Religious/Extremist Terrorism: Non-Muslim edition

[Weinie]

And ironically the radical right was able to achieve what the radical Muslims never could. Shake the foundations of democracy in the US. But hey, take your shoes off at the airport before getting on a plane.

And ironically the U.S. went through a similar spasm 50 years ago in 1950 when the term McCarthyism was coined and his ideology was widespread. Indigenous communists, as identified by McCarthy, were far more insidious than actual threats from the USSR and his obssesion caused massive upheavals, legal actions, and convolutions. But hey, who cares if your life is ruined by an ideologue.

 

[Remius]

Radical Islamists shook the foundations of democracy in the US on 9/11 and the US responded by a 20 year war on terrorism and almost a million dead because of it. Bad as it was I don't feel that the Capitol Hill riot had the same impact in the US.

That action had the opposite effect and actually united the country. I mentioned nothing of what had a greater impact. One was an attack by foreigners directed at Americans. The insurrection on Jan 6th was an attack on America by Americans. Crazy foreigners that hate the US I can understand. Crazy home grown radicals less so.

 

[brihard]

Something timely ...

(Source)


Alternate site for 15-page PDF

Yup, that was posted previously either in this thread or another one.

Personally I'm a bit jaded towards UNCLASS threat assessments anymore.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And ironically the radical right was able to achieve what the radical Muslims never could. Shake the foundations of democracy in the US. But hey, take your shoes off at the airport before getting on a plane.

I think this comment does a real big disservice to just how much damage Radical Islam has done to the United States.





I also think that the rise of Right-wing extremism is a direct result of the United States inability to bring the "War on terror" to a conclusion. It's essentially a counter-culture movement that exists due to what the United States has become in the post 9/11 World.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That action had the opposite effect and actually united the country. I mentioned nothing of what had a greater impact. One was an attack by foreigners directed at Americans. The insurrection on Jan 6th was an attack on America by Americans. Crazy foreigners that hate the US I can understand. Crazy home grown radicals less so.

We see it differently. I think the 9/11 attack shook the foundations of democracy in so far as the US thinking they're invincible and unassailable. The 6 million Muslim Americans probably didn't feel too united with their fellow Americans either.

I get the jist of what you're saying though. To that I'd argue there's probably still a sizable chuck of the US that doesn't think it's a big deal, along side the ones who think it's justified. Some will say it's an all out attack on democracy, but I bet a lot of those said the same thing November 2016. And again January 2017. And anytime Trump Tweeted.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A big crisis is always welcome for the consolidation and exercise of power; a small crisis sometimes can usefully be pumped up to look like a big one.

 

[Remius]

Many of you are missing the point. 911 was an attack on America. Like pearl Harbour was. No one is arguing the level of Impact of 911 on Americans. By foreigners. 19 of them to be exact.

the Jan 6th insurrection was an attack on a democratic institution and process. By its own people.
Again, I’m not discussing which had a greater impact.

if you think the current crisis in the US is small and being pumped up Brad , lol, I don’t know what to say.

 

[Remius]

I think this comment does a real big disservice to just how much damage Radical Islam has done to the United States.

View attachment 64406

View attachment 64407

I also think that the rise of Right-wing extremism is a direct result of the United States inability to bring the "War on terror" to a conclusion. It's essentially a counter-culture movement that exists due to what the United States has become in the post 9/11 World.

Right wing extremism existed before 911. The KKK wasn’t just a blip, the Oklahoma City bombing wasn’t just some one off.

There has always been right wing extremism in th US. There is a history of groups, large groups of the population who don’t trust the gvt and feel it’s their duty to take action against it.

911 just gave them a reason to come out of the shadows more and more. I’m reading a really good book right now by Fareed Zakaria. His first chapter goes I to good detail about what has led to where the US is right now and the rise of populism and the far right coming out of the shadows.

911 as you say is one of those reasons but the economic fall of 2008 and now the Pandemic.

 

[Brad Sallows]

if you think the current crisis in the US is small and being pumped up Brad , lol, I don’t know what to say.

It's overblown. Some of the people doing the overblowing contribute here. There are too many soldiers and too many barricades up in DC right now. Too many people are agitating in the opinion pages for unnecessary and illiberal measures.

 

[YZT580]

This string started as an alternative to the fear of the islamic jihad that was dominating the news at the time. Curiously enough, when the BLM riots started last year no one initiated a left-wing extremist-terrorism edition although it garnered plenty of comments at the time. We seemed reluctant to tack the title of extremist upon them yet their actions were just as reprehensible as those of this past week or so. So the question becomes: why do we differentiate? Regardless of political or religious persuasion, any "terrorist" action is a declaration of war against our society as accepted by the majority of the society in which it occurs and, rather than lash out indignantly it might be worth exploring the common elements. If we don't, we will never be able to identify the precursors that start a new group on its way and stop it before it becomes criminal.

One common denominator is a charismatic leader who takes a sore point with that particular group i.e. the appearance of prejudgism is law enforcement and stirs up the group to protest. But there has to be that leader.
A second one is attention. Those involved in the group are given some degree of notoriety by the rest of the village, tribe, neighbourhood, newspapers and like it. There are others but that is enough for the moment.
What is your reaction?

 

[FJAG]

... Curiously enough, when the BLM riots started last year no one initiated a left-wing extremist-terrorism edition although it garnered plenty of comments at the time. We seemed reluctant to tack the title of extremist upon them yet their actions were just as reprehensible as those of this past week or so. So the question becomes: why do we differentiate? Regardless of political or religious persuasion, any "terrorist" action is a declaration of war against our society as accepted by the majority of the society in which it occurs and, rather than lash out indignantly it might be worth exploring the common elements. ...

I don't know about others but for me the difference is this:

The BLM movement is essentially one focused on protesting for social justice. There are idiots and morons who hijacked the protests for their own reasons and benefits who I do consider terrorists but I do not blame the entire movement for that.

The folks we saw on the 6th were deluded idiots and morons egged on by corrupt individuals to try to disrupt the proper work of Congress to ratify a democratic election. No matter how much some people try to rationalize it, these people were insurrectionists and coincidentally terrorists. I do not blame the mass of Republicans and even many Trump supporters for the actions of the mob at the Capitol any more than I blame the BLM movement for the actions of some outliers.

The point here is that I blame those who commit violent actions, regardless of their political persuasion, for their actions. I do not try to generalize that violent activity on the movement as a whole.

 

[dapaterson]

The point here is that I blame those who commit and incite violent actions, regardless of their political persuasion, for their actions. I do not try to generalize that violent activity on the movement as a whole.

Minor edit from someone who read The Caine Mutiny many years ago...

 

[mariomike]

The folks we saw on the 6th were deluded idiots and morons egged on by corrupt individuals to try to disrupt the proper work of Congress to ratify a democratic election.

"Egged on" as in "provoked"?

McConnell says mob that attacked Capitol was "provoked by the president"

McConnell said that the rioters who overran the Capitol were "provoked by the president and other powerful people."

www.cbsnews.com

McConnell says Trump 'provoked' Capitol assault, 'fed lies' to mob

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is placing blame on President Donald Trump for inciting the mob of his supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

abcnews.go.com

 

[The Bread Guy]

This string started as an alternative to the fear of the islamic jihad that was dominating the news at the time. Curiously enough, when the BLM riots started last year no one initiated a left-wing extremist-terrorism edition although it garnered plenty of comments at the time. We seemed reluctant to tack the title of extremist upon them yet their actions were just as reprehensible as those of this past week or so. So the question becomes: why do we differentiate?

On a strictly literal level, since the thread is "non-Muslim", anyone can post material on Antifa or anarchists here. Mainstream agencies have also been tracking these guys and anarchists wanting to cause trouble, so more than fair to include here. As for your question, I'll leave it to those wiser than myself.

Regardless of political or religious persuasion, any "terrorist" action is a declaration of war against our society as accepted by the majority of the society in which it occurs and, rather than lash out indignantly it might be worth exploring the common elements. If we don't, we will never be able to identify the precursors that start a new group on its way and stop it before it becomes criminal.

Bang on - as well as what draws people to such actions. The ideologies differ, but I suspect there's a lot of commonalities in how people get radicalized.

One common denominator is a charismatic leader who takes a sore point with that particular group i.e. the appearance of prejudgism is law enforcement and stirs up the group to protest. But there has to be that leader.
A second one is attention. Those involved in the group are given some degree of notoriety by the rest of the village, tribe, neighbourhood, newspapers and like it. There are others but that is enough for the moment.

One more element to consider: people vulnerable/alienated enough that they can be convinced that working outside the system (or trying to break it up) is an option.

 

[FJAG]

Pentagon report reveals disturbing details about White supremacists in the ranks​

https://www.cnn.com/profiles/oren-liebermann
By Ellie Kaufman and Oren Liebermann, CNN

Updated 10:10 PM ET, Wed February 24, 2021

(CNN)A Pentagon report on extremism obtained by CNN gives disturbing insight into how White supremacists are active in the military and offers recommendations to better identify domestic extremists and prevent them from serving.

It details an instance of a former National Guardsman who is a member of a dangerous neo-Nazi group bragging about openly discussing extremist views while serving and separately describes service members describing how they recognize fellow White supremacists by their fascist tattoos and T-shirt logos.

While the report, commissioned by Congress and dated October 2020, concluded that extremist views were not widespread and identified "a low number of cases in absolute terms," it underlines the urgency of the problem because "individuals with extremist affiliations and military experience are a concern to U.S. national security because of their proven ability to execute high-impact events." ....

See whole article here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/24/politics/pentagon-report-white-supremacists/index.html

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Right wing extremism existed before 911. The KKK wasn’t just a blip, the Oklahoma City bombing wasn’t just some one off.

There has always been right wing extremism in th US. There is a history of groups, large groups of the population who don’t trust the gvt and feel it’s their duty to take action against it.

Arguably, the very founders of the United States were one such group -- a group of men who didn't trust the government and took concrete action in the form of armed revolution against their lawful ruler. It seems to me that "right wing extremism" is baked right into the United States culture and even their constitution since the 2nd amendment was for the purpose of opposing the federal government (see, for example, Madison's comments Federalist No. 46).

 

[FJAG]

Arguably, the very founders of the United States were one such group -- a group of men who didn't trust the government and took concrete action in the form of armed revolution against their lawful ruler. It seems to me that "right wing extremism" is baked right into the United States culture and even their constitution since the 2nd amendment was for the purpose of opposing the federal government (see, for example, Madison's comments Federalist No. 46).

I'm not so sure that I would agree that the founders of the US were distrustful of government per se. That they were revolutionaries is a given. That they sought to overthrow the British monarchy is as well.

Once that was done, however, they were very much challenged in interpreting an enduring system of government which would always be one of the people and which would not be easily co-opted by some form of tyranny. One can almost read elements of communism and definitely libertarianism into their fundamental beliefs. In many ways the structure of their government was one of competing governments which kept checks and balances on each other (with the States having the larger power). It wasn't so much that the 2nd amendment was for the purpose of opposing the federal government as it was to aid the states' governments in keeping the very necessary federal government within its lanes. Remember the key words in Federalist 46 "But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force ...". It's not the armed rabble that has the power, but the people in arms under the authority of their local governments that have the power. Those who espouse the 2nd amendment (including the USSC) gloss over that element.

While the history of the US is one of caution towards their governments and keeping them controlled through frequent elections where the public can express its will, I wouldn't call it one founded by groups of right wing extremists. Right Wing Extremists have very specific and narrow views and while they put their focus on various local governments as if they exist in a vacuum, in reality what they're revolting against is the majority of the electorate who have voted that government into office.

There is a world of difference between patriots who oppose a corrupt government that is oppressing the majority of the population and individuals with perceived grievances against a society in general which isn't conforming to the standards that the individual insists should apply to all. The latter often cloak themselves as patriots, like they attempted at the Capitol, but in reality they stand closer to the anarchists than patriots.

 

[OldSolduer]

Empires are not destroyed by outside forces, they are destroyed by internal forces.

 

[CBH99]

The problem with the situation at the Capitol is it wasn’t just anarchists & misguided patriots storming the building and committing all the nonsense.

I’m guessing a decent chunk of those people were just there because they could be. “Trump just said to storm the building and he will join us? Damn, don’t get to do this every day!” Combine that with an incredibly toxic mainstream media, and it’s a recipe for stupidity.

Are there extremists on both sides? You bet. But I’m willing to bet a good chunk of those folks were either stupid, or so brainwashed from their daily media they just showed up. I would say extremely bad judgement, and an extremely bad political environment.

 

[CBH99]

The problem with the situation at the Capitol is it wasn’t just anarchists & misguided patriots storming the building and committing all the nonsense.

I’m guessing a decent chunk of those people were just there because they could be. “Trump just said to storm the building and he will join us? Damn, don’t get to do this every day!” Combine that with an incredibly toxic mainstream media, and it’s a recipe for stupidity.

Are there extremists on both sides? You bet. But I’m willing to bet a good chunk of those folks were either stupid, or so brainwashed from their daily media