Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.

Imagine for me, if you will, that there was a poll that indicated 45% of Muslims supported ISIS. I'd take a guess that the right-wing wouldn't be saying "but, but...what about the other 43%?!?!?." And they'd be right to not say it.

Also, I have plenty of skepticism of the government, but I'm not going to blindly accept claims like election fraud without a shred of legitimate evidence.

[The Black Forrest]

Don’t you know, it’s only terrorism when Muslims and the left do it. Many right-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they believe “love America” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”.

Conversely, many left-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they're “fighting racism and systemic oppression” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”. It's only terrorism when right-wingers do it.

Depends on what you are measuring. Riots tend to be spontaneous not really an act of terror. Jan 6?…..you had people fighting the police, looking to take people captive; a hangmans station; chants of hang Mike Pence……that sounds more like terror.

Domestic extremism in America can't be discussed in a fair reasonable manner because the people reporting on or prosecuting it are blatantly and consistently biased in favor of the left.

You have to admit when you talk about domestic extremists; it tends to be white suprematist groups. You do have the so called eco terror groups.

I am not sure I like the phrase domestic extremism. It kind of sounds like trying to make something “nicer” then it is.

So what would be the difference between domestic extremism and domestic terrorism?

Maybe right-wingers would be more apt to discuss combatting right-wing violence if left-wingers were more apt to admit that left-wing violence even happens.

Hmmmm. You have an example where a leftist say it doesn’t happen?

Demanding other people be held accountable for the actions on "their side" while refusing to let anybody on your own side be held accountable for their own actions is being a hypocrite. There's certainly plenty of this hypocrisy on the right as well, I won't say there isn't, but I will say it's a more blatant pervasive issue on the left, that many of you in this very thread are complicit in. Most of you aren't actually opposing political extremism or terrorism, you're just opposing the right-wing.

Hmmm. Well. It does sound like you are shifting issues to the left. Question: Can you define left-wing extremism examples and offer right wing?

I only ask as I have heard people talk about the dangers of the left and they can’t describe what that are (anecdotal reference to my right-wing relatives).

The great majority of right-wingers in the U.S believe that the January 6 terrorist attack on the Capitol was really “antifa”, and if they do acknowledge that it was Trump supporters, they support it.

I’ve noticed unlike far-left or Islamist terrorist groups, the far-right terrorists are NOT as eager to claim responsibility for their terrorist attacks. They like to infiltrate and blend in other groups, particularly legitimate BIPOIC civil rights groups.

I think they to this to try to make legitimate BIPOC civil rights organizations look violent and radical, and push whites who are non-racist, or apathetic to more radical and extremist ideologies. They think that this will incite a race war, which they want more badly than a dog wants a bone.

This sure doesn't sound like rabid conspiracy theorist mental gymnastics. Another constant trend, "all left-wing associated violence is actually right-wing infiltrators, but those crazy right-wingers blaming their violence on left-wing infiltrators are lying!"

Personally; I have heard the antifa infiltrator claims from people and family members. I have seen a couple stories were a right-winger was trying to help get a riot going. They were supposedly identified and had a history of comments.

The so called antifa agitators hadn’t been identified. One person tried to explain this away as the liberal press…..

How do you spew this hysterical nonsense and expect it to result in constructive dialogue?

How do you expect to have a constructive dialogue if you start with calling it “hysterical nonsense” ?

You also accuse right-wing extremists of desperately wanting a race war,

Ok you started off ok and then

but it's the left-wing who keeps pushing this mass cultural delusion that right-wing vs left-wing neatly boils down to "bigotry vs equality," reinforced with selective outrage against police violence, interracial crime, and mass shootings, which are only acknowledged when it can serve that narrative. Double standard harder.

You lost your point when you went with:
mass cultural delusion
selective outrage against police violence, interracial crime, and mass shootings

Guess what that makes you sound like?

Violence is violence. The January 6th insurrectionists should pay for their sins, as should the people who turned peaceful protests into riots.
The interesting thing is - and this is arguably the entire point of the thread - these two groups of people are the same.

Ditto this. "The entire point of the thread" is shifting blame.
Interesting how the people who supposedly hate the systemically oppressive leadership and claim to stand up for disenfranchised communities, are so upset by an attempted attack on politicians, while defending mobs (largely consisting of people who aren't even local) in disenfranchised communities continually exacerbating violence and economic depression in the area.

I don’t think that is what Grave meant. However, I will leave that to him.

You don't speak for anyone other than yourself.

Right-wing supporters have more room to speak for the right-wing than vitriolic anti-right crusaders.
Person A: "All right-wingers are racist nazis!"
Person B: "Well I'm right-wing, I'm not a racist nazi, and I know plenty of people who are in the same boat."
You: "YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF!"
What does this contribute? It's like you just want to be part of the discussion without actually having anything to say, so you're not speaking for anybody.

Sure. It could also help if the right dropped it’s penchant for insults as well. Libtard, snowflake, fruit and nut, etc., etc.

to make a long story short, because "terrorism" charges are considered as the same severity as, say, treason or old school regicide, and tend to assume a certain degree of organisation and pre-meditation. Those latter qualities tend to be lacking in riots, which tend to simply, you know, happen.

Wow, that sure sounds like it could just as well describe Jan 6th, considering the massive crowd of Trump supporters there that day. If that was actually the planned insurrection so many try to paint it as, would it have been over as quickly as it was? Hell no. Trump asked people to peacefully and patriotically show their support for democracy,

Two and half hours after it started. That was more of a response from a suggestion of saying something. The problem is the rhetoric before it; the lack of response when the capitol police asked for help; the video of him all excited by it; and the simple fact he never checked on Mike Pence.

which is what the vast majority of people there did.

Oh nobody said all were involved. Heck even saw video of a maga hat trying to help a cop being hurt by other maga hats.

Then Pence made the decision to not even discuss allegations of election fraud, and instead just ratify votes that many people weren't confident in, so a portion of that crowd lost their shit and invaded the Capitol,

Why would he? You think there wasn’t a question to actual numbers of election fraud? This is the problem of the “Big Lie” claims without hard evidence. Conspiracies abound and yet numbers aren’t there. This is why 80+ lawsuits were tossed due to lack of merit. This is the one thing the “maga side” doesn’t seem to understand. It’s not illegal for a politician to lie to the public. However, it is in court.

I am not surprised they lost their shit especially when all their hear is the rhetoric from the top.

You mention constructive dialogues. Don’t you think those are only possible if you can “constructively evaluate” the comments of your politicians?

which lasted what, a few hours? Some had intentions of inflicting violence on government officials, but even the most inflated death toll for that day is only 5 deaths, most of which were Trump supporters.

There were also the two suicides still why bring it up?

The police officer who died was hospitalized by pepper spray, but that was falsely reported as him being bludgeoned, for weeks. Totally sounds like completely fair and balanced reporting on an incident that was definitely an organized terrorist attack.

Actually, it was thought he was hit in the head by a thrown fire extinguisher. The video showed that. After the medical guys said they didn’t find blunt force trauma did that change. You will have to do better if you are suggesting it’s a lie perpetrated by the “leftest media”

But when cities like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, etc were/are having nightly riots, that just sort of happens, right? Crowds chanting mottos about murdering police officers, or "no justice, no peace" in conjunction with these riots associated with their cause, isn't an attempt to scare people into supporting a particular political ideology? When crowds of people are shooting fireworks into the faces of police officers, there was no organization or premeditation, right? When those 'autonomous zones' pop-up, claiming a few city blocks to be under the control of a particular group that does not recognize the existing authorities, that just, sort of happens? And continues to happen for weeks sometimes, with the tacit support of local leadership?

You realize you spoke about the majority of people on Jan 6th were not involved and yet you don’t give the same measure of the BLM protests.

45% of Republicans supported the insurrection, so no you don't know them as much as you think.

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.

So? Almost as much means it’s selective acknowledgement? I have heard many say those that did are…fringe elements. Which probably are. Even then shouldn’t the polling been like 20% or less believe it? That many people supporting it is an area of concern.

The 2020 election was sketchy as hell, and most of the people with the authority to investigate the matter refuse to do so, while the people who conducted it stonewall those who try, and the left-wing elites just keep harping on about how safe and secure the election was, while making no effort to prove it and labelling anyone who questions it as treasonous lunatics. Anybody who actually gives a shit about democracy or free fair elections should be just as upset at this response as anybody on the right.

Really. So the Republican Secretaries of State who validated the voting where what spies? Traitors?

What stonewalling happened?

It was safe and secure. What fraud happened was well with in the percentages of margin of error. There was no large scale fraud. Remember all the nonsense of mail balloting being a massive fraud case? They baked off when they found Florida used it and trump said something to lines of “well they do it right”. Colorado and Oregon have used it for decades. About 32-35 million votes cast that way. They did find voter fraud. A grand total of 22.

Much as I like a good conspiracy theory (they are kind of my market tabloid) the claims center mainly on conspiracies. Again 80+ lawsuits tossed for lack of merit. They did win 3 and those were mainly procedure violations. Justified and yet not enough to change the outcome.

Basically; you going to have to do better then pointing and saying “over there be dragons”. Claims like that guy pulled a tray from under the table!!!!!!!!!! Sure. I volunteered to talley things for a non political things. Guess what they did? When they sorted a tray for the area I covered? They put it under my table when I was busy with another tray.

(This part is aimed more at others than you in particular) Compare that to the response to Trump's victory in 2016, in which claims from Hillary Clinton (among others) that Trump cheated weren't universally vilified/silenced by mass media, and resulted in investigations, because election integrity is only questionable when a left-wing candidate loses.

Now you being disingenuous. Trumps own mouth helped in that area.

H. lost her campaign for many reasons. The blue wall nonsense for example.

Trump also didn’t help his image with the conspiracy theory of the email server. Never mind several politicians of both parties had them and shoot his own family members used them.

Reminder: H conceeded the election and didn’t go on and on and on and on about it being stolen.

Rioting by Hillary supporters didn't get her deplatformed for those claims, nor do people get deplatformed for "indirectly" encouraging violence against the right-wing via constant false conflation with white supremacy and nazism. Though people on the left seem to have no problems identifying themselves with communist/socialist ideology, despite it being responsible for atrocities on the same scale. So fair.

What rioting did H supporters do?

Why would she be deplatformed? Do you have examples of her indirectly encouraging violence; saying nasty things and getting a pass?

The commie socialist thing? Seriously?

Most people who "support the insurrection" are actually (in their view, whether or not you agree with it) supporting election integrity, which they feel they were failed on. But people who don't trust the authorities/system on any other matter apparently have a lot of blind faith that this particular thing was handled properly.

Based on what? Talk from “a cruel and vindictive man” (Trumps sister said that).

They feel it failed and yet what did they do to validate the claims?

-edit-

Looking at this? It’s a quote monster so if you respond. I would cut and paste a new post

[Grave_n_idle]

Ditto this. "The entire point of the thread" is shifting blame.

That might be the point for you. It certainly wasn't the point for me, or the original point of the thread.

Interesting how the people who supposedly hate the systemically oppressive leadership and claim to stand up for disenfranchised communities, are so upset by an attempted attack on politicians...

The problem isn't 'an attempted attack on politicians' - although that obviously IS a problem. We can't have a robust democracy if the people we send to represent us get assassinated.

The problem is an attack on our democratic process. We do not want the political precedent, going forward, to be solving issues by the bullet box when the ballot box doesn't do what we would like.

...while defending mobs (largely consisting of people who aren't even local) in disenfranchised communities continually exacerbating violence and economic depression in the area.

Pointing out that protestors are protesting and that the rioters are a small minority - and evidence suggests, often not actually connected to the protests - is not 'defending mobs'.

[Picairn]

45% of Republicans supported the insurrection, so no you don't know them as much as you think.

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.
The 2020 election was sketchy as hell, and most of the people with the authority to investigate the matter refuse to do so, while the people who conducted it stonewall those who try, and the left-wing elites just keep harping on about how safe and secure the election was, while making no effort to prove it and labelling anyone who questions it as treasonous lunatics. Anybody who actually gives a shit about democracy or free fair elections should be just as upset at this response as anybody on the right.

(This part is aimed more at others than you in particular) Compare that to the response to Trump's victory in 2016, in which claims from Hillary Clinton (among others) that Trump cheated weren't universally vilified/silenced by mass media, and resulted in investigations, because election integrity is only questionable when a left-wing candidate loses. Rioting by Hillary supporters didn't get her deplatformed for those claims, nor do people get deplatformed for "indirectly" encouraging violence against the right-wing via constant false conflation with white supremacy and nazism. Though people on the left seem to have no problems identifying themselves with communist/socialist ideology, despite it being responsible for atrocities on the same scale. So fair.

Most people who "support the insurrection" are actually (in their view, whether or not you agree with it) supporting election integrity, which they feel they were failed on. But people who don't trust the authorities/system on any other matter apparently have a lot of blind faith that this particular thing was handled properly.

Ah the master of hit-and-run posts is back. Have you come here to give us even more braindead arguments?

43% of Republicans opposing the insurrection doesn't matter as much as 45% in support, since the supporters outnumber the opposition. Isn't that very alarming? Even more alarming is the sheer number in support, 45% is pretty damn high, constituting nearly a half of Republicans. The only standard of "selective acknowledgement" here is your downplaying of the support of the insurrection. Tell me with a straight face that 45% support isn't a big deal, I dare you.

There was no proof that the 2020 election was rigged, virtually all of the Trump lawsuits were dismissed for lack of evidence, whether by Trump-appointed judges or Obama-appointed judges.

And, on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the Court now further concludes that plaintiff has not proved that defendants violated his rights under the Electors Clause. To the contrary, the record shows Wisconsin’s Presidential Electors are being determined in the very manner directed by the Legislature, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. [...] At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

Dismissal with prejudice is the worst that can happen to a case. The judges are essentially telling you that you fucked it up so bad that you are permanently barred from refiling it.

Trump's own officials all stated that there was no widespread fraud in the election.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

[...]

Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.

Many, many, many, many fact-checkers have debunked a mountain of false election claims with sources.

This part in particular, is the most hilarious I've seen:

the left-wing elites just keep harping on about how safe and secure the election was, while making no effort to prove it and labelling anyone who questions it as treasonous lunatics.

Bullshit. That's not how the burden of proof works (see Russell's Teapot). YOU have to provide evidence for your claims of election fraud, yet all of them have been continually rejected by courts, refuted by officials, and debunked by fact-checkers. Produce credible evidence, or leave. Your choice.

Now we're on to the false equivalence. Hillary Clinton claimed that Russian interference in the 2016 election is real. It was verified by the Muller report. Here are some most damning parts:

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November. (p. 1)

First, the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations— violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged. See United States v. Netyksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.). (p. 9)

This Wikipedia article is a nice summary of all the operations Russia conducted to interfere with the election.

False equivalence number 1: Trump's claims were devoid of evidence, while Clinton's claims were verified.

In addition, there were 2 recounts in Wisconsin and Georgia post-November 3rd and one more currently underway in Arizona. All of them failed to produce any meaningful results that Biden cheated. So yes, there were investigations and recounts made by Republicans. False equivalence number 2.

The reason Trump was deplatformed because Trump incited the Jan. 6 insurrection. Full stop. Clinton did nothing of the sort. Democrats didn't storm the Capitol in 2016 to install Hillary as President. False equivalence number 3.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

White supremacy IS a part of Nazism. What part of "white, blond, blue eyes Aryan ubermenschen race" do you not understand? Furthermore, communism and socialism do not exclusively include Marxism-Leninism alone, it also has libertarian movements such as market socialism, democratic socialism, syndicalism, etc.

Right-wing concerns about "election integrity" have all been debunked, refuted, and rejected. The rest are either crackpot conspiracy theories or unverified claims. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to install Trump as dictator for a second term. That is inexcusable, a flagrant attack on US democracy. The cause they fought for was neither noble nor justified.

Regarding the last sentence, that jab is nothing but pure projection. Right-wingers distrust the government, yet want to use "law and order" to suppress protests. Remember Lafayette Park?

[North Washington Republic]

Don’t you know, it’s only terrorism when Muslims and the left do it. Many right-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they believe “love America” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”.

Conversely, many left-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they're “fighting racism and systemic oppression” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”. It's only terrorism when right-wingers do it.
Domestic extremism in America can't be discussed in a fair reasonable manner because the people reporting on or prosecuting it are blatantly and consistently biased in favor of the left. Maybe right-wingers would be more apt to discuss combatting right-wing violence if left-wingers were more apt to admit that left-wing violence even happens. Demanding other people be held accountable for the actions on "their side" while refusing to let anybody on your own side be held accountable for their own actions is being a hypocrite. There's certainly plenty of this hypocrisy on the right as well, I won't say there isn't, but I will say it's a more blatant pervasive issue on the left, that many of you in this very thread are complicit in. Most of you aren't actually opposing political extremism or terrorism, you're just opposing the right-wing.

The great majority of right-wingers in the U.S believe that the January 6 terrorist attack on the Capitol was really “antifa”, and if they do acknowledge that it was Trump supporters, they support it.

I’ve noticed unlike far-left or Islamist terrorist groups, the far-right terrorists are NOT as eager to claim responsibility for their terrorist attacks. They like to infiltrate and blend in other groups, particularly legitimate BIPOIC civil rights groups.

I think they to this to try to make legitimate BIPOC civil rights organizations look violent and radical, and push whites who are non-racist, or apathetic to more radical and extremist ideologies. They think that this will incite a race war, which they want more badly than a dog wants a bone.

This sure doesn't sound like rabid conspiracy theorist mental gymnastics. Another constant trend, "all left-wing associated violence is actually right-wing infiltrators, but those crazy right-wingers blaming their violence on left-wing infiltrators are lying!" How do you spew this hysterical nonsense and expect it to result in constructive dialogue? You also accuse right-wing extremists of desperately wanting a race war, but it's the left-wing who keeps pushing this mass cultural delusion that right-wing vs left-wing neatly boils down to "bigotry vs equality," reinforced with selective outrage against police violence, interracial crime, and mass shootings, which are only acknowledged when it can serve that narrative. Double standard harder.

Violence is violence. The January 6th insurrectionists should pay for their sins, as should the people who turned peaceful protests into riots.
The interesting thing is - and this is arguably the entire point of the thread - these two groups of people are the same.

Ditto this. "The entire point of the thread" is shifting blame.
Interesting how the people who supposedly hate the systemically oppressive leadership and claim to stand up for disenfranchised communities, are so upset by an attempted attack on politicians, while defending mobs (largely consisting of people who aren't even local) in disenfranchised communities continually exacerbating violence and economic depression in the area.

You don't speak for anyone other than yourself.

Right-wing supporters have more room to speak for the right-wing than vitriolic anti-right crusaders.
Person A: "All right-wingers are racist nazis!"
Person B: "Well I'm right-wing, I'm not a racist nazi, and I know plenty of people who are in the same boat."
You: "YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF!"
What does this contribute? It's like you just want to be part of the discussion without actually having anything to say, so you're not speaking for anybody.

to make a long story short, because "terrorism" charges are considered as the same severity as, say, treason or old school regicide, and tend to assume a certain degree of organisation and pre-meditation. Those latter qualities tend to be lacking in riots, which tend to simply, you know, happen.

Wow, that sure sounds like it could just as well describe Jan 6th, considering the massive crowd of Trump supporters there that day. If that was actually the planned insurrection so many try to paint it as, would it have been over as quickly as it was? Hell no. Trump asked people to peacefully and patriotically show their support for democracy, which is what the vast majority of people there did. Then Pence made the decision to not even discuss allegations of election fraud, and instead just ratify votes that many people weren't confident in, so a portion of that crowd lost their shit and invaded the Capitol, which lasted what, a few hours? Some had intentions of inflicting violence on government officials, but even the most inflated death toll for that day is only 5 deaths, most of which were Trump supporters. The police officer who died was hospitalized by pepper spray, but that was falsely reported as him being bludgeoned, for weeks. Totally sounds like completely fair and balanced reporting on an incident that was definitely an organized terrorist attack.

But when cities like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, etc were/are having nightly riots, that just sort of happens, right? Crowds chanting mottos about murdering police officers, or "no justice, no peace" in conjunction with these riots associated with their cause, isn't an attempt to scare people into supporting a particular political cause (and no, that cause isn't for civil rights or equality, it's simply an anti-police movement disguised as such)? When crowds of people are shooting fireworks into the faces of police officers, there was no organization or premeditation, right? When those 'autonomous zones' pop-up, claiming a few city blocks to be under the control of a particular group that does not recognize the existing authorities, that just, sort of happens? And continues to happen for weeks sometimes, with the tacit support of local leadership?

45% of Republicans supported the insurrection, so no you don't know them as much as you think.

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.
The 2020 election was sketchy as hell, and most of the people with the authority to investigate the matter refuse to do so, while the people who conducted it stonewall those who try, and the left-wing elites just keep harping on about how safe and secure the election was, while making no effort to prove it and labelling anyone who questions it as treasonous lunatics. Anybody who actually gives a shit about democracy or free fair elections should be just as upset at this response as anybody on the right.

(This part is aimed more at others than you in particular) Compare that to the response to Trump's victory in 2016, in which claims from Hillary Clinton (among others) that Trump cheated weren't universally vilified/silenced by mass media, and resulted in investigations, because election integrity is only questionable when a left-wing candidate loses. Rioting by Hillary supporters didn't get her deplatformed for those claims, nor do people get deplatformed for "indirectly" encouraging violence against the right-wing via constant false conflation with white supremacy and nazism. Though people on the left seem to have no problems identifying themselves with communist/socialist ideology, despite it being responsible for atrocities on the same scale. So fair.

Most people who "support the insurrection" are actually (in their view, whether or not you agree with it) supporting election integrity, which they feel they were failed on. But people who don't trust the authorities/system on any other matter apparently have a lot of blind faith that this particular thing was handled properly.

If you look at my pervious posts, I have condemned left-wing extremists violence as well. It is typical of right-wingers like yourself to do “whataboutism”, and when a person condemns both left-wing violence and right-wing violence simultaneously, they go on long rants about how it’s actually the left and only the left that are perpetrating violence. You’re the one that is defending violence and insurrection.

All I’m going to say is that your long rant is nothing but projection and delusion.

[North Washington Republic]

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.

Imagine for me, if you will, that there was a poll that indicated 45% of Muslims supported ISIS. I'd take a guess that the right-wing wouldn't be saying "but, but...what about the other 43%?!?!?." And they'd be right to not say it.

Also, I have plenty of skepticism of the government, but I'm not going to blindly accept claims like election fraud without a shred of legitimate evidence.

Indeed. CRH proves my point how the right-wing deflect and project when it comes to right-wing extremist terrorism.

[Picairn]

Now that I'm finally free of the clutches of online classes, it's time for the sequel.

Conversely, many left-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they're “fighting racism and systemic oppression” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”. It's only terrorism when right-wingers do it.

Riots are not terrorism. I repeat, disorganized riots are not terrorism. Many riots are not even ideologically motivated or planned beforehand. An analysis of state and federal criminal charges of demonstrators in the Minneapolis area found that disorganized crowds had no single goal or affiliation, many opportunist crowds amassed spontaneously during periods of lawlessness, and that people causing destruction had contradictory motives for their actions.

Investigations are ongoing, and the totality of instigators and bad actors may never be fully documented, but the dozens of criminal cases filed in the six months since the riots do not support claims of a grand-scale organized attack.

Most of the charges describe unplanned violence on seemingly random targets, such as the teenagers who burned down a small nutrition store in St. Paul on May 28. Four people broke into the shop after midnight and trashed it, smashing glass bottles as the others cheered, and joked about a tobacco shop they'd just looted, court documents show. "Isn't Red Bull flammable?" one inquired to the group. They dumped the energy drink and organic hand sanitizer over the floor, lit magazines on fire and threw them into the mixture, according to charges. McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn of Rosemount and Samuel Frey of Brooklyn Park, both 19 years old, have been charged with multiple counts of arson for setting the store on fire.

In another case, police responded to reports of people with bats trying to break into a Boost Mobile store in Brooklyn Park on West Broadway shortly after 5 a.m. When the officers arrived, police followed two women who jumped into a tan Buick Century and found clothing still on hangers and unopened liquor bottles in the back seat. Queensarauniya Beard, 25, of Brooklyn Park, and Chylen Hadiya Evans, 22, from north Minneapolis, have been charged with third-degree burglary and third-degree rioting by Hennepin County prosecutors.

The only group mentioned in court documents by name is the Boogaloo Bois, and even that is a loosely connected network of people who trend far-right, espouse anti-police, anti-government ideology and can often be identified by their Hawaiian shirts and assault rifles.

Three Boogaloo Bois have been charged in acts in Minnesota stemming from the Floyd unrest, including Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, who claims to be the leader of the Boogaloo Bois there. Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, fired 13 shots into the flaming police precinct with people still inside after Robinson and the others started it on fire, according to charges. Hunter bragged on Facebook about his role in the riots, posting, "I helped the community burn down that police station," and that "BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me," according to charges.

Teeter and Michael Robert Solomon, 30, of New Brighton, were both charged with providing material support to Hamas. According to charges, Solomon roamed the riots carrying an assault rifle.

In Ramsey County, prosecutors have filed at least 75 charges for burglary and property damage crimes stemming from the riots, and none mention "antifa," said spokesman Dennis Gerhardstein.

Another analysis found that persons involved in visible crimes such as arson or property damage were not ideologically organized, although some were motivated by anger towards police.

So far it looks like many, possibly most, of those arrested for the visible crimes associated with riots — such as property damage, arson or vandalism — are not organised under a prevailing ideology other than anti-police anger.

A smaller group has admitted to using the moment for personal gain through acts like looting.

"There are some who are just ready to see the corruption of the system," Ms Iandiorio said.

"Across the ideological spectrum, individuals will never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a moment.

Episodes of looting were committed by regular criminal groups and street gangs and were motivated by personal gain rather than ideology.

While federal law enforcement officials say intelligence gathered so far in dozens of investigations shows that some of the chaos was fanned or carried out by agitators from a mix of extremists across the ideological spectrum, both left and right, federal and local officials also say that local criminal groups, including gangs and neighborhood crews known for other criminal activity, posed a major part of the disorder.

In Los Angeles, police observed a caravan of cars preparing together ahead of a looting spree. In New York, investigators believe it was "opportunist action by regular criminal groups" that led to the ransacking of blocks of ritzy SoHo stores. And in Philadelphia, three men with local criminal records have already been charged with attempting to steal from ATMs.

But despite cries from President Trump and others in his administration, none of those charged with serious federal crimes amid the unrest have been linked so far to the loose collective of anti-fascist activists known as antifa.

A review of the arrests of dozens of people on federal charges reveals no known effort by antifa to perpetrate a coordinated campaign of violence. Some criminal complaints described vague, anti-government political leanings among suspects, but a majority of the violent acts that have taken place at protests have been attributed by federal prosecutors to individuals with no affiliation to any particular group.

[...] However, interviews with several major police departments and a review of hundreds of newspaper articles about arrests around the country revealed no evidence of an organized political effort behind the looting and other violence.

“We saw no organized effort of antifa here in Los Angeles,” said Josh Rubenstein, the spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Asked in an interview about the involvement of antifa or other extremist groups in Minneapolis, Medaria Arradondo, the chief of police, said, “As I sit here today, I have not received any sort of official information identifying any of the groups.”

In one example where antifa is mentioned, the police in Austin, Texas, said members of the Red Guards, a Maoist organization, were involved in organizing the looting of a Target store. The Red Guards have been associated with past antifa protests in Austin, but local activists said they were largely estranged from the group.

[...] In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.

Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city’s police commissioner, acknowledged that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political ideology. John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most looting in New York had been committed by “regular criminal groups.”

We also have evidence of right-wing provocateurs participating in protests to incite chaos. A KKK leader drove into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Virginia, injuring a person. Far-right armed militia attended demonstrations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, before a protester was shot while trying to tear down a statue by a far-right militiaman, the son of a former sheriff. These militias are more common in small towns and rural areas, often "watching" protesters (read: intimidate) with rifles and handguns on their bodies.

According to the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), which mapped the appearance of various right-wing or far-right actors or extremist groups at rallies throughout the United States, there were 136 confirmed cases of right-wing participation at the protests by June 19, 2020, with many more unconfirmed. Boogaloo, Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, neo-Confederates, white nationalists, and an assortment of militias and vigilante groups reportedly had a presence at some protests, mostly in small towns and rural areas. A Boogaloo Boy named Ivan Harrison Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.

The evidence is out there. Use it.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Now that I'm finally free of the clutches of online classes, it's time for the sequel.

Conversely, many left-wingers in America believe they’re incapable of terrorism because they're “fighting racism and systemic oppression” and their acts of violence are either justified or at the very least “understandable”. It's only terrorism when right-wingers do it.

Riots are not terrorism. I repeat, disorganized riots are not terrorism. Many riots are not even ideologically motivated or planned beforehand. An analysis of state and federal criminal charges of demonstrators in the Minneapolis area found that disorganized crowds had no single goal or affiliation, many opportunist crowds amassed spontaneously during periods of lawlessness, and that people causing destruction had contradictory motives for their actions.

Investigations are ongoing, and the totality of instigators and bad actors may never be fully documented, but the dozens of criminal cases filed in the six months since the riots do not support claims of a grand-scale organized attack.

Most of the charges describe unplanned violence on seemingly random targets, such as the teenagers who burned down a small nutrition store in St. Paul on May 28. Four people broke into the shop after midnight and trashed it, smashing glass bottles as the others cheered, and joked about a tobacco shop they'd just looted, court documents show. "Isn't Red Bull flammable?" one inquired to the group. They dumped the energy drink and organic hand sanitizer over the floor, lit magazines on fire and threw them into the mixture, according to charges. McKenzy Ann DeGidio Dunn of Rosemount and Samuel Frey of Brooklyn Park, both 19 years old, have been charged with multiple counts of arson for setting the store on fire.

In another case, police responded to reports of people with bats trying to break into a Boost Mobile store in Brooklyn Park on West Broadway shortly after 5 a.m. When the officers arrived, police followed two women who jumped into a tan Buick Century and found clothing still on hangers and unopened liquor bottles in the back seat. Queensarauniya Beard, 25, of Brooklyn Park, and Chylen Hadiya Evans, 22, from north Minneapolis, have been charged with third-degree burglary and third-degree rioting by Hennepin County prosecutors.

The only group mentioned in court documents by name is the Boogaloo Bois, and even that is a loosely connected network of people who trend far-right, espouse anti-police, anti-government ideology and can often be identified by their Hawaiian shirts and assault rifles.

Three Boogaloo Bois have been charged in acts in Minnesota stemming from the Floyd unrest, including Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, who claims to be the leader of the Boogaloo Bois there. Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, fired 13 shots into the flaming police precinct with people still inside after Robinson and the others started it on fire, according to charges. Hunter bragged on Facebook about his role in the riots, posting, "I helped the community burn down that police station," and that "BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me," according to charges.

Teeter and Michael Robert Solomon, 30, of New Brighton, were both charged with providing material support to Hamas. According to charges, Solomon roamed the riots carrying an assault rifle.

In Ramsey County, prosecutors have filed at least 75 charges for burglary and property damage crimes stemming from the riots, and none mention "antifa," said spokesman Dennis Gerhardstein.

Another analysis found that persons involved in visible crimes such as arson or property damage were not ideologically organized, although some were motivated by anger towards police.

So far it looks like many, possibly most, of those arrested for the visible crimes associated with riots — such as property damage, arson or vandalism — are not organised under a prevailing ideology other than anti-police anger.

A smaller group has admitted to using the moment for personal gain through acts like looting.

"There are some who are just ready to see the corruption of the system," Ms Iandiorio said.

"Across the ideological spectrum, individuals will never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a moment.

Episodes of looting were committed by regular criminal groups and street gangs and were motivated by personal gain rather than ideology.

While federal law enforcement officials say intelligence gathered so far in dozens of investigations shows that some of the chaos was fanned or carried out by agitators from a mix of extremists across the ideological spectrum, both left and right, federal and local officials also say that local criminal groups, including gangs and neighborhood crews known for other criminal activity, posed a major part of the disorder.

In Los Angeles, police observed a caravan of cars preparing together ahead of a looting spree. In New York, investigators believe it was "opportunist action by regular criminal groups" that led to the ransacking of blocks of ritzy SoHo stores. And in Philadelphia, three men with local criminal records have already been charged with attempting to steal from ATMs.

But despite cries from President Trump and others in his administration, none of those charged with serious federal crimes amid the unrest have been linked so far to the loose collective of anti-fascist activists known as antifa.

A review of the arrests of dozens of people on federal charges reveals no known effort by antifa to perpetrate a coordinated campaign of violence. Some criminal complaints described vague, anti-government political leanings among suspects, but a majority of the violent acts that have taken place at protests have been attributed by federal prosecutors to individuals with no affiliation to any particular group.

[...] However, interviews with several major police departments and a review of hundreds of newspaper articles about arrests around the country revealed no evidence of an organized political effort behind the looting and other violence.

“We saw no organized effort of antifa here in Los Angeles,” said Josh Rubenstein, the spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Asked in an interview about the involvement of antifa or other extremist groups in Minneapolis, Medaria Arradondo, the chief of police, said, “As I sit here today, I have not received any sort of official information identifying any of the groups.”

In one example where antifa is mentioned, the police in Austin, Texas, said members of the Red Guards, a Maoist organization, were involved in organizing the looting of a Target store. The Red Guards have been associated with past antifa protests in Austin, but local activists said they were largely estranged from the group.

[...] In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.

Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city’s police commissioner, acknowledged that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political ideology. John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most looting in New York had been committed by “regular criminal groups.”

We also have evidence of right-wing provocateurs participating in protests to incite chaos. A KKK leader drove into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Virginia, injuring a person. Far-right armed militia attended demonstrations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, before a protester was shot while trying to tear down a statue by a far-right militiaman, the son of a former sheriff. These militias are more common in small towns and rural areas, often "watching" protesters (read: intimidate) with rifles and handguns on their bodies.

According to the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), which mapped the appearance of various right-wing or far-right actors or extremist groups at rallies throughout the United States, there were 136 confirmed cases of right-wing participation at the protests by June 19, 2020, with many more unconfirmed. Boogaloo, Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, neo-Confederates, white nationalists, and an assortment of militias and vigilante groups reportedly had a presence at some protests, mostly in small towns and rural areas. A Boogaloo Boy named Ivan Harrison Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.

The evidence is out there. Use it.

Terrorism is terrorism and violence is violence, and are related. The right wingers do it and the leftists do it.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It is spreading.

A family of Muslims in London, Ontario where rammed by a pickup truck.

4 out of the 5 people are dead.

Police are looking into it being an extremist attack.

Also points out that 43% opposed it. Standard anti-right argument of selective acknowledgment.

45% is more then 43%.

Standard whataboutism to look away from the massive group of idiots who think the 2020 election was stolen and the only way to make things right was to assassinate the VP.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Imagine for me, if you will, that there was a poll that indicated 45% of Muslims supported ISIS. I'd take a guess that the right-wing wouldn't be saying "but, but...what about the other 43%?!?!?." And they'd be right to not say it.

Also, I have plenty of skepticism of the government, but I'm not going to blindly accept claims like election fraud without a shred of legitimate evidence.

Indeed. CRH proves my point how the right-wing deflect and project when it comes to right-wing extremist terrorism.

You guys think the leftists don't deflect and project when it comes to leftist violence and terrorism, lol?

[Tyrassueb]

Indeed. CRH proves my point how the right-wing deflect and project when it comes to right-wing extremist terrorism.

You guys think the leftists don't deflect and project when it comes to leftist violence and terrorism, lol?

Leftist violence/terrorism isn't seen as a problem by the FBI and hasn't for something like two or three decades.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ ... ted-states

In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You guys think the leftists don't deflect and project when it comes to leftist violence and terrorism, lol?

Leftist violence/terrorism isn't seen as a problem by the FBI and hasn't for something like two or three decades.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ ... ted-states

In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.

He thinks the FBI is a left wing Democratic aligned organization.

Which is, of course, dumb as shit because the FBI is famous for destroying leftist organizations and assassinating their leaders.

[Greater Miami Shores]

You guys think the leftists don't deflect and project when it comes to leftist violence and terrorism, lol?

Leftist violence/terrorism isn't seen as a problem by the FBI and hasn't for something like two or three decades.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ ... ted-states

In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.

ok I note your post. But you have not answered my question?

[Grave_n_idle]

You guys think the leftists don't deflect and project when it comes to leftist violence and terrorism, lol?

No. And that's not what the evidence says, either.

Oh sure, it does happen - but not on anything like the same scale, and not with anything like the same dedication.

There are people on the right literally defending an attempt by rightwing extremists to seize the seat of government and execute elected representatives. That's a thing that happened, and a conversation that is STILL happening. No, there is nothing even remotely on that scale on the other side of the spectrum.