Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Zohiania]

Its clear that we need to develop more effective strategies for combatting all extremism, and all extremists who would utilize violence to achieve their goals must be stopped. Many seem to like to point fingers at various sides of the political spectrum, because they feel a need to defend "their side," but the only real sides in this fight are those against extremist terrorism and those who defend it. The fact is opposition to terrorism needs not to be a partisan issue, it seems many of the Americans on this forum seem to jump to making it one, there really isn't any left or right in this fight, only right and wrong. Hopefully everyone here and in our respective societies can rationally reach this conclusion as well and come together to counter act these extremists and prevent these types of attacks from happening in the future. Because the "us vs. them" narratives and rhetoric isn't doing anything to help the situation.

This is a good initiative but the issue with it is that immediately we have to decide who is considered an extremist and a terrorists. Just in this thread the KKK, Proud Boys, Antifa, 3-Percenters, BLM and more have been mentioned as extremists. I would disagree with the 3-Percenters and I'm sure others would disagree on Antifa or BLM or Proud Boys or the KKK or whatever. It also doesn't help that our politicians are determined to push through their own legislation and the expense of the other side, which just makes people more radicalized.

I think we can define a non-partisan understanding of what constitutes terrorism. Extremism can really only be combatted culturally, but obviously not all extremists are terrorists, so combatting extremism will be harder, but I think we can reach a general consensus at least to some extent as to what constitutes extremism, which will be the stepping point for cultural unity in combatting, the levels of extremism that cannot be agreed upon will have to remain culturally partisan sadly, however that doesn't mean those levels can't also be combatted, but to a lesser extent until the overall culture shifts towards a more unified vision of what constitutes extremism and then over time we can actually moderate or in the very least shift extremists away from violent action and more towards a reformist outlook.

[Picairn]

Easy, you take their concerns seriously and make concessions for the future. It's obviously an issue for Republicans that illegals can now vote, and not only vote but vote in a method as dubious as mail in voting. A lot of right wingers saw the election as illegitimate because there were large numbers of incidents reported as voter fraud or suspected voter fraud, which throws the whole election into question. Besides think about what would happen if you didn't find common ground with them. They aren't going away anymore than you are, so all it's going to lead to is more violence on both sides.

You repeat common right-wing propaganda talking points and you expect right wingers to be taken seriously? You do realize that the 2020 election was the most secure in history according to Trump's officials and that mail-in voting has no widespread fraud in states where it is applied, right?

[Neu California]

and how are we supposed to find common ground with a group of people not accepting the fact their Leader lost a election and tried to halt the counting process? Seriously?

Easy, you take their concerns seriously and make concessions for the future. It's obviously an issue for Republicans that illegals can now vote, and not only vote but vote in a method as dubious as mail in voting. A lot of right wingers saw the election as illegitimate because there were large numbers of incidents reported as voter fraud or suspected voter fraud, which throws the whole election into question. Besides think about what would happen if you didn't find common ground with them. They aren't going away anymore than you are, so all it's going to lead to is more violence on both sides.

I don’t see all Republicans as terrorists. Winning an election or working together is the better solution.

I'd agree, but in order to work together both sides need to make concessions and right now that isn't happening.

Except illegals CAN'T vote. And regardless, there's no evidence that they did in anything approaching significant numbers, if at all

[Whitemore]

and how are we supposed to find common ground with a group of people not accepting the fact their Leader lost a election and tried to halt the counting process? Seriously?

Easy, you take their concerns seriously and make concessions for the future. It's obviously an issue for Republicans that illegals can now vote, and not only vote but vote in a method as dubious as mail in voting. A lot of right wingers saw the election as illegitimate because there were large numbers of incidents reported as voter fraud or suspected voter fraud, which throws the whole election into question. Besides think about what would happen if you didn't find common ground with them. They aren't going away anymore than you are, so all it's going to lead to is more violence on both sides.

I don’t see all Republicans as terrorists. Winning an election or working together is the better solution.

I'd agree, but in order to work together both sides need to make concessions and right now that isn't happening.

Well for one I wouldn't storm the Capitol and try to stop an Electoral count, they had their chances with the hundreds of lawsuits the Trump campaign filed and lost every single of them. I didn't storm the Capitol in such a pathetic display of insecurity that resulted in people losing their lives after the results of the 2016 election came in. I accepted them and became an activist in my town, which I can't say the same for the hundreds of losers who couldn't handle losing.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Easy, you take their concerns seriously and make concessions for the future. It's obviously an issue for Republicans that illegals can now vote, and not only vote but vote in a method as dubious as mail in voting. A lot of right wingers saw the election as illegitimate because there were large numbers of incidents reported as voter fraud or suspected voter fraud, which throws the whole election into question. Besides think about what would happen if you didn't find common ground with them. They aren't going away anymore than you are, so all it's going to lead to is more violence on both sides.

You repeat common right-wing propaganda talking points and you expect right wingers to be taken seriously? You do realize that the 2020 election was the most secure in history according to Trump's officials and that mail-in voting has no widespread fraud in states where it is applied, right?

An election is only fair if they win. If they lose, they throw away democracy.

[Greater Miami Shores]

i am shocked

shocked i say

You think your shocked, how about me lol.

[Picairn]

An election is only fair if they win. If they lose, they throw away democracy.

This is their real face behind the mask.

[CoraSpia]

In what sense is Bolsonaro more of a dictator than Maduro? He was elected in an open election,

On "open election" in which the main opponent (Lula) was in jail, sent there by a judge (Moro) motivated purely by political reasons and then rewarded by a ministry under Bolsonaro ? After the previously elected president (Dilma) was removed after a show trial over a technicality ?

I'm sure that I remember him winning by 10 percentage points over his nearest opponent. I don't really think that's a suspicious amount.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Wow. Who could ever see it coming. It's almost like years of being on anti vax facebook groups and youtube anti sjw echo chambers grew ever more extremists views that lead to terrorsism.

It's almost like anti sjw's have lead the right wing down the path of madness.

How strange that pushing divisive policies leads to the other side getting angry enough to fight. It's truly a shocking revelation.

Ah yes, divisive policies like "maybe we should stop assholes from shooting up schools, workplaces and, public spaces", "we shouldn't flood the planet", "the German and Scottish public healthcare systems spend less on healthcare then the US does, maybe we should adopt one of there systems", "stop killing black people for alleged crimes" and, "trans people are valid".
Truly, these ebil policies can drive anyone to murder a cop and drive another cop to suicide.

[CoraSpia]

You repeat common right-wing propaganda talking points and you expect right wingers to be taken seriously? You do realize that the 2020 election was the most secure in history according to Trump's officials and that mail-in voting has no widespread fraud in states where it is applied, right?

An election is only fair if they win. If they lose, they throw away democracy.

I'm pretty sure that what Cruz called for was an indepth review into the election, which would have done a lot in terms of calming people down.

[San Lumen]

On "open election" in which the main opponent (Lula) was in jail, sent there by a judge (Moro) motivated purely by political reasons and then rewarded by a ministry under Bolsonaro ? After the previously elected president (Dilma) was removed after a show trial over a technicality ?

I'm sure that I remember him winning by 10 percentage points over his nearest opponent. I don't really think that's a suspicious amount.

Had Lula been allowed to run he would have probably won.

[Alien Overlord]

Easy, you take their concerns seriously and make concessions for the future. It's obviously an issue for Republicans that illegals can now vote, and not only vote but vote in a method as dubious as mail in voting. A lot of right wingers saw the election as illegitimate because there were large numbers of incidents reported as voter fraud or suspected voter fraud, which throws the whole election into question. Besides think about what would happen if you didn't find common ground with them. They aren't going away anymore than you are, so all it's going to lead to is more violence on both sides.


I'd agree, but in order to work together both sides need to make concessions and right now that isn't happening.

Well for one I wouldn't storm the Capitol and try to stop an Electoral count, they had their chances with the hundreds of lawsuits the Trump campaign filed and lost every single of them. I didn't storm the Capitol in such a pathetic display of insecurity that resulted in people losing their lives after the results of the 2016 election came in. I accepted them and became an activist in my town, which I can't say the same for the hundreds of losers who couldn't handle losing.

I'm more of a fan of the idea that groups of people are motivated by particular factors and that it can be predictable. If it helps you sleep at night to believe that those who stormed the capital were outliers and extremists then whatever, but I do believe that it was a natural and human reaction to certain factors that we can understand if we put it under the microscope. We've seen similar events around the world throughout human history-storming a legislature isn't some brand new concept.

One thing about activism is that it means nothing if you don't convince people. Disregarding a different viewpoint and refusing to find common ground, believing the other side to be objectively wrong is not going to help you towards that goal. If you want to convince someone of your point of view you need to step into their shoes and empathize with them. That's just my opinion though.

(Pitcairn I'll be back later with a response)

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

He’s a troll account meant to bait, look at his post history for his Neo-Nazi shit. The way he writes his posts is plastic

*** Warning for Troll Naming ***
If you suspect someone of trolling, you do not name them in a forum thread, you report them to moderation.

I ain't a snitch

[The Reformed American Republic]

An election is only fair if they win. If they lose, they throw away democracy.

I'm pretty sure that what Cruz called for was an indepth review into the election, which would have done a lot in terms of calming people down.

Then he would have invented election "anomalies" to justify keeping Trump in power.

[Kilobugya]

I'm sure that I remember him winning by 10 percentage points over his nearest opponent. I don't really think that's a suspicious amount.

His main opponent was in jail, barred to run, after a show trial (that has since be cancelled because it was completely bogus), presided by a politically motivated judge that was rewarded with a cabinet position ! But that's a free and fair election ?

[San Lumen]

I'm sure that I remember him winning by 10 percentage points over his nearest opponent. I don't really think that's a suspicious amount.

His main opponent was in jail, barred to run, after a show trial (that has since be cancelled because it was completely bogus), presided by a politically motivated judge that was rewarded with a cabinet position ! But that's a free and fair election ?

Lula is likely going to run again and has a very good chance of winning.

[CoraSpia]

Wow. Who could ever see it coming. It's almost like years of being on anti vax facebook groups and youtube anti sjw echo chambers grew ever more extremists views that lead to terrorsism.

It's almost like anti sjw's have lead the right wing down the path of madness.

How strange that pushing divisive policies leads to the other side getting angry enough to fight. It's truly a shocking revelation.

Ah yes, divisive policies like "maybe we should stop assholes from shooting up schools, workplaces and, public spaces", "we shouldn't flood the planet", "the German and Scottish public healthcare systems spend less on healthcare then the US does, maybe we should adopt one of there systems", "stop killing black people for alleged crimes" and, "trans people are valid".
Truly, these ebil policies can drive anyone to murder a cop and drive another cop to suicide.

I agree on the last two, but gun control is an extremely divisive policy, for good reason. It's pretty difficult for a government to take peoples concerns seriously when there's no chance of people fighting back. Environmentalism will destroy a lot of peoples careers, and creating a nationalised health service like we have in the UK would be impossible without major tax rises or finding a lot of savings from some other place.

[Picairn]

I'm pretty sure that what Cruz called for was an indepth review into the election, which would have done a lot in terms of calming people down.

Why should we waste money on something that has been repeatedly addressed by academics and state & federal officials over and over? Oh right, anti-intellectualism is a serious disease.

(Pitcairn I'll be back later with a response)

Sure, I have enough facts and statistics to refute you any day.

[San Lumen]

Wow. Who could ever see it coming. It's almost like years of being on anti vax facebook groups and youtube anti sjw echo chambers grew ever more extremists views that lead to terrorsism.

It's almost like anti sjw's have lead the right wing down the path of madness.




Ah yes, divisive policies like "maybe we should stop assholes from shooting up schools, workplaces and, public spaces", "we shouldn't flood the planet", "the German and Scottish public healthcare systems spend less on healthcare then the US does, maybe we should adopt one of there systems", "stop killing black people for alleged crimes" and, "trans people are valid".
Truly, these ebil policies can drive anyone to murder a cop and drive another cop to suicide.

I agree on the last two, but gun control is an extremely divisive policy, for good reason. It's pretty difficult for a government to take peoples concerns seriously when there's no chance of people fighting back. Environmentalism will destroy a lot of peoples careers, and creating a nationalised health service like we have in the UK would be impossible without major tax rises or finding a lot of savings from some other place.

Environmentalism must be done regardless of the consequences.

[CoraSpia]

I'm pretty sure that what Cruz called for was an indepth review into the election, which would have done a lot in terms of calming people down.

Then he would have invented election "anomalies" to justify keeping Trump in power.

It was going to be led by a judge, not Cruz himself.

[Greater Miami Shores]

This is a good initiative but the issue with it is that immediately we have to decide who is considered an extremist and a terrorists. Just in this thread the KKK, Proud Boys, Antifa, 3-Percenters, BLM and more have been mentioned as extremists. I would disagree with the 3-Percenters and I'm sure others would disagree on Antifa or BLM or Proud Boys or the KKK or whatever. It also doesn't help that our politicians are determined to push through their own legislation and the expense of the other side, which just makes people more radicalized.

I think we can define a non-partisan understanding of what constitutes terrorism. Extremism can really only be combatted culturally, but obviously not all extremists are terrorists, so combatting extremism will be harder, but I think we can reach a general consensus at least to some extent as to what constitutes extremism, which will be the stepping point for cultural unity in combatting, the levels of extremism that cannot be agreed upon will have to remain culturally partisan sadly, however that doesn't mean those levels can't also be combatted, but to a lesser extent until the overall culture shifts towards a more unified vision of what constitutes extremism and then over time we can actually moderate or in the very least shift extremists away from violent action and more towards a reformist outlook.

I strongly agree with your statement above, but since I really do respect all persons rights to express their different views under the freedoms of expressions and democracy, like the Communists, Fascists and Nazis on the White Supremacy Discussion Thread, which many persons of all ideologies who do not respect it, I WANT YOU TO KNOW I Like You and I Love You For Your Sig Statement.

[CoraSpia]

I'm pretty sure that what Cruz called for was an indepth review into the election, which would have done a lot in terms of calming people down.

Why should we waste money on something that has been repeatedly addressed by academics and state & federal officials over and over? Oh right, anti-intellectualism is a serious disease.

(Pitcairn I'll be back later with a response)

Sure, I have enough facts and statistics to refute you any day.

We invest a lot of money into things which achieve nothing but calming people down. This isn't new.

[CoraSpia]

I agree on the last two, but gun control is an extremely divisive policy, for good reason. It's pretty difficult for a government to take peoples concerns seriously when there's no chance of people fighting back. Environmentalism will destroy a lot of peoples careers, and creating a nationalised health service like we have in the UK would be impossible without major tax rises or finding a lot of savings from some other place.

Environmentalism must be done regardless of the consequences.

Doing something 'at all cost' is how we ended up with the disasterous covid policies we've been seeing for the last year. You want to see massive infringements on liberty in the name of the environment that have no projected end date?

[San Lumen]

Environmentalism must be done regardless of the consequences.

Doing something 'at all cost' is how we ended up with the disasterous covid policies we've been seeing for the last year. You want to see massive infringements on liberty in the name of the environment that have no projected end date?

Not even remotely the same thing. Environmental laws infringe on liberty? Protecting land and species is infringing on freedom? You can’t be serious.

[Whitemore]

Well for one I wouldn't storm the Capitol and try to stop an Electoral count, they had their chances with the hundreds of lawsuits the Trump campaign filed and lost every single of them. I didn't storm the Capitol in such a pathetic display of insecurity that resulted in people losing their lives after the results of the 2016 election came in. I accepted them and became an activist in my town, which I can't say the same for the hundreds of losers who couldn't handle losing.

I'm more of a fan of the idea that groups of people are motivated by particular factors and that it can be predictable. If it helps you sleep at night to believe that those who stormed the capital were outliers and extremists then whatever, but I do believe that it was a natural and human reaction to certain factors that we can understand if we put it under the microscope. We've seen similar events around the world throughout human history-storming a legislature isn't some brand new concept.

One thing about activism is that it means nothing if you don't convince people. Disregarding a different viewpoint and refusing to find common ground, believing the other side to be objectively wrong is not going to help you towards that goal. If you want to convince someone of your point of view you need to step into their shoes and empathize with them. That's just my opinion though.

(Pitcairn I'll be back later with a response)

Thank god that the Republican Party didn't act this maddening during the 2008 Election, most if not all accepted it and simply protested. Which is much more of a normal response to losing than trying to overthrow your countries democratic process in confirming a President, who was duly elected by a majority of registered American voters. Also, using the argument that has this happened before (not in America, certainly in other countries though) is not good enough to dismiss what these people tried to do. It just makes the whole situation much worse to think about when we have so much access to the facts and people simply get brainwashed into ignoring what the former President's own government was saying. I like to think my activism has done good, I helped pass a local charter in my county related to Marijuana possession and the right to grow it here. Which will do economic wonders for us, since under Republican Rule for decades we've not seen any positive growth.