• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is responsible for the most terrorist attacks in the US?

Which group?


  • Total voters
    25
ideology certainly plays a huge part in it, along with the overwhelming urge to correct a wrong, either actual or perceived with as many wrongs as it takes.
The role that ideology plays in a terrorist or would-be terrorist's decision-making depends on the individual. It is inaccurate to say, as a blanket statement, that "ideology plays a 'huge' part in it." For a terrorist who was raised in an extremist ideology that preaches violence, then yes, ideology would probably play a large role in their behavior. However, for a terrorist was raised in a normal environment and that is just pissed at the world and needs a justification for his violence, ideology probably plays a much smaller role.
 
Meeoooo[/SIZE]wwwwwwwwww

(that's how cats cry for help)

go on please.jpeg


Even the blind can see that this is a plaintive cry for help.
 
The SPLC classifies the FRC as a hate group because of the rhetoric they use against the gay community. The attack against the Tides Foundation was because of lies Glenn Beck told about George Soros, who donates millions to them.

For purposes of this discussion I don't care about the politics either way. What's important is the testimony of the attackers. One drew a direct line to causation by SPLC; the other did not draw a direct line to Glenn Beck.

Back to the original topic: I would not want Glenn Beck deciding who's a terrorist, and I don't think SPLC has any business doing that either.:cool:
 
I totally agree with you, my point is that the right wing are blaming Muslims as being the major threat when it's not.

Oh wow. Think progress? Well, as if it wasn't clear before, it's now crystal clear this thread is a joke.
 
It's wonderful that you've utilized such an unbiased source. ThinkProgress has no agenda. None at all. I sometimes wonder why they even exist.

Exactly. Now ask those that show the cart to name all 25 of the 'right wing' terror acts in 1995...
 
For purposes of this discussion I don't care about the politics either way. What's important is the testimony of the attackers. One drew a direct line to causation by SPLC; the other did not draw a direct line to Glenn Beck.

Back to the original topic: I would not want Glenn Beck deciding who's a terrorist, and I don't think SPLC has any business doing that either.:cool:

*scratching head* They weren't deciding who was a terrorist, as long as slander isn't involved, both have freedom of speech, yes? Never mind.
 
Exactly. Now ask those that show the cart to name all 25 of the 'right wing' terror acts in 1995...
I find even the dates and the time table to be arbitrary in the extreme for purely political purposes.
 
*scratching head* They weren't deciding who was a terrorist, as long as slander isn't involved, both have freedom of speech, yes? Never mind.

SPLC was listed as a data source for YOUR graphic (post #46). You're the one citing them as valid namers of terrorists.:shock:
 
SPLC was listed as a data source for YOUR graphic (post #46). You're the one citing them as valid namers of terrorists.:shock:
You are confused Jack, they did compile the data for the number of terrorists incidents. That has no relevance to them naming the FRC a hate group. NONE!!!
 
You are confused Jack, they did compile the data for the number of terrorists incidents. That has no relevance to them naming the FRC a hate group. NONE!!!

I could not care less about the FRC matter. I only adduced it to illustrate the irony of SPLC being cited as a credible judge of what is a terrorist act. The point is that SPLC's role in the graphic renders it non-credible. They are an agit-prop outfit.:cool:
 
I could not care less about the FRC matter. I only adduced it to illustrate the irony of SPLC being cited as a credible judge of what is a terrorist act. The point is that SPLC's role in the graphic renders it non-credible. They are an agit-prop outfit.:cool:
How about the Department of Homeland Security doing it?
 
You are confused Jack, they did compile the data for the number of terrorists incidents. That has no relevance to them naming the FRC a hate group. NONE!!!

What were the 'terrorist incidents'?
 

"Antigovernment activist and self-described "survivalist" Ray Hamblin is charged with illegal possession of explosives after authorities find 460 pounds of the high explosive Tovex, 746 pounds of ANFO blasting agent and 15 homemade hand grenades on his property in Hood River, Ore. Hamblin is sentenced to almost four years in federal prison, and is released in March 2000."

Seriously, four ****ing years? Thank god this confused young man wasn't smoking the reefer
 
We are constantly being told regarding islam not to judge all by the actions of a few. Gee, I wish that were the case when it comes to conservatives and gun owners. I mean, conservatives by name are not radicals, they are conservative.

Depends on the sort of conservative. A significant part of the late 20th century dealt with a realization among some conservatives that conservatives had to become radicals, because defending the status-quo or recent past was not good enough. Most of the time, however, this radicalism did not mean violence, but it did mean a dramatic redefinition of goals.
 
There haven't been any "right-wing extremist" terrorist attacks.

You're telling me there haven't been any attacks by people who want to repress women, kill homosexuals and have a religious government????
 
You're telling me there haven't been any attacks by people who want to repress women, kill homosexuals and have a religious government????
The does not describe a right-winger in the first place.
 
The does not describe a right-winger in the first place.

Yeah, it kinda does. Right wing is all about being regressive, maintaining the status quo, tradition and all that stuff. There's lots and lots of variation in the right wing, from libertarians to religious nutjobs, but they're all right wing. Islamic extremists are right wing because they want to regress back to the time of Mohammed in terms of culture and practices.
 
Back
Top Bottom