Man kills 8 in multi-venue attack

Cody montana

ypres5 wrote: »

so we're going to ignore the growing risk white nationalists and right wing groups pose? i guess you think the attack in washington was tens of thousands of lone wolves all at once?

Leading cause of terrorism in the USA.
Right wing attacks.
This is reality.

I’d hate to reside there.

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

Who was loving the Capitol building rioting?

CNN.

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

Leading cause of terrorism in the USA.
Right wing attacks.
This is reality.

I’d hate to reside there.

What cherry picking of the truth have you done to support that claim? When I look at the hundreds of millions worth of damage done in the US last year by BLM/Antifa, I struggle to agree with your hypothesis.

Cody montana

[Deleted User] wrote: »

CNN.

I don’t watch American news channels.
Why were they loving it?

Cody montana

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What cherry picking of the truth have you done to support that claim? When I look at the hundreds of millions worth of damage done in the US last year by BLM/Antifa, I struggle to agree with your hypothesis.

This is according to the FBI.
Are they wrong?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

What cherry picking of the truth have you done to support that claim? When I look at the hundreds of millions worth of damage done in the US last year by BLM/Antifa, I struggle to agree with your hypothesis.

That's the opinion of the Trump appointed director of the FBI, Christopher Wray.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

That's the opinion of the Trump appointed director of the FBI, Christopher Wray.

In the video he says pretty clearly the biggest threat is from domestic terrorism linked to jihadism. That is hardly right wing terrorism. He mentions arrests of white supremacists but that the biggest threat is domestic terrorism I.e. American resident Muslims. So this doesn't really support the claim.

wes

https://twitter.com/harikondabolu/status/1372300110516867073?s=20

The cop who said he was having a bad day......

Its racism all the way down it seems.

This is not to ignore the misogyny and the apparent Christian extremism and the terrorist seems to have been an incel as well to boot. So pretty much a grab bag of every far right nuttery.

rossie1977

Vast majority of US terrorism in recent years is far right in nature

wes

IMO the Religious, and ethno nationalist are both far right as well, just specific flavors, but far right nonetheless.

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

I don’t watch American news channels.
Why were they loving it?

Because they want to portray republicans as racist lynch mobs ready to cause WW3. It's sensationalist and gets clicks and views. They have been short of any evidence of right wing violence until the Capitol thing. Now they have the stock footage they were desperate for which they will replay for the next 10 years by the looks of it. They famously stood in front of a burning building and talked of "mostly peaceful" BLM protest. The double standards are just sad.

Cody montana

rossie1977 wrote: »

Vast majority of US terrorism in recent years is far right in nature

But Antifa/BLM?

*Diversion*

As I said, thank god we don’t live there.

Cody montana

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because they want to portray republicans as racist lynch mobs ready to cause WW3. It's sensationalist and gets clicks and views. They have been short of any evidence of right wing violence until the Capitol thing. Now they have the stock footage they were desperate for which they will replay for the next 10 years by the looks of it. They famously stood in front of a burning building and talked of "mostly peaceful" BLM protest. The double standards are just sad.

Why are you mentioning Republicans?

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Vast majority of US terrorism in recent years is far right in nature

Number of terrorist attacks and plots? I think number of injuries and deaths would be a more meaningful metric. Does 9/11 count as 1 in that study? In other words, it barely registers.

Also how do they define right wing? How do they define a plot? There can be so much subjective fudging to get the outcome they want to portray.

The most meaningful measure of the threat level is number of deaths and injuries. 9/11 alone would place radical Islamic terrorists as the biggest threat. But if you want to make believe that right wingers are the real threat you need to get creative which is what they have done there.

osarusan

How about we wait until we see if this guy has any political leanings before we go down any of these roads. He may have, he may not.

I've said this before, but in the age of instant social media and 24-hour news, there is a real tendency for people to feel the need to take a position immediately, even before all or even any facts are known.

This isn't helped by people weaponising the fact that a person/media organisation hasn't immediately commented (along the lines of WHY IS VARADKAR SILENT ON THIS?, or WHY ARE THE BBC NOT COVERING THIS?).

Hopefully people can just slow down and wait for facts to emerge and investigations to take place, and that people looking to stir agenda-laden shyte get as little traction as possible.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they want to portray republicans as racist lynch mobs ready to cause WW3. It's sensationalist and gets clicks and views. They have been short of any evidence of right wing violence until the Capitol thing. Now they have the stock footage they were desperate for which they will replay for the next 10 years by the looks of it. They famously stood in front of a burning building and talked of "mostly peaceful" BLM protest. The double standards are just sad.

Show me where media stood in front of burning building and said it was peaceful. The media reporting on BLM protests were attacked by police constantly..

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

Why are you mentioning Republicans?

Whoever it was that stormed the Capitol building. Trump supporters. Morons. Whatever way you want to label them.

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Number of terrorist attacks and plots? I think number of injuries and deaths would be a more meaningful metric. Does 9/11 count as 1 in that study? In other words, it barely registers.

Also how do they define right wing? How do they define a plot? There can be so much subjective fudging to get the outcome they want to portray.

The most meaningful measure of the threat level is number of deaths and injuries. 9/11 alone would place radical Islamic terrorists as the biggest threat. But if you want to make believe that right wingers are the real threat you need to get creative which is what they have done there.

If it was measured on injuries/deaths, yes there would be a huge spike in 2001. And then a significant drop. I think then most injuries and deaths in the next 20 years would largely be higher for those caused by extreme right-wingers.

No one is saying radical Islamic terrorists aren't a threat. Of course they are. But extreme right-wingers also are.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Show me where media stood in front of burning building and said it was peaceful. The media reporting on BLM protests were attacked by police constantly..

It's a well known meme at this stage. It was in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A "fiery but mostly peaceful protest".

Penn

Penn wrote: »

If it was measured on injuries/deaths, yes there would be a huge spike in 2001. And then a significant drop. I think then most injuries and deaths in the next 20 years would largely be higher for those caused by extreme right-wingers.

No one is saying radical Islamic terrorists aren't a threat. Of course they are. But extreme right-wingers also are.

Probably true. Where I get sceptical though is in how a right winger is defined. What are the criteria? If an American owns guns is that sufficient? Like this incident in Atlanta. Even thought the motive is unknown will this be used in future statistics about right wing white supremacist terrorism? That's my suspicion.

Sweetemotion

rossie1977 wrote: »

Show me where media stood in front of burning building and said it was peaceful. The media reporting on BLM protests were attacked by police constantly..

Show me where the media were attacked by the police constantly.



And not those with iphones and a hand written press badge on their bicycle helmet.

Cody montana

Overall.
Extremism is wrong.
Stop making it about right vs left.
Gun control is a necessity.

Thankfully we live in Ireland.

biko

wes wrote: »

https://twitter.com/harikondabolu/status/1372300110516867073?s=20

The cop who said he was having a bad day......

Its racism all the way down it seems.

This is not to ignore the misogyny and the apparent Christian extremism and the terrorist seems to have been an incel as well to boot. So pretty much a grab bag of every far right nuttery.

Maybe I missed something but it wasn't Sheriff Jay Baker that shot those women.
I guess we'll find out in court what happened.

Cheesey Cheese Hood Cheese

Is there a homophobic angle to this? Just wondering based on the photograph in the Guardian.

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

It revolved out of the occurrence of events where women were acting like they owned a place where they clearly didn't, or as judge and jury in situations they had no business acting as such.

You make it sound like the whole meme originated out of a focus group to target white people.

It evolved out of an event where a white woman was suddenly accosted by a man in a park who told her "Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it"

She perceived this as a threat. She told him she would call the police. He told her to call the police. She called the police. Her life was destroyed. Because she was white and the man accosting her was black. The message to 'Karens' was clear - don't ever call the cops if you feel threatened by a man. Even the BBC acknowledges the Karen meme specifically targets white women. That you are pretending there wasn't any anti-white angle to it only demonstrates how disingenuous your contribution is.

Meanwhile, in the Sarah Everard murder its okay to unleash all the "Men are dangerous/scary to women, men need to stop scaring women" ideology because the alleged killer is white.

rossie1977

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Show me where the media were attacked by the police constantly.



And not those with iphones and a hand written press badge on their bicycle helmet.

Try national Australian press and the like

https://youtube.com/watch?v=IMfBIW0Pqvg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfBIW0Pqvg

Tell me how

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Show me where the media were attacked by the police constantly.



And not those with iphones and a hand written press badge on their bicycle helmet.

Link

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, for example, police shot photojournalist Linda Tirado in the face with a foam bullet that broke through her protective goggles, leaving the freelancer permanently blind in her left eye. In Los Angeles, a police officer shoved photojournalist Barbara Davidson to the ground, causing her to hit her head on a fire hydrant. And in New York City, police repeatedly hit Tyler Blint-Welsh of The Wall Street Journal in the face, pushing him to the ground, even though he was wearing a visible press credential issued by the NYPD.

As of Sept. 1, the Tracker has confirmed 238 press freedom violations in 2020 — including physical assaults, arrests, and equipment searches and seizures — more than three quarters of which occurred while journalists were documenting the Black Lives Matter protests. That’s compared to 152 total press freedom violations in 2019, 132 in 2018 and 144 in 2017, according to the Press Freedom Tracker.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

Number of terrorist attacks and plots? I think number of injuries and deaths would be a more meaningful metric. Does 9/11 count as 1 in that study? In other words, it barely registers.

Also how do they define right wing? How do they define a plot? There can be so much subjective fudging to get the outcome they want to portray.

The most meaningful measure of the threat level is number of deaths and injuries. 9/11 alone would place radical Islamic terrorists as the biggest threat. But if you want to make believe that right wingers are the real threat you need to get creative which is what they have done there.

So what CSIS are wrong..

Far right terrorism has been by far the biggest threat in western nations past half decade not Islamic, that's just a fact. The media have constantly swept it under the carpet though and were shocked at capital riots when anyone that follows even casually knew it was coming.

As for how do you define far right, well:

* Overtly nationalistic
* Blames all ills of society in a certain group of people be it Mexicans, blacks, Jews, Muslims
* Doesn't believe human right charter applies to those groups they don't like
* rampant sexism
* believe any press not aligning with their opinions is 'fake'
* obsessed with national security
* wants a much stronger police and prison state
* usually very religious
* huge distain for arts and intellectuals

Tell me how

Another breaking story about something that thankfully didn't develop in to an active situation.

https://twitter.com/USATODAY/status/1372329237705846784

Already being reported that he was suffering from paranoid delusion. Amazing how quick they can diagnose things these days.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

So what CSIS are wrong..

Far right terrorism has been by far the biggest threat in western nations past half decade not Islamic, that's just a fact. The media have constantly swept it under the carpet though and were shocked at capital riots when anyone that follows even casually knew it was coming.

As for how do you define far right, well:

* Overtly nationalistic
* Blames all ills of society in a certain group of people be it Mexicans, blacks, Jews, Muslims
* Doesn't believe human right charter applies to those groups they don't like
* rampant sexism
* believe any press not aligning with their opinions is 'fake'
* obsessed with national security
* wants a much stronger police and prison state
* usually very religious
* huge distain for arts and intellectuals

Ok so unless the killer meets all of the above criteria they can't be considered far right. It's too subjective is my point. If somebody meets some of the criteria but also supports gay marriage and legalised cannabis, are they still right wing? This is not as clear as someone who shouts Allahu Akbar and targets non-muslims in a suicide attack. Anyway Muslims are 1% of the population in the US but according to an FBI director the biggest threat to the US is from home grown terrorists linked to jihadist. From 1% of the poplulation. That's impressive threat level.So proportionally they make up a far bigger threat.