zlacker

far-right extremist terrorism greatly outranked radical wahabbi/salafists and similar in 2018/2019, domestically, in the USA:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-unite...

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/201...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-e...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-...

>>walrus+(OP)
I see that first link kind of buried the lede in footnote 2: " The number of casualties from attacks by Islamic extremists has been greater than by right-wing extremists, largely because of a few cases like Omar Mateen’s Pulse nightclub attack that killed 49 people and wounded 53 others."

So right wing terrorism is a greater threat, unless you are worried about being killed.

>>gadder+R
My read of what you quoted: White supremacists may be eager to hurt people, but that doesn't translate to lethality.

(Nobody ever gave them credit for competence.)

>>gadder+R
That 2018 article was, as I recall, published before the El Paso attack:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/right-wing-terro...

>>gadder+R
The other part of that is that extends further. And also has its mirror. Who poses a greater threat in Saudi Arabia, the local Wahhabis or foreign secularists? Who would get pursued?

And who poses the greater threat to any community, the police (some of whom are brutal) or the local criminals, gangs and traffickers?

>>gadder+R
If you are killed it doesn't matter how many others died with you. I personally tend to be more worried about things that happen often and are widespread, than things that happen seldom and are more localized.

But if asked "Are you more worried about right wing or islamist extremists?", my answer is "Yes".

>>Swenre+K1
My concern from a priority and law enforcement perspective is that in the post-9/11 world, a great deal of funding and effort was put towards deterring and combating the latter.

Whereas something that is well known and homegrown in the USA (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?) has had a much lower level of concern assigned to it until very recently.

>>Swenre+K1
From a number point of view, you should be more worried about common crime than terrorism from any side.

>>cm2187+p2
From a pure numbers/statistics point of view a great deal more people die from slipping and falling or drowning in their bathtub every year than are killed by either form of terrorism in the USA.

But we still should take efforts to reduce that, whether it's by building showers with textured floors and efforts to counteract terrorism...

https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Someone-drowns-in...

>>cm2187+p2
For relevant reasons, I'm more concerned about having my hard-earned money seized through civil asset forfeiture than my house being robbed by some random criminal.

>>some_f+K2
Especially when the people forfeiting your money are also the one criminalizing the drugs that the random criminal needs to rob your house to be able to afford, lacking any support for their conditions elsewhere because that money is put into police budgets instead.

(It's also worthwhile in discussions about "crime" to remember that it's a very loaded term. For example, wage theft numbers absolutely eclipse burglary, yet those are rarely what we think about when we hear "crime")

>>walrus+B2
However, falling in the bathtub isn’t ideologically driven or at risk of increasing dramatically based on political shifts.

We don’t take terrorism or white supremacy seriously because it poses an imminent threat to everyone right now, we take it seriously because it has the potential to put hundreds of thousands to millions of lives at risk in the future if left unaddressed.

>>walrus+B2
Can't access your link from the EU but fully agree with your point. I did an analysis in June 2015 in the EU, but I am sure it still holds now, by comparing the number of deaths from eurostats for just the year 2011, to all cumulative terrorist attacks in the EU from 1958 per wikipedia:

https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...

Also modern terrorism is bad but we forget that far-left and state sponsored terrorism was worse in the 80s (numbers as of 2017):

number of attacks over time: https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...

number of deaths: https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...

And this is in the EU. In the US I am sure the numbers would be completely drown in the numbers for common crime.

>>gadder+R
The Venn diagram of "right-wing extremists" and "Islamic extremists" approaches a circle. This is especially true in an attack on the LGBT community.

>>JshWri+f5
I'm fairly certain that Venn diagram would be almost disjoint if representing individual people.

But both groups are definately conservative and hold some of the same ideas. They both want the world and power they or their grandfathers had 50-150 years ago.

>>walrus+T1
> Timothy McVeigh

Who did he work with again?

>>ta1771+77
He had a couple of accomplices, but he was radicalised by the Waco fiasco and linked to what these days would be called the "milita movement".

>>pjc50+Pa
And the even bigger fiasco of Ruby Ridge.

>>walrus+(OP)
How are you differentiating Wahabbism from far right extremism? Most Muslims seem to consider Wahabbism both extreme and far right. Perhaps you mean racially versus ideologically or foreign compared to domestic or political versus religiously motivated?

I looked at the articles you linked to. The New York Times mentions white extremist suggesting racially motivated but also mentions international terrorism instead of domestic terrorism. Your first source attempts to define right-wing extremism as a political motivation. That said your point isn’t very clear.

If you are limiting your point to domestic US terrorism racially motivated terrorism greatly exceeds religiously motivated terrorism but the numbers are tiny either way. If you are talking internationally religiously motivated terrorism by far takes the lead when you consider that ISIS is a growing threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan and when you consider the various terrorist organizations in sub-Saharan Africa like Boko Haram.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

>>walrus+T1
Do we know that there is actually less concern?

I think two "issues" are the relatively better protection against surveillance US citizens have (I wouldn't think it's an issue at all, hence the quotes) and the fact that they tend to be lone wolves more than Islamic terrorism, which often works through networks.

So it's not that easy to spot people like McVeigh, Kaczynski, or outside the US Breivik, before they act.

>>austin+Ud
You're trying really hard to not understand what he was clearly saying.

"Right-wing extremism" was clearly intended to refer to the home-grown variety here.

And how "tiny" the numbers are is somewhat subjective. Terrorism works by terrorizing, meaning its intended to affect far more people than the immediate victims by instilling fear.

Just from the last few years, everyone will remember the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Pittsburgh synagogue, the Q/MAGA-superfan mailing pipe bombs, or the Poway synagogue shooting. There are many more that you may have forgotten on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...

>>cm2187+p2
The idea of terrorism is to fight an asymmetric conflict with methods that affect many who aren't immediate victims, by instilling fear, i. e. terrorising them.

>>Swenre+K1
My answer is actually “No”. Terror, both from right wing and religious extremists is extremely rare.

>>Swenre+L5
Yeah, I suppose what I mean by that is if you took the ideologies of both (and abstracted out the language for the specific "god"), you would have a hard time distinguishing between them.

>>IfOnly+Sj
So the “correct” response is to not play their game and not play along with the tactics. Very likely you will never be affected of terror so don’t spend your life worrying about it.

Police should worry a bit about it of course.

>>save_f+e4
I am sorry to say this but white supremecy does not have the potential to kill millions. It's like saying gang violence has the potential to kill millions.

>>IfOnly+hj
> You're trying really hard to not understand what he was clearly saying.

I am clearly reading from the material provided. Perhaps we have a difference in reading comprehension.

> was clearly intended

It is defined or it isn’t. I don’t like subjectively inventing definitions to fit a poorly framed argument.

>>gadder+Mc
So I had to refresh myself on the details of this via wikipedia, and with a 2020 eye it seems almost like the white version of complaints about police brutality per BLM.

- victim becomes a martyr despite being "no angel" (Weaver was a white supremacist, dealing in illegal firearms)

- initial involvement of law enforcement is entrapment (undercover ATF agents)

- lies by law enforcement ("the ATF filed the gun charges in June 1990. It claimed that Weaver was a bank robber with criminal convictions.[27] (Those claims were false: at that time Weaver had no criminal record. The 1995 Senate investigation found: "Weaver was not a suspect in any bank robberies.")

- basic cockups (court date mixup)

- absurdly long quasi-siege

- significantly lighter treatment and more investigation than similar fiascoes for nonwhite people (e.g. Breonna Taylor); the 2020 version of this would probably have just been to drive a MRAP through the shack and use the return fire as sufficient justification for the killings (see e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steve... )

- they shot the dog. They always shoot the dog

- attempt to prosecute sniper is met with sovereign immunity, case is dropped

>>thomqu+On
Except that within the memory of people still alive to witness it, it killed approximately 6 million people in concentration camps...?

>>thomqu+On
Nazism, which formed the ideological foundation of modern white supremacy, killed millions just a few generations ago. To argue that white supremacy doesn't have the potential to kill millions simply ignores not-to-distant history. We cannot ignore what has already happened many times before.

>>JshWri+zk
This is pretty much the point Atwood was trying to make in the original novel version of the Handmaid's tale, which depicts a Christian ultra fundamentalist version of the Taliban's brand of Sharia law. Even though it was written a while before 1994/1996. Of course fictionalized for dramatic effect.