The war on terror, turned inward?

Author: coal

Posts

Total: 36
Topic's author
#1
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I am old enough to remember when the so called "war on terror" was front and center of American foreign policy, to the exclusion of nearly all else.  Then, the focus was to dismantle terrorist networks, disrupt their operation and destroy their ability to execute future attacks. 

Now, it seems the focus has changed.  Formerly, we were interested in Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Currently, the Biden administration seems preoccupied with "right wing" groups. 

Several developments inform my consideration, as well.

1. Christopher Wray's statements on "domestic terrorism" both before and after the events of January 6, 2021.
2. The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
3. The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).
4. The strange obsession media seem to have with so called "white supremacy" and other delusions of racial persecution.

I really, really do not like being in the position of defending right wing nut jobs.  But as much as I loathe that exercise, my contempt for government branding political dissent as "terrorism" exceeds my contempt for defending right wing nutjobs.  Nut job or not, they have as much right to freedom of thought and the first amendment as anyone else.  

And this sets a dangerous precedent, which is even more horrifying.  Today, it's lone wolves and right wing nutjobs.  Tomorrow?   Who will it be, then?  Right now the democrats are in power, but they won't be forever.  If that precedent is set during the Biden administration, how might a Josh Hawley administration follow in kind?  

This is an issue people need to think about.  If the government is big enough to come after right wing nut jobs, they're big enough to come after leftist dissidents as well.  And while the lettered agencies of the Federal Government's law enforcement apparatus seem to have lost interest in such groups as Antifa or others, since the outcome of the election in 2020 --- who is to say things won't change, again?  

I would like to hope that, collectively, we all take a deep breath and pull back from the brink.  Maybe see our way through to pulling back from the brink.  

But things are looking mighty rough.  Not obvious to me there even is a light at the end of this tunnel.  And from where I'm sitting, this is going to end in the country's law enforcement turning against whatever group happens to be the party out of power.   That is a road that leads directly to hell and the destruction of our democracy in any recognizable form.  




#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@coal
Terror is.

And making distinctions also is.

Are Afghan or Iraqi kids, any more or less terrified than Old Americans?
#3
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@coal
 The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).
Yes, there is definitely a strange obsession with mass shootings, unless they are located in certain areas like Baltimore or Chicago (I haven't the slightest clue why those are ignored.....)

And it is weird, sometimes I hear about a mass shooting all over the news, but then it is as if all attention fades. I never get to see the mug shots on those shooters. I wonder what their characteristics are.

I really, really do not like being in the position of defending right wing nut jobs.  But as much as I loathe that exercise, my contempt for government branding political dissent as "terrorism" exceeds my contempt for defending right wing nutjob
Thank you for defending me and my side's nut jobs, friend.

While I certainly don't agree with breaking and entering into the Capitol building, that was nothing resembling an armed insurrection. 
Topic's author
#4
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
The media's obsession with mass shootings follows the typical pattern of anything else they're obsessed about. 

In the 1990s, it was "rising crime" where there was none, which led to passage of the most egregious crime bills this country has ever seen --- including in particular the 94 crime bill that Joe Biden called his own.  

Same thing with child sex abuse.  In the 1980s-2000s, the media became so obsessed with the notion of child sex abuse that the entire field of psychiatry had to develop a (now abandoned) fictitious category of "late onset female" sexual abuser, to describe a media-driven witch-hunt against "satanic daycare workers."  This stuff is so stupid it defies comprehension that it was ever taken seriously.  And that is to say nothing about people like that Dateline creep, whose "efforts" led to passage of laws that have ruined the lives of high school boys who sext with their girlfriends the country over.

Another example of the media's stupidity we seem to forget about is how vigorously they promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism, even as late as 2006-2007.  Of course, there is not now and has never been a scintilla of evidence --- beyond pseudoscience and quackery --- to support that proposition, but the media (being incredibly stupid, biased, sensationalist and willing to report on any gotcha headline they aren't even smart enough to understand) took that story, ran with it and here we are.

Now, they've embraced the collective delusion that there's some kind of onslaught of "white supremacy" in the country, that all republicans/conservatives are "white supremacists" and Donald Trump in particular was a "white nationalist."  This is insanity.  The media so wholly fail at their most basic, essential function that it is a wonder we can even hold elections in the country that do not descend into complete civil war every cycle like some third-world shithole country.  

But of course, they put liars like Adam Schiff on the air to lie directly into the camera on any topic that offends their sensibilities; like the nature and contents of fool Hunter Biden's laptop. 

While I don't agree with Steve Bannon on many things, I fully agree that the media are "the real opposition party."
#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@coal
The truth is there have only ever been a handful of terrorist attacks in america by Islamist groups. Right wing terror attacks are actually much more common. But in the wake of 9/11, any terrorist attack by white people was usually just referred to as a "crime", and not terrorism. So in the modern world, groups like al-Qaida are considerably less threatening that right wing terrorists. 

The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
I agree that "terrorist" might be too far based on what they actually managed to do. But insurrection might be a bit too soft. They marched on the US capitol with the express intent of overthrowing a democratic election and installing someone else as the leader of the country. That is an insurrection. They tried to overthrow democracy.

And many of them had the express intent of murdering elected officials who did their job upholding the election. What else do you call that? That is treason. If they had succeeded in getting their hands on some of these elected officials, it would absolutely have been terrorism.
Topic's author
#6
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are ways you can manipulate the actual data and historical record to arrive at the conclusions that

  • "Right wing terror attacks are actually much more common";
  • "there have only ever been a handful of terrorist attacks in america by Islamist groups"; or 
  • "groups like al-Qaida are considerably less threatening that right wing terrorists".
For example, you can broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include any act of violence committed by any individual with a potentially political motive.  In this way, what counts as a "terrorist" attack is wholly indistinguishable from a bank robbery, disgruntled employee ransacking his former employer's office or other common act of criminality (spectacular or otherwise).  And that's what you have to do in order to reach the conclusions you have, above.  But if you actually understood the data and the underlying methodologies behind those categorizations, you'd notice there's a big signal-to-noise problem with that approach.  After all, as you correctly state the "terrorist" label goes a bit too far when all we're really talking about is garden-variety crime.  

The definition of terrorism is precisely defined by the United States Code, for example, but even that leaves open the same issues.   So there's a level of judgement involved in the act of categorization.  And if you have a political motive to brand those who disagree with you as "terrorists," then the word is meaningless.  When every crime is an act of terrorism, there's no difference between terrorism and any other crime.   That is the issue here.

But definitions aside, there's a bigger issue: how do you measure the magnitude of any "threat"?  You claimed that, based on numbers alone, right wing groups are a bigger "threat".   The fact that you identified no data comparing, for example, right wing extremists and islamist extremists notwithstanding, even if you had done so, is the number of attacks an appropriate indicator of the magnitude of any threat?  The answer is no.  Here are a hand-full of reasons why:

  1. Right wing groups are domestically based, whereas Islamist groups tend to coordinate internationally.  This means that international communications are far more likely to be intercepted by, among others, the NSA and American law enforcement due to more relaxed restrictions on communications survelance relating to communications with foreign nationals as opposed to among American citizens.  Basically, Islamist terror acts are a LOT more likely to be identified and prevented than anything with a purely domestic origin, which would include so called "far right" extremist attacks.
  2. The number of attacks deterred is a better measure than number of successful attacks.  And you do not have access to that information (nor do I), beyond what is published by, among others, law enforcement such as the DOJ and FBI.  And nothing the CIA does is ever published, unless something has gone horribly wrong.  So when American intelligence intercepts, for example, an American who tried to sneak into northern Iraq to receive training from ISIS on the expectation that such a person would thereafter return to the United States for terrorist purposes; the only way that ever gets mentioned is if the DOJ indicts that person.  Sometimes, that happens.  Often, it does not.  Usually, that person would disappear to a CIA blacksite, never to be heard from again.  
  3. The magnitude of attacks' harm, in terms of human and property costs, is relevant to the comparative threat level posed by either right wing extremists or Islamist terror groups.  For example, Islamists tend to favor soft targets inside the United States but coordinate their efforts with groups in, among other places, Pakistan, the horn of Africa, Afghanistan and Northern Iraq.  Their expressly stated goals (as reflected on, for example, ISIS propaganda sites which you can find without difficulty though I will not link them here) are to maximize human casualties to the degree possible.  Right wing extremist groups, to the extent they exist (which is exaggerated in my estimation), literally have not identified maximizing human casualties as a stated goal, ever.  Left wing groups have, in both the United States and Europe, from the 1960s on.  But right wing groups have not.  Their goals tend to be only political in nature; and any "attack" they plan is consistently limited to use of violence as a means to an end as opposed to the end itself.  In this way, to claim that the magnitude of threat posed by any specific attack is the same for right wing extremist groups and islamist groups is completely absurd.  Literally no lucid interpretation of the underlying data (as available on, for example, the DOJ's and FBI's public disclosures relating to the same) entails that conclusion.  



#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
"Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly."

-Timothy McVeigh
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@coal
For example, you can broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include any act of violence committed by any individual with a potentially political motive. 
lol you just described the definition of terrorism. it is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.". So yes, any act of violence committed for political motives is terrorism. 

In this way, what counts as a "terrorist" attack is wholly indistinguishable from a bank robbery, disgruntled employee ransacking his former employer's office or other common act of criminality (spectacular or otherwise).
no, it is very easily distinguishable. They don't have political motives. They have personal ones. If you ransack someone's office to try to intimidate them into doing something to further your political ideology, that is terrorism. IE you are using fear (terror) for political gain.

But if you actually understood the data and the underlying methodologies behind those categorizations, you'd notice there's a big signal-to-noise problem with that approach.
no, the problem with that approach for right wing loons is that much of what they do is actually terrorism. But they are desperate not to be seen for what they are. 

After all, as you correctly state the "terrorist" label goes a bit too far when all we're really talking about is garden-variety crime.  
no, i said it might go too far because they didn't get to do the terrorism some of them wanted to. They wanted to murder political leaders to bring about an illegal regime change, that is terrorism. They just didn't get that far. Mostly due to incompetence, not for lack of trying.

So there's a level of judgement involved in the act of categorization.  And if you have a political motive to brand those who disagree with you as "terrorists," then the word is meaningless.
or we could leave that level of judgement out of it entirely and make it very simple. Did you carry out an act of violence or intimidation for political reasons? then you're a terrorist. No judgement involved at all. 

 When every crime is an act of terrorism, there's no difference between terrorism and any other crime.   That is the issue here.
no one is talking about all crime being terrorism. Only those done for political reasons. Why does this confuse you?

Basically, Islamist terror acts are a LOT more likely to be identified and prevented than anything with a purely domestic origin, which would include so called "far right" extremist attacks.
this sounds like a very good argument for why right wing terrorists are far more dangerous than islamists. do you suddenly agree with me?

The number of attacks deterred is a better measure than number of successful attacks. 
this point has some merit. The number of attacks stopped is certainly relevant. But far less so than the number of successful attacks. If we are currently preventing almost all islamist attacks, but right wing terrorist attacks happen regularly, then it's pretty obvious which one is the bigger threat.

Right wing extremist groups, to the extent they exist (which is exaggerated in my estimation), literally have not identified maximizing human casualties as a stated goal, ever. 
this is sort of the problem with right wing extremists. They aren't centralized. There is no equivalent of Nazi Al-Qaida. There is no leadership to target. Just lots and lots of rightwing loons who are willing to do terrible things to fight enemies that don't actually exist and threats that aren't real. Like the thousands of lunatics who attacked the capitol to try to destroy democracy.

 Their goals tend to be only political in nature; and any "attack" they plan is consistently limited to use of violence as a means to an end as opposed to the end itself.
islamist terror is also a means to an end. To force the US to leave Iraq, to force them to stop meddling in the middle east etc. They aren't attainable goals, but they are goals. 

In this way, to claim that the magnitude of threat posed by any specific attack is the same for right wing extremist groups and islamist groups is completely absurd.
a group of rightwing loons tried to attack the capitol and murder a whole bunch of members of the government in an attempt to overthrow democracy. They that is a far bigger threat than any islamist one in years. that is a pretty massive magnitude 



Topic's author
#9
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would encourage you to develop a more sophisticated understanding of terrorism, generally; and species of terrorism, including any emanating from right wing extremist and Islamist groups.  Much of your commentary does not address what I said, directly or indirectly.

To review the themes raised in your response:

  • The definition / standard for what counts as terrorism is by no means obvious.  You should review some of the academic literature and legal discussion on this subject.  
    • I specifically noted the conceptual difficulty in distinguishing crime that is terrorism from crime which is not.  In the broadest sense, terrorism includes all violence done for political reasons.  But that definition is inadequate for its over inclusiveness, as I stated above. 
    • There is great, amply noted difficulty in arriving at any workable definition of terrorism in the relevant legal and academic literature, the world over.  For example:
      • The UN General Assembly defines terrorism as: 
        • "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
      • The Arab Convention for theSuppression of Terrorism was adoptedby the Council of Arab Ministers of theInterior and the Council of Arab Ministersof Justice in Cairo, Egypt in 1998.  Terrorism was defined in the conventionas:
        • "Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement ofan individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fearby harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damageto the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them,or seeking to jeopardize national resources."
      • UN Security Counsel Resolution 1566 (2004) defines terrorism as: 
        • "[C]riminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or seriousbodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the generalpublic or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel agovernment or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
    • Even in the United States, what counts as "terrorism" depends on which section of the US Code you're looking at.
      • Title 18, Sec. 2331 defines terrorism as “…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of thecriminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce acivilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affectthe conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarilywithin the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
      • But, the Patriot Act defines terrorism as "threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles" or "threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons,such as government officials." 
      • And the FBI, CIA and NSA each have unique working definitions of what they think terrorism is; with unique methods of applying those standards, and internal practices related to the same. 
    • And that is to say nothing of the fact that the Department of Commerce, Department of State and Department of the Interior all have their own definitions too; and their own methods of interpreting those definitions, applying them and the like. 
    • So, it is by no means obvious what "the definition of terrorism" is, as you claim; and your very generalized definition is unworkable, either from the perspective of international diplomacy or American law enforcement. 
  • I told you above that there are serious methodological problems involved in how acts of "terrorism" are categorized.  I gave you a specific example of how the expansive scope of what counts for "terrorism" can be manipulated for political reasons, which is after all the primary focus of my thread.  
    • You have not addressed that, or even tried to engage with it.  Do you understand what I said?  Do you understand how the breadth/scope of what counts for "terrorism" can vary depending on the perspective from which you're looking at events in the world?  
    • Your claim that a bank robbery or disgruntled employee's ransacking his employer's former office can be "easily distinguished" from terrorism is unavailing, where the very definition of terrorism that you proposed turns on motive and intent rather than outcome.  If either of those acts were committed for political reasons, they're terrorism by definition.   And because intent is something that is very subjective, and does not lend itself to white-and-black type interpretation or categorization; you're not in a position to make the claims you did, about distinguishing either from terrorism as you have defined it. 
    • Your question of "Why does this confuse you?" is irritating as well.  This is a subject matter you clearly don't understand at the level you think you do. 
  • Your understanding of January 6, 2021 is profoundly deficient. 
    • Provide evidence that, as you claim "a group of rightwing loons tried to attack the capitol and murder a whole bunch of members of the government in an attempt to overthrow democracy. They that is a far bigger threat than any islamist one in years. that is a pretty massive magnitude."
    • And do not assume that just linking a news article is going to cut it. 

#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@coal
I would encourage you to develop a more sophisticated understanding of terrorism
this translates to "you should change the definition of terrorism so that all the right wing terrorism doesn't count"

 But that definition is inadequate for its over inclusiveness, as I stated above. 
you have yet to establish a single way it is "over inclusive". Most crime has nothing to do with politics. Most if it is either a crime of passion or for personal gain.

I told you above that there are serious methodological problems involved in how acts of "terrorism" are categorized.  I gave you a specific example of how the expansive scope of what counts for "terrorism" can be manipulated for political reasons,
no, you haven't. You've said that if we limit the scope of terrorism that can be manipulated. And that is exactly what has happened since 9/11. The term was almost exclusively used to describe Muslims or ethnic minorities. If you were white and did anything short of bombing a crowd, the term would never be used on you. What I am describing is to stop politicizing the term and call all terrorism what it is, not just for muslims and brown people.

Your claim that a bank robbery or disgruntled employee's ransacking his employer's former office can be "easily distinguished" from terrorism is unavailing, where the very definition of terrorism that you proposed turns on motive and intent rather than outcome.  If either of those acts were committed for political reasons, they're terrorism by definition.   And because intent is something that is very subjective, and does not lend itself to white-and-black type interpretation or categorization; you're not in a position to make the claims you did, about distinguishing either from terrorism as you have defined it. 
Terrorism is solely defined by motives though. if you bombed your business for the insurance money, thats a crime. If you bombed your business to cause terror, you're a terrorist. The exact same action, but one is terrorism and one isn't.

Your question of "Why does this confuse you?" is irritating as well.  This is a subject matter you clearly don't understand at the level you think you do.
no, it's just a fairly simple concept that corrupt people insist on complicating to muddy the water. Right wing people can't have a simple definition of terrorism, because then most of the terrorist attacks in recent US history would be by right wing white guys. The US government can't have a simple definition because then they would be the world leader in terrorist attacks. You think that by trying to complicate the subject this means you have a "higher understanding" when really you are just trying to cover up terrorism.

Provide evidence that, as you claim "a group of rightwing loons tried to attack the capitol and murder a whole bunch of members of the government in an attempt to overthrow democracy. They that is a far bigger threat than any islamist one in years. that is a pretty massive magnitude."
what part of this is in question? lots of those right wing loons made public statements that they wanted to kill pence and Pelosi. So that isn't exactly a secret. Their stated goal was to try to prevent pence from finishing the democratic process and confirming Biden won the election. their stated goal was to stop the results of an election and to try to install trump as an illegal leader. 

Which parts of this are in question, because they're proud of their treason and haven't tried to hide it.
Topic's author
#11
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
This isn't getting anywhere.  So let's focus on your specific claims:

Provide evidence that:
    • a group of rightwing loons tried to attack the capitol
    • and murder
    • a whole bunch of members of the government
    • in an attempt to overthrow democracy.

    Further, provide evidence that, as you claim: 

    • They that is a far bigger threat
    • than any islamist one in years. that is a pretty massive magnitude.
    Make sense? 
    Topic's author
    #12
    coal
    coal's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 1,950
    3
    3
    9
    coal's avatar
    coal
    3
    3
    9
    -->
    @HistoryBuff
    Unrelatedly, I am now curious:

    1. Why do you call yourself "historybuff"?
    2. Do you contend you're a "buff" in "history"?
    3. All history, or just some specific type or category of history?  If so, which type or category? 
    4. Am I correct in assuming you're between the ages of 13 and 17?  If not, are you in college? 
    5. Did you do debate in high school?  If so, what type of debate (public forum, LD, etc.)?
    6. Do you believe you're an expert in terrorism, or political science-related topics?
    7. Do you have any background in policy issues relevant to law enforcement or terrorism, domestically or internationally?  If so,  explain. 
    #13
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    -->
    @coal
    I am old enough to remember when the so called "war on terror" was front and center of American foreign policy, to the exclusion of nearly all else.  Then, the focus was to dismantle terrorist networks, disrupt their operation and destroy their ability to execute future attacks.  Now, it seems the focus has changed.  Formerly, we were interested in Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Currently, the Biden administration seems preoccupied with "right wing" groups. 
    You sound nostalgic for the War on Terror, as if all that focus did any good.

    At the outset of the War on Terror, Al Qaeda's stated objectives were

    • Attack US targets to bolster cred
    • Create Homegrown Terrorist Cells in the United States and Western Europe, and
    • Cause Economic Losses in the United States
    Bush/Cheney's stated objectives were:

    • Stop terrorist attacks against the US,  its citizens, interests,  friends and allies around the world
    • and ultimately, to create an international environment inhospitable to terrorists and all those who support them.
    20 years, 10,000 Americans and $5.4 trillion later we can only conclude that Al Qaeda achieved its objectives while the US did not.  I'm skeptical that all that foreign focus and interest is worth much admiration.

    1. Christopher Wray's statements on "domestic terrorism" both before and after the events of January 6, 2021.
    2. The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
    The FBI defines DOMESTIC TERRORISM as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."  By this definition, Jan 6th certainly qualifies.  Trump himself called the attack illegal and heinous and Trump himself laid out the ideological goals for those violent, criminal acts less than an hour before the crimes commenced.   The Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluated the attack as sedition and insurrection, either of which would always qualify  as DOMESTIC TERRORISM.  The NATO intelligence brief to European leadership characterized the attack as an attempted coup by President Trump.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the attack a failed attempt at insurrection and blamed Trump directly.  Liz Cheney loses her number 3 slot in the house for simply speaking the truth that the whole world witnessed:

    On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.   The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

    Domestic Terrorism is the correct, unvarnished conclusion.  That' not just the FBI or the MSM, that's the opinion of most the victims and eye-witnesses,  the American and global consensus, the Library of Congress and historians.

    3. The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).

    • THE GVA (CNN's source) defines a Mass Shooting  as "FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location  not including the shooter."
    • The FBI defines a mass killing as 4 or more people killed.
    • Either way, I don't think it is a strange obsession for the media to cover mass murder.  Traditionally and most commonly, mass murder is the journalist's bread and butter.  "If it bleeds, it leads" is a popular aphorism affirming this principle.

    4. The strange obsession media seem to have with so called "white supremacy" and other delusions of racial persecution.
    • Again, that's not just the media.  Most observant folks will readily agree that racial hostility is not a delusion and would probably agree that public displays of racism have increased in recent years although I think most would also agree that racial harmony has improved over the long term.  I've known too many white supremacists and witnessed to much racial persecution to pretend to buy the characterization "delusion."
    If the government is big enough to come after right wing nut jobs, they're big enough to come after leftist dissidents as well. 
    I don't think any Republic of, by, and for the people can possibly ignore well-televised insurrections against its own sovereignty even when, perhaps especially when the President helms the terrorists.   Weimar Germany went too easy on the Beer Hall Putsch Nazis and they soon returned with enough popularity to take over legally.  On the hand, history notes that once the US gave up the War on Terror, a great number of likely terrorists from various Al Qaeda and ISIS factions gathered together in Syrian Civil and promptly killed one another en masse.  Putin liked it so much he was flew planefuls of Chechnyan terrorists away.  Perhaps what's best for America is to try hard not to present a political opposition against which the right can unify and warily allow  the factionalists and the power-grabbers to take one another out for a while.

    #14
    RationalMadman
    RationalMadman's avatar
    Debates: 574
    Posts: 19,931
    10
    11
    11
    RationalMadman's avatar
    RationalMadman
    10
    11
    11
    In agreement with Oromagi, I think that the US is the only nation where people can even get away with that.

    If you dared to do that to the parliament houses, senate or whatever in another nation, you wouldn't see the fucking light of day, everyone in and who directly incited the insurrection could be detained and interrogated indefinitely.
    #15
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @coal
    I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think there are really any ways around the media's shenanigans. It will always be profitable to push sensationalist bullshit. They always need their boogeyman. Now that boogeyman is White people and "White nationalism".

    As for the new harmful legislation that comes out of this, I am expecting a "Patriot Act 2.0" like many others right now. Gotta keep an eye on those crazy folks that dislike illegal immigration and want vote audits.

    Conversely, any attempt to crack down on the news would be super unpopular and portrayed as violating "freedom of the press".


    #16
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @oromagi
    • Again, that's not just the media.  Most observant folks will readily agree that racial hostility is not a delusion and would probably agree that public displays of racism have increased in recent years although I think most would also agree that racial harmony has improved over the long term.  I've known too many white supremacists and witnessed to much racial persecution to pretend to buy the characterization "delusion."

    In a country of over 300,000,000 there were only 8,552 hate crimes in all of 2019 (a rate of about 2.6 per 100,000). Of those, just about half were racially-motivated.

    As for the offenders, White people are underrepresented quite vastly (it appears to include Latinos/Hispanics with Whites). The racial breakdown of perpetrators was:
    • 52.5% were White (underrepresented)
    • 23.9% were Black or African American (almost double portion of population)
    • 14.6% race unknown
    Even assuming that all race unknown were White (quite an unrealistic assumption), they would still be underrepresented. In a country this large, this is hardly what you could call an epidemic of h-White supremacist violence.

    So, assuming that rates are constant for each type of hate crime 8,552*.525 (known white commission)*.576(racially-motivated)= 2,586 Whites committing racial hate crimes in a whole year. Based on the White population, that is about 1 hate crime per 100,000 of their population. So, in an area with the population of Wyoming, there would be less than one racial hate crime by Whites every two months.
    #17
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @coal
    1. Why do you call yourself "historybuff"?
    2. Do you contend you're a "buff" in "history"?
    3. All history, or just some specific type or category of history?  If so, which type or category? 
    4. Am I correct in assuming you're between the ages of 13 and 17?  If not, are you in college? 
    5. Did you do debate in high school?  If so, what type of debate (public forum, LD, etc.)?
    6. Do you believe you're an expert in terrorism, or political science-related topics?
    7. Do you have any background in policy issues relevant to law enforcement or terrorism, domestically or internationally?  If so,  explain. 
    Lmao goteem. 

    Pro tip: do not engage with that fella unless you want gross mischaracterizations of your positions spewed at you so that he can own them and talk in circles. I've tried being witty, nice, and rude. None work
    #18
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    -->
    @bmdrocks21
    -> @oromagi
    • Again, that's not just the media.  Most observant folks will readily agree that racial hostility is not a delusion and would probably agree that public displays of racism have increased in recent years although I think most would also agree that racial harmony has improved over the long term.  I've known too many white supremacists and witnessed to much racial persecution to pretend to buy the characterization "delusion."

    In a country of over 300,000,000 there were only 8,552 hate crimes in all of 2019
    • I note that your statistic effectively disproves coal's claim that racial persecution is an American "delusion." Obviously, only a very small proportion of racial persecutions would even qualify as hate crime (which generally requires conviction of a violent crime) but we should agree that any and every racially motivated hate crime documented by the FBI is an example of real and actual racial persecution, disproving coal's claim "delusion" and reinforcing my skepticism.
    • The claim that the DOJ's annual collection of reported Hate Crime convictions represents the scope of racial persecution is like claiming that the DOJ's annual estimate of US rape convictions represents the scope of sexual harassment.

    #19
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 25,982
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @bmdrocks21
    I am constantly amazed at how many KKK members people on the left claim to personally know. I have never met a single KKK member in 50 years across 15 different states.

    Not only that, I haven't personally met anyone who has personally met an actual KKK member.
    #20
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    I am constantly amazed at how many KKK members people on the left claim to personally know. I have never met a single KKK member in 50 years across 15 different states.

    Not only that, I haven't personally met anyone who has personally met an actual KKK member.

    In fact, my paternal grandparents were members of the Klan.  They were introduced at a Klan Rally. 

    READERS will note that Greychickenshitparrot has reported my many corrections of his many false statements with a further falsehood that he feels fragile when shown to be lying and has officially requested protection by the mods from the harsh humiliations of contrary thought.   Please remember that when GP lays his little DC sniper-snipe bon mots as we see he has laid here,  I am officially restrained from replying.

    #21
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @oromagi
    • I note that your statistic effectively disproves coal's claim that racial persecution is an American "delusion." Obviously, only a very small proportion of racial persecutions would even qualify as hate crime (which generally requires conviction of a violent crime) but we should agree that any and every racially motivated hate crime documented by the FBI is an example of real and actual racial persecution, disproving coal's claim "delusion" and reinforcing my skepticism.

    I don't think it is fair to say that generally a violent crime is involved in a hate crime. That is a more salient type of hate crime and that is more common, but the stats show a decent percentage of hate crimes being against property and a small amount being "against society" (whatever that means). For instance, a couple got charged with a hate crime for painting over a BLM street "mural".

    As for whether you think it is a delusion, that is a more subjective measure. I clearly think it is overhyped based on my explanation of the stats. There is no statistical basis for a huge prevalence of White supremacist violence like the media claims, unless you think the few thousand per year (that number including property crimes and crimes against people) is representative of those claims.
    #22
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @Greyparrot
    I am constantly amazed at how many KKK members people on the left claim to personally know. I have never met a single KKK member in 50 years across 15 different states.

    Not only that, I haven't personally met anyone who has personally met an actual KKK member.

    Well since all Trump supporters are Nazis, I guess I saw a few hundred Nazis when I went to one of his rallies.
    #23
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 25,982
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @bmdrocks21
    Well since all Trump supporters are Nazis, I guess I saw a few hundred Nazis when I went to one of his rallies.

    I don't know. it seems like an insanely weird flex to claim you know an active KKK member these days when there are only 3000 of them.

    It's like touching a celebrity for the rabid left I guess.
    #24
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 25,982
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @bmdrocks21
    I guess I saw a few hundred Nazis when I went to one of his rallies.
    Are you sure it wasn't a Cosplay Shaman? Those are the worst insurrectionists.
    #25
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @Greyparrot
    Are you sure it wasn't a Cosplay Shaman? Those are the worst insurrectionists.

    I did not see the Grand Shaman of the KKK there, but I wasn't looking for him

    I don't know. it seems like an insanely weird flex to claim you know an active KKK member these days when there are only 3000 of them.

    It's like touching a celebrity for the rabid left I guess.
    The fact that most lefties seem to know a KKK member proves what we have all known for years: the Dems are the REAL racists
    #26
    thett3
    thett3's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,064
    3
    2
    7
    thett3's avatar
    thett3
    3
    2
    7
    -->
    @coal
    Excellent post. What do you make of all the statements put out by the intelligence agencies and government that white supremacist terrorism is the most pressing threat to the US? I see liberals make this point all the time, and they share statistics that, frankly, are not believable which show dozens of annual attacks. I can think of a handful of white supremacist terrorist attacks over the past decade (Dylann Roof, the 2018 synagogue shooting) so it definitely is a real thing but the numbers show that there have been 267 plots in the last half decade? Something sinister is going on with the counting here, but I don't know what 

    #27
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @thett3
    The ADL is a libtard organization that is very commonly cited for extremist attack accounts. Next time you hear that "White supremacists" commit x% of extremist murders, note that this comes from their extremism count:
    "Moreover, some far right extremist movements engage in non-ideological violence as well as ideological violence. Over the past 10 years, the number of ideological-related killings and non-ideological killings by extremists has been virtually equal (218 versus 217), with the majority of non-ideological killings coming from right-wing extremists, especially white supremacists.  These killings include murders of informants, domestic violence murders, drug- and gang-related murders, and other murders connected to traditional crime."
    So, if a gang member who is a white supremacist kills a rival gang's member or they kill their wife because they are just a violent person, it is considered a death from a "white supremacist".

    Obviously a lot of selection bias there (considering the type of people that generally join white supremacist gangs), and I'd bet if they started considering the racial attitudes of black gang members, they would find a sudden rise in "black supremacist murders"

    So in other words, they aren't often motivated by their white supremacist beliefs to kill people. They are just poor, racist guys in gangs that kill people because.... well, they are in gangs, and the racism is totally unrelated to many of their killings.
    #28
    thett3
    thett3's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,064
    3
    2
    7
    thett3's avatar
    thett3
    3
    2
    7
    -->
    @bmdrocks21
    Man, liberals have no idea how lucky they are to have the institutions in the bag for them. Frankly it’s a miracle that the right is even remotely competitive 
    #29
    bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 2,798
    4
    6
    11
    bmdrocks21's avatar
    bmdrocks21
    4
    6
    11
    -->
    @thett3
    Really, it isn’t luck. The power comes from the ignorance of most people (rational ignorance, mind you. Most people don’t have time to look into these shenanigans).

    But the fact that anyone can just cite some organization and have no clue how that stat was doctored to fit some silly narrative is just nuts to me. More than half of people will believe a completely meaningless stat.

    Just like how they get the “most mass shooters are White”. The little hidden note at the bottom will tell you that family disputes and gang violence are excluded, conveniently things that whitey is underrepresented in. (I believe that was how Mother Jones got their conclusion)
    #30
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 25,982
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @thett3
    Man, liberals have no idea how lucky they are to have the institutions in the bag for them.
    You call 50 years of one-party institutional rule in places like New York...Detroit...Chicago...California...and others... LUCK for the average liberal?

    If that's what you consider "luck," I would hate to see those places on a bad luck day.

    Maybe you are talking about the liberals in power...then I would say yes, extreme luck.