• 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!

What a piece of paranoid crap.

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
14,019
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf

A document promulgated this month by a Department of Homeland Security run by the "reality-based community."

Yeah. You Obama supporters tell me you wouldn't have been screaming in rage if the Bush Administration had published a nearly-identical document about Left-wing extremist groups.

Meanwhile, a paper published by law enforcement advisories in Missouri advises police to be on the lookout for people with Ron Paul or Bob Barr bumper stickers.
 
The fact is, the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks and thwarted attacks have been by right wing extremists. Something like 300 right wing extremist terrorist attempts have been thwarted since 1995.

Timothy McVeigh, the UniBomber, all these militias and so on, all right wing extremists.
 
Just round 'em all up then, eh?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course not, but the fact is, right wing extremists are statistically much more likely to resort to domestic terrorism than left wing extremists.

SPLCenter.org: Terror From the Right
Click to expand...

That's no reason to profile them. You guys scream about profiling blacks and Arab Americans, then turn around and support profiling people with Ron Paul stickers? Unreal. It's wrong in both cases. Anyone who values freedom should see that.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course not, but the fact is, right wing extremists are statistically much more likely to resort to domestic terrorism than left wing extremists.
Click to expand...
Other than media manipulation, what exactly makes these groups "right wing"?

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore Contitutional balance to government.

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore federalism in the government.

So what exactly puts neo-nazis and anarchists on the same political page as Libertarians, Independents, and Constitutionalists?
 
That paper outlines a number of legal -- and Constitutionally-protected -- activities which are said to be areas of concern.

The measure of your commitment to freedom and liberty is your willingness to defend it for people you don't like or agree with. If you are not willing to do so, then your commitment is questionable.

These are US citizens who disagree with the current government. A few months back, that was the height of nobility.

The old saw about "then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up" applies across the board, you know.
 
Ikari said:
Does that count the eco-terrorist organizations like ALF and ELF and the organizations which support them like PETA?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Torching an SUV is one thing and is bad enough, blowing up a Federal Building or walking into Unitarian Church and opening fire is something else entirely.
 
celticlord said:
Other than media manipulation, what exactly makes these groups "right wing"?

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore Contitutional balance to government.

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore federalism in the government.

So what exactly puts neo-nazis and anarchists on the same political page as Libertarians, Independents, and Constitutionalists?
Click to expand...

Oh, I am sorry, only the left has extremists. :roll:

Thats like a liberal arguing, other than media manipulation, what exactly makes communists "left wing". Extremists right wing groups like Nazis, militias, and so on are all about "restoring federalism", they just have a different reason for wanting to do so than you have.
 
danarhea said:
That's no reason to profile them. You guys scream about profiling blacks and Arab Americans, then turn around and support profiling people with Ron Paul stickers? Unreal. It's wrong in both cases. Anyone who values freedom should see that.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should be broadly profiled. Unless a specific group has given authorities just cause to investigate them, then they have a right to privacy just like everyone else does regardless of what they believe.

I am only pointing out that these extremists are the ultimate fruit of the kind of hate-mongering people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter regularly engage in and everyone ought to realize that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, it does. Torching an SUV is one thing and is bad enough, blowing up a Federal Building or walking into Unitarian Church and opening fire is something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes, but
Eco-terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism 200 million dollars in property damage from 2003 and 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism.
Click to expand...

BTW, blowing up a federal building could be justified...the church thing not so much.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but
Eco-terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BTW, blowing up a federal building could be justified...the church thing not so much.
Click to expand...

And while its wrong, 200 million dollars in damage is but a fraction of the property damage resulting from the actions of right wing extremists over the years.

Moreover, you are arguing that blowing up a federal building could be justified? When the Oklahoma City Federal building was bombed:

168 people were killed.
850 were injured.
19 children were killed
69 of the people that were killed did not even work for the government.

How could anything like that ever be justified in anyway?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Oh, I am sorry, only the left has extremists. :roll:

Thats like a liberal arguing, other than media manipulation, what exactly makes communists "left wing". Extremists right wing groups like Nazis, militias, and so on are all about "restoring federalism", they just have a different reason for wanting to do so than you have.
Click to expand...
Well, what does make communists "left wing"? Perfectly valid question as well.

What makes a Trotskyite aligned with a Socialist?

What makes a Maoist aligned with a "liberal"?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The fact is, the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks and thwarted attacks have been by right wing extremists. Something like 300 right wing extremist terrorist attempts have been thwarted since 1995.

Timothy McVeigh, the UniBomber, all these militias and so on, all right wing extremists.
Click to expand...
I hate to call you out on your bull****, yet again, but this is bull****. If you want to call abortion clinic bombers "right wing", I would agree, but I see nothing that makes McVeigh or the unabomber right wing extremists. Unless this is simply another feeble attempt by the emotional left to lump these guys into "the other camp".

And as far as the part in bold goes, got any proof?
 
celticlord said:
Well, what does make communists "left wing"? Perfectly valid question as well.

What makes a Trotskyite aligned with a Socialist?

What makes a Maoist aligned with a "liberal"?
Click to expand...

A Maoist is extreme left wing, but its not aligned with liberals. Mao hated liberals.

An ideology is going to always fall somewhere on the right or the left, and from there somewhere between authoritarian and anarchist.

Usually, the way one determines whether a group is right wing or left wing is to look at which side they most agree with.

For example, liberals tend to support some government intervention into the economy (mixed economies), social safety-nets, worker protections, environmental protections, and civil liberties.

Communists support near complete government control of the means of production and complete redistribution of wealth, yet they tend to not support environmental protections and in practice have been against civil liberties for individuals.

Yet since both groups are to one degree or another collectivists, and both groups are to one degree or another in favor of an activist government (positive rights), then communism is considered to be in the extreme left because communists may not agree with liberals on some issues, they would not agree with conservatives on anything.

Conservatives support states rights, some negative rights (right to bear arms for example), less government intervention into the private sector, and are against the idea of an activist government.

Neo-Nazis, Militias, and White Supremacists, all are strongly supportive of states rights, are supportive of the right to bear arms, are against the federal government passing employer anti-discrimination laws, and are strongly against the idea of an activist government, thus they are placed at the far right, because while they would not agree with conservatives on some issues, they would not agree with liberals on much of anything.

That is pretty much a simplified explanation.
 
P/N said:
I hate to call you out on your bull****, yet again, but this is bull****. If you want to call abortion clinic bombers "right wing", I would agree, but I see nothing that makes McVeigh or the unabomber right wing extremists. Unless this is simply another feeble attempt by the emotional left to lump these guys into "the other camp".

And as far as the part in bold goes, got any proof?
Click to expand...

I hate to call bull**** on you, but McVeigh held nothing but extreme right wing beliefs. He was worried about any kinds of arms control and was immersed in the gun culture, was vehemently against federal taxation, was against the United States participation in the United Nations, railed against socialism, was a huge supporter of states rights and so on.

The Unibomber was an anti-government Luddite, and his writings were the very definition of extreme right ideology.

I would put those two in the extreme right before I put Abortion Clinic bombers there. An abortion clinic bomber could very well be liberal in a lot of their thinking outside the abortion issue (although most of them probably are not).
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I hate to call bull**** on you, but McVeigh held nothing but extreme right wing beliefs. He was worried about any kinds of arms control and was immersed in the gun culture, was vehemently against federal taxation, was against the United States participation in the United Nations, railed against socialism, was a huge supporter of states rights and so on.

The Unibomber was an anti-government Luddite, and his writings were the very definition of extreme right ideology.

I would put those two in the extreme right before I put Abortion Clinic bombers there. An abortion clinic bomber could very well be liberal in a lot of their thinking outside the abortion issue (although most of them probably are not).
Click to expand...
So supporting the Constitution and being against it's abuses is now "extreme right wing"? Well, throw me into that category then! Maybe if I act quickly, I can join a local militia!
 
celticlord said:
Other than media manipulation, what exactly makes these groups "right wing"?

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore Contitutional balance to government.

I don't see any of these groups seeking to restore federalism in the government.

So what exactly puts neo-nazis and anarchists on the same political page as Libertarians, Independents, and Constitutionalists?
Click to expand...

Not what, who?

Marxists.
Stalinists.

.
 
P/N said:
So supporting the Constitution and being against it's abuses is now "extreme right wing"? Well, throw me into that category then! Maybe if I act quickly, I can join a local militia!
Click to expand...

No, that does not make you extreme right wing. Just like believing in having a social safetynet and some regulation of the markets would not make you extreme left wing.

However, holding those beliefs you mentioned, as well as being for the overthrow of the United States government and or being a white supremacist is what makes one extreme right wing.

Basically, an extreme right winger starts with conservative beliefs, and then throws extremist beliefs on top of it. Similarly, a left wing extremist starts with liberal beliefs, and then throws extremists beliefs on top of it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Unibomber was an anti-government Luddite, and his writings were the very definition of extreme right ideology.

.
Click to expand...

The anti-technology, anti-capitalism crowd is commonly considered left-wing. I've heard the Unibomber characterized as a left-wing extremist many times...this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim he was "right wing".

I would have to strongly disagree with that.

There are a lot of questions surrounding Timothy McVeigh and the OKC bombing, including the possible presence of two maybe-Arabic males that has never been resolved. However, McVeigh's single biggest issue was that OKC was retaliation for the destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in which many men, women and children died needlessly. I don't agree with what he did, but I think taking a look at some of the more extreme gov't actions that lead up to his retaliation would be instructive.

Do dangerous right-wing extremists exist? Yes, there are some. However, 99.9% of those who have Ron Paul stickers, support the Bill of Rights, the NRA, or question the tax code, are not dangerous terrorists.

G.
 
Goshin said:
The anti-technology, anti-capitalism crowd is commonly considered left-wing. I've heard the Unibomber characterized as a left-wing extremist many times...this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim he was "right wing".

I would have to strongly disagree with that.

There are a lot of questions surrounding Timothy McVeigh and the OKC bombing, including the possible presence of two maybe-Arabic males that has never been resolved. However, McVeigh's single biggest issue was that OKC was retaliation for the destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in which many men, women and children died needlessly. I don't agree with what he did, but I think taking a look at some of the more extreme gov't actions that lead up to his retaliation would be instructive.

Do dangerous right-wing extremists exist? Yes, there are some. However, 99.9% of those who have Ron Paul stickers, support the Bill of Rights, the NRA, or question the tax code, are not dangerous terrorists.

G.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part of your post, and after reading the Council on Foreign relations on Militant Extremists, I would say the Unabomber defies idealogical categorization so we can throw him out of the right wing camp, but you guys need to own your nut jobs just like the left has to own its nut jobs.

The fact is, there are a lot more militant extreme right wingers out there than militant extreme left wingers right now.

What is right-wing domestic terrorism?
Attacks committed by people who favor individual freedoms over governmental regulation are classified as right-wing domestic terrorism. Such extremists may be motivated by issues of race, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or other issues, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. According to the FBI, right-wing terrorists often take “racist and racial supremacy and embrace antigovernment, antiregulatory” platforms. Far-right movements often blend political rhetoric with racial undertones, despite recent attempts to reach a broader audience by eliminating racial language. Authorities do not categorize people with extreme right-wing political ideals as threats unless the group they are affiliated with demonstrates a real potential for violence.
Are right-wing domestic terrorists still active?

Yes. Attacks by left-wing or special-interest groups were the most common until the 1990s, when right-wing terrorists began staging more attacks aimed at civilians. The FBI says that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by far-right extremists who feared increased UN involvement in domestic policies, opposed stricter gun-control laws, and were enraged by “several confrontations between members of right-wing groups and law enforcement officers at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.” A right-wing extremist, Eric Robert Rudolph, was also responsible for the 1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta that killed two and injured more than one hundred. The decline of right-wing terrorist attacks since 2001 could be attributed to extremists’ anger shifting toward foreign entities and away from the U.S. government, the Los Angeles Times reported in March 2008.

The FBI reports that eight of the fourteen terrorist acts prevented between 2002 and 2005 were planned by right-wing groups. The others ranged from an anarchist plan to bomb a Coast Guard station, a prison-gang attempt to attack military and Jewish targets around Los Angeles, and a few people who attempted, individually, to establish ties with al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Militant Extremists in the United States - Council on Foreign Relations
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree with the last part of your post, and after reading the Council on Foreign relations on Militant Extremists, I would say the Unabomber defies idealogical categorization so we can throw him out of the right wing camp, but you guys need to own your nut jobs just like the left has to own its nut jobs.

The fact is, there are a lot more militant extreme right wingers out there than militant extreme left wingers right now.



Militant Extremists in the United States - Council on Foreign Relations
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't buy it, it's just that I don't know if all of them are in the wrong. Certainly, revolution is a reserved power of the People and should a government err too much and for too long against the rights and liberties of the people, it is the right and duty of the People to dispose of that government and create a new one. So when we talk about militant extreme right wingers, how many of those are people who are just prepared to do their duty should the need arise? I don't see many of these people who take an active role in the defense of their freedom and liberty coming from the left, so I can understand that in terms of number what's going to be labeled as extreme may find higher population on the right. One reason because of just such people, maybe not ones completely acting out but ones who are being careful and prepared.

I can't automatically fault people for "extremism" if I'm not sure what it is that they are doing and for what reason they are doing it. I think it is prudent to be prepared for violence between the People and government because we've all seen the course government takes through history. Are they "extremists" or patriots? Trying to do what they feel is best to preserve the Republic. I don't see these sorts of people on the left, the ones that truly care about defense of freedom and liberty from all foes foreign and domestic. I see the left more on the opposite side, their extremism not being one of personal liberty but rather of full government take over. Those sorts aren't really going to prepare themselves to fight the government as their goal is expansion of the government.

In the end, in pure number the right may have more militant extremists. I'm not 100% sure that's a bad thing. Really going to depend on who we throw in that bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom