. I thought YOU believed he was referencing targets of radical leftists being "churches" as opposed to mosques and and synagogues but you were simply commenting on his use of the word "church."

My other point (aside from saying the people who are killing others are the real threat) is that I found it telling that a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism is also using a Christian word to describe Jewish and Islamic houses of worship.

I've heard religious buildings referred to as "churches" all my life. I think you're reading too much into it. Also, what do you mean by "a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism?"

[Fedel]

We tend not to call them "ISIS/Daesh terrorist attacks" until that organisation claims responsibility for them though. Until then, they're just radical Islamist terrorist attacks, with no real implication of an organisation's involvement until we have good reason to believe an organisation was involved. How many times has that oh-so-organised and united entity known as "the alt-right" actually made a claim of responsibility for any of the attacks committed by individual white supremacists, neo-nazis, or whatever else?

The central figures of the alt-right may not claim responsibility but they do celebrate things like the Christchurch mosque massacre when the cameras aren't on them.

And how would you know? Are you there partying with them? Who ever are these leaders of the alt right?

[Prydania]

They explicitly stated that they believe the radical left poses a BIGGER threat to people in general and not that the right didn't pose any threat at all. How is that the same as disregarding other people's suffering?

When you have two synagogue shootings and a mosque shooting in less then a year and the perpetrators of all attacks adhere to the same right wing white nationalist ideology? And a thread to discuss the violent tendencies of that movement is met with someone going “but what about the leftists?” then yes. That’s showing a disregard for the suffering of people and communities effected by right wing white nationalist violence. They’re treating real people being gunned down in their houses of worship as pawns to outmaneuver in a political gotcha game. Not as real people whose lives were taken by terrorists.

You saw it in the first synagogue shooting thread. The mosque shooting thread. The second synagogue shooting thread. You’ve seen it in this thread.
People who treat the victims as statistics to be argued against in the name of advancing a political position. Not as people who had their lives taken away by terrorists.
It’s disheartening to see every time, though no longer surprising.

A church is a church. You can call it whatever you want. Whether it's a standing stone circle or a Mosque or a Synagogue.

It's a place of religious worship. AKA church.

I think it’s telling that you’re both trying to downplay the threat posed by people who gun down Jews and Muslims while also trying to apply a Christian term to their houses of worship.

And that's your problem. There are radicalized leftists Firebombing GOP offices and attempting to assassinate GOP officials. All the while conducting a massive harassment campaign against them, and attacking them in the streets.

First off the last guy who tried to assassinate a number of political officials was a deranged right winger. You remember the Trump supporter from Florida who sent mail bombs to Democratic politicians and high profile Democratic Party supporters? Yeah.

And look. I’m sorry if Sarah Huckabee Sanders keeps getting kicked out of restaurants, but that’s not quite the same as right wing white nationalists shooting up Jews and Muslims in synagogues and mosques, now is it?

People are also dying to left wing bullshit. And yet you want to worry about a group who's total income was less than a minimum wage worker, and has no serious political pull because they had a handful of lone wolf attacks.

I’m worried about the people actually killing people. I’m sorry if you’re unable to empathize with that because you’re not part of a group these people target, but for those of us who are? They’re the immediate threat here.

[Page]

The central figures of the alt-right may not claim responsibility but they do celebrate things like the Christchurch mosque massacre when the cameras aren't on them.

And how would you know? Are you there partying with them?

I can interpret their dog whistles. And being able to do so doesn't require me to be a genius, their dog whistles are evident to anyone who doesn't willingly ignore them. When someone's response to the Christchurch shootings is something like "But there are legitimate concerns about the mass migrations of Muslims whose way of life is incompatible with Western culture..." if that is someone's immediate response to 50 Muslims being slain, that is a dog whistle for "I'm glad they're dead"

[Greater Germany]

Inb4 "but the left is just as bad because *mightily inhales* ANTIFA".

I mean... they are also terrorists. It doesn't make the alt-right not, but Antifa still are.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

[The Emerald Legion]

But they didn't say churches.

They said "just because their targets AREN'T churches."

Are you bothering to read the posts of the people you respond to?

They used the word “church” to stand in as a generic house of worship. IE the right wing terrorists who shoot up synagogues and mosques are targeting “churches.”
I am claiming that these people who shoot up “churches” are a real threat because, well, they’ve killed people.
The Emerald Legion is saying leftist political forces are the real threat and that their efforts aren’t “imaginary” just because they don’t shoot up “churches.” IE houses of worship. Get it?

So yes I do read what I respond to.

My other point (aside from saying the people who are killing others are the real threat) is that I found it telling that a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism is also using a Christian word to describe Jewish and Islamic houses of worship.

Given I'm not part of an Abrahamic faith I tend to lump the three together yes.

Also, my point wasn't that voting Democrat = Shooting up a Synagogue. That's stupid. I'm not comparing physical violence to abstract political moves. I'm saying that when you put two groups side by side, and both have committed acts of violence, when one claims membership of 50% of the country and the other claims membership of maybe 12% one is clearly more of a threat.

[Page]

Inb4 "but the left is just as bad because *mightily inhales* ANTIFA".

I mean... they are also terrorists. It doesn't make the alt-right not, but Antifa still are.

An overturned trash can and an anarchy A being spraypainted on a window = 9/11, of course

[Prydania]

My other point (aside from saying the people who are killing others are the real threat) is that I found it telling that a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism is also using a Christian word to describe Jewish and Islamic houses of worship.

I've heard religious buildings referred to as "churches" all my life. I think you're reading too much into it. Also, what do you mean by "a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism?"

I meant to say “a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism isn’t a threat.”
See I didn’t grow up with a religious building being called a church. The church was a church. The synagogue the next town over where we went was a synagogue. The Islamic equivalent was a mosque. No one ever called my synagogue a church, unless we were purposefully joking and calling it a “Jew church.”

So when you have someone, The Emerald Legion, claiming that the people who target Jews and Muslims in their houses of worship aren’t a threat? And that same person uses Christian terminology to strip those non-Christian houses of worship of their proper names? It just makes me go “huh.”

[Fedel]

When you have two synagogue shootings and a mosque shooting in less then a year and the perpetrators of all attacks adhere to the same right wing white nationalist ideology? And a thread to discuss the violent tendencies of that movement is met with someone going “but what about the leftists?” then yes. That’s showing a disregard for the suffering of people and communities effected by right wing white nationalist violence.

I have to disagree here. If they truly believe radical leftists pose a bigger threat, then it's a fair question to ask. Especially given the actions of the radical left is what often spurs on these actions by the radical right.

They’re treating real people being gunned down in their houses of worship as pawns to outmaneuver in a political gotcha game. Not as real people whose lives were taken by terrorists.

That's generally the response you see from both sides of the political divide whenever there's a school shooting. At least in the United States. We're a very politically divided country.

You saw it in the first synagogue shooting thread. The mosque shooting thread. The second synagogue shooting thread. You’ve seen it in this thread.
People who treat the victims as statistics to be argued against in the name of advancing a political position. Not as people who had their lives taken away by terrorists.
It’s disheartening to see every time, though no longer surprising.

It happens on both sides of the political divide and I think it occurs because people use these death's as a way to call for actions that don't truly help anybody in the long run ( actions like shutting public forums that tend to lean one direction politically ). People prefer to deal out short term punishments to the people they feel are partially responsible for the atrocities rather then work towards an actual solution most of the time imo.

[Greater Germany]

I mean... they are also terrorists. It doesn't make the alt-right not, but Antifa still are.

An overturned trash can and an anarchy A being spraypainted on a window = 9/11, of course

Yes, that's exactly why the US DHS believes it. Not the assaults, fractured skulls, or that member of Antifa who shot at Congresspeople.

And the Alt-right doesn't attack people either, they just sit in their mother's basements and post memes.

Yep, no one does anything. It's all just a computer simulation.

[Fedel]

I've heard religious buildings referred to as "churches" all my life. I think you're reading too much into it. Also, what do you mean by "a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism?"

I meant to say “a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism isn’t a threat.”
See I didn’t grow up with a religious building being called a church. The church was a church. The synagogue the next town over where we went was a synagogue. The Islamic equivalent was a mosque. No one ever called my synagogue a church, unless we were purposefully joking and calling it a “Jew church.”

So when you have someone, The Emerald Legion, claiming that the people who target Jews and Muslims in their houses of worship aren’t a threat? And that same person uses Christian terminology to strip those non-Christian houses of worship of their proper names? It just makes me go “huh.”

I don't think they're claiming that. They're only saying it's not AS BIG a threat ( not saying whether I personally agree with that or not as I haven't looked into the statistics myself ).

That's fair, I think it's just different upbringings though as opposed to a veiled attempt to insult a certain group.

[Fedel]

And how would you know? Are you there partying with them?

I can interpret their dog whistles. And being able to do so doesn't require me to be a genius, their dog whistles are evident to anyone who doesn't willingly ignore them. When someone's response to the Christchurch shootings is something like "But there are legitimate concerns about the mass migrations of Muslims whose way of life is incompatible with Western culture..." if that is someone's immediate response to 50 Muslims being slain, that is a dog whistle for "I'm glad they're dead"

Wow. An alt-right whisperer who has the ability to immediately know what anybody on the "alt-right" is thinking. You should get your own show.

[Shanhwa]

This thread is a meme. That’s really all. I predicted it the second I saw the topic. It became exactly what I thought it would.

This is childish. People are going back and forth with what is quintessentially “NUH UH! YUH HUH!”.

[Shanhwa]

And how would you know? Are you there partying with them?

I can interpret their dog whistles. And being able to do so doesn't require me to be a genius, their dog whistles are evident to anyone who doesn't willingly ignore them. When someone's response to the Christchurch shootings is something like "But there are legitimate concerns about the mass migrations of Muslims whose way of life is incompatible with Western culture..." if that is someone's immediate response to 50 Muslims being slain, that is a dog whistle for "I'm glad they're dead"

I too remember when being anti-immigration made me support terrorist attacks on specific religions.

[Prydania]

I don't think they're claiming that. They're only saying it's not AS BIG a threat ( not saying whether I personally agree with that or not as I haven't looked into the statistics myself ).

Well thankfully someone DID look into the statistics. Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia posted this on page two of this thread.

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-dea ... le-anomaly
https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... ks-us-soil

Basically? Radical Islamist and right wing white nationalist terrorism account for most people killed in terror attacks in the US. Radical Islamist terrorists have the most, statistically. With right wing white nationalists at number two. Left wing terrorism is a distant third.

Percentage of people in the US killed in acts of terrorism, 1992-2017
Radical Islamic terrorism 92%
Right wing white nationalist terrorism 6.6%
Left wing terrorism 0.7%

Chances of being killed by a terrorist
Radical Islamic terrorist 1 in 2.5 million
Right wing white nationalist terrorist 1 in 33 million
Left wing terrorist 1 in 330 million

So The Emerald Legion’s full of it. He’s attempting to downplay right wing white nationalist terrorism and claim left wing terrorism is a bigger threat. And yet the statistics don’t back his position up.

And in doing so he marginalizes the deaths of of people gunned down in their houses of worship to make a false political point.

That's fair, I think it's just different upbringings though as opposed to a veiled attempt to insult a certain group.

I’m not inclined to give people who peddle falsehoods to downplay a threat posed against my well being the benefit of the doubt.

Especially given the actions of the radical left is what often spurs on these actions by the radical right.

Source on that?

[Greater Germany]

This thread is a meme. That’s really all. I predicted it the second I saw the topic. It became exactly what I thought it would.

This is childish. People are going back and forth with what is quintessentially “NUH UH! YUH HUH!”.

nuh uh.

[The Emerald Legion]

I've heard religious buildings referred to as "churches" all my life. I think you're reading too much into it. Also, what do you mean by "a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism?"

I meant to say “a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism isn’t a threat.”
See I didn’t grow up with a religious building being called a church. The church was a church. The synagogue the next town over where we went was a synagogue. The Islamic equivalent was a mosque. No one ever called my synagogue a church, unless we were purposefully joking and calling it a “Jew church.”

So when you have someone, The Emerald Legion, claiming that the people who target Jews and Muslims in their houses of worship aren’t a threat? And that same person uses Christian terminology to strip those non-Christian houses of worship of their proper names? It just makes me go “huh.”

Wasn't that way where I grew up.

Aren't a societal scale threat. Sure, they are dangerous. But you are quite literally more likely to be struck dead by lightning than you are a member of the Alt Right.

[Fedel]

I don't think they're claiming that. They're only saying it's not AS BIG a threat ( not saying whether I personally agree with that or not as I haven't looked into the statistics myself ).

Well thankfully someone DID look into the statistics. Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia posted this on page two of this thread.

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-dea ... le-anomaly
https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... ks-us-soil

Basically? Radical Islamist and right wing white nationalist terrorism account for most people killed in terror attacks in the US. Radical Islamist terrorists have the most, statistically. With right wing white nationalists at number two. Left wing terrorism is a distant third.

Percentage of people in the US killed in acts of terrorism, 1992-2017
Radical Islamic terrorism 92%
Right wing white nationalist terrorism 6.6%
Left wing terrorism 0.7%

Chances of being killed by a terrorist
Radical Islamic terrorist 1 in 2.5 million
Right wing white nationalist terrorist 1 in 33 million
Left wing terrorist 1 in 330 million

So The Emerald Legion’s full of it. He’s attempting to downplay right wing white nationalist terrorism and claim left wing terrorism is a bigger threat. And yet the statistics don’t back his position up.

And in doing so he marginalizes the deaths of of people gunned down in their houses of worship to make a false political point.

That's fair, I think it's just different upbringings though as opposed to a veiled attempt to insult a certain group.

I’m not inclined to give people who peddle falsehoods to downplay a threat posed against my well being the benefit of the doubt.

I'd have to verify the accuracy of those statistics via other sites but, assuming they're correct, I'm more interested in the split of terrorist actions from the years 2008 onwards since the "alt-right" as it's usually referred to is a more recent phenomena.

You really should give everybody the benefit of the doubt, at least in public conversations. Otherwise, they just devolve into pointless mudslinging.

[Prydania]

I meant to say “a guy claiming right wing white nationalist terrorism isn’t a threat.”
See I didn’t grow up with a religious building being called a church. The church was a church. The synagogue the next town over where we went was a synagogue. The Islamic equivalent was a mosque. No one ever called my synagogue a church, unless we were purposefully joking and calling it a “Jew church.”

So when you have someone, The Emerald Legion, claiming that the people who target Jews and Muslims in their houses of worship aren’t a threat? And that same person uses Christian terminology to strip those non-Christian houses of worship of their proper names? It just makes me go “huh.”

Wasn't that way where I grew up.

Aren't a societal scale threat. Sure, they are dangerous. But you are quite literally more likely to be struck dead by lightning than you are a member of the Alt Right.

Check above. You’re far more likely to be killed by a radicalized member of the alt right then you are to be killed by a radicalized leftist.

And yeah. People who terrorize Jews in their houses of worship are very much a threat for Jewish people. Empathy’s something to strive for, you know.

[Prydania]

I'd have to verify the accuracy of those statistics via other sites but, assuming they're correct, I'm more interested in the split of terrorist actions from the years 2008 onwards since the "alt-right" as it's usually referred to is a more recent phenomena.

Go ahead, but just so you know? The Cato Institute is a right wing libertarian think tank. They don’t have an interest in skewing numbers to make “the right” look bad.

Anyway post-2008 numbers would look interesting because you’re removing both the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11 from the equation.

You really should give everybody the benefit of the doubt, at least in public conversations. Otherwise, they just devolve into pointless mudslinging.

When someone tries to claim the movement that 1) advocates for violence against my ethnic group and 2) has members actually going out to act on that isn’t a threat? No, I don’t think they’re acting in good faith.

[Greater Germany]

Wasn't that way where I grew up.

Aren't a societal scale threat. Sure, they are dangerous. But you are quite literally more likely to be struck dead by lightning than you are a member of the Alt Right.

Check above. You’re far more likely to be killed by a radicalized member of the alt right then you are to be killed by a radicalized leftist.

Those statistics take into account the OKC bombing, which wasn't done by the alt right. Are there figures for just the alt right? I notice, for example, one of your sources specifies that "Left Wing" terrorists have killed 13 people since 2016. Is there a similar break down for the more recent "Alt-Right" movement?

[Prydania]

Check above. You’re far more likely to be killed by a radicalized member of the alt right then you are to be killed by a radicalized leftist.

Those statistics take into account the OKC bombing, which wasn't done by the alt right. Are there figures for just the alt right? I notice, for example, one of your sources specifies that "Left Wing" terrorists have killed 13 people since 2016. Is there a similar break down for the more recent "Alt-Right" movement?

The alt right is simply a new strain of radicalized white nationalism that has existed for decades, if not longer. In short? The OKC Bombing wasn’t carried out by a member of the alt right, but the alt right and Timothy McVeigh are part of the same ideological grouping of radicalized white nationalists.

As for the alt right’s body count since 2016?
Charlottesville- 1
Tree of Life synagogue shooting- 11
Poway synagogue shooting- 1

We’re already up to 13 and that’s just off the top of my head.

[Greater Germany]

Those statistics take into account the OKC bombing, which wasn't done by the alt right. Are there figures for just the alt right? I notice, for example, one of your sources specifies that "Left Wing" terrorists have killed 13 people since 2016. Is there a similar break down for the more recent "Alt-Right" movement?

The alt right is simply a new strain of radicalized white nationalism that has existed for decades, if not longer. In short? The OKC Bombing wasn’t carried out by a member of the alt right, but the alt right and Timothy McVeigh are part of the same ideological grouping of radicalized white nationalists.

As for the alt right’s body count since 2016?
Charlottesville- 1
Tree of Life synagogue shooting- 11
Poway synagogue shooting- 1

We’re already up to 13 and that’s just off the top of my head.

The reason I ask is the choice of year seems arbitrary. Why 1992? And you have pointed out the sources you provided were from a right-wing think tank, so it intrigued me that they didn't break down the alt-right murders by recent years like they did with the left.

[The Emerald Legion]

Timothy McVeigh wasn't a white nationalist. He was just a dude angry at the federal government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the Brady act.

Doesn't excuse what he did, but he's not a Neo Nazi.