• 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
Ray410 said:
Not a poll choice of course, but Left Wing Terrorists have been the worst of all.

The Sixties and Seventies were a virtual breeding ground for left wingers like Obama's buddy Bill Ayers who tried to bomb the pentagon, Bernadette Dorn, the Black Panthers, the SLA, Weather Underground, others who killed many people including police officers. Many later were hired as Liberal college professors so they could influence decent young people who didn't know any better. Occupy Wall Street. Who was this ahole last week who attacked the Family Research Council because the detestable Southern Poverty Law Center told him they were against homosexuals.

Left Wing Terror is endless and always lauded by the braying loons.
Click to expand...

The Black Panthers is not so simple and the Occupy Wallstreet crowd are nothing more than populist and anarchistic protesters.

Granted, I don't like either (for me the latter are worthless bums), but there's some complications here.
 
Fiddytree said:
The Black Panthers is not so simple (some were strictly violent, others much less so) and the Occupy Wallstreet crowd are nothing more than populist and anarchistic protesters.
Click to expand...

Occupy Wall Street are unwashed whiners and freeloaders. Not dangerous, but off-putting.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Occupy Wall Street are unwashed whiners and freeloaders. Not dangerous, but off-putting.:cool:
Click to expand...

I was more offended by their lack of politics and appeal to revolutionary rhetoric. They reminded me of everything that was stupid about Henry David Thoreau and William Lloyd Garrison (regardless of potential ideas I could agree with), with hardly any of their upsides.
 
Jack Hays said:
Any graphic that includes the agit-prop input of the Southern Poverty Law Center is entirely lacking in credibility. Since the BHO gang has declined to classify the Ft. Hood massacre as Islamic terrorism, their input doesn't count for much either.:roll:
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is about what the word terror means. AFAIK, acts of terror are meant to strike fear in others which I don't believe that was Nidal Malik Hasan's motive. If he was some other religion or not religious at all what would you call it then?

Bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because its meant to cause abortion clinic to shut down. The lynchings of blacks was terrorism as well.
 
pbrauer said:
I totally agree with you, my point is that the right wing are blaming Muslims as being the major threat when it's not.

View attachment 67146687
Click to expand...

So? What difference does it make? Any one who looks to point fingers at "this group is a threat cuz of terrorism" is going to live in fear and punish themselves. Let them. Terrorism is not representative of any group. They are aberrations.
 
Redress said:
So? What difference does it make? Any one who looks to point fingers at "this group is a threat cuz of terrorism" is going to live in fear and punish themselves. Let them. Terrorism is not representative of any group. They are aberrations.
Click to expand...

But we must continue to deliver messages from advocacy think tanks! Redress, help me with providing a derivative of a Heritage Foundation entry without linking it!
 
Seriously, it's ****ing Mexicans:

piechart2.jpg
 
pbrauer said:
I think the problem here is about what the word terror means. AFAIK, acts of terror are meant to strike fear in others which I don't believe that was Nidal Malik Hasan's motive. If he was some other religion or not religious at all what would you call it then?

Bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because its meant to cause abortion clinic to shut down. The lynchings of blacks was terrorism as well.
Click to expand...

Major Hasan's motive was to kill as many of Islam's enemies as possible and thereby strike fear in those who remained. It was terrorism. If he were not Muslim he would not have done it. Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. Lynching of blacks strikes me as more genocide than terrorism. What about the attack on the Family Research Council, inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center?:cool:
 
Redress said:
Wrong chart. Here is the right one:

View attachment 67146696
Click to expand...

I think the idea that ideology has nothing to do with these attacks, and these people are simply insane, is pretty silly. Clearly ideologuy effects us, and someone just shooting random people because he's in the process of a breakdown is different than a clearly formulated attack with achievable and realistic goals
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think the idea that ideology has nothing to do with these attacks, and these people are simply insane, is pretty silly. Clearly ideologuy effects us, and someone just shooting random people because he's in the process of a breakdown is different than a clearly formulated attack with achievable and realistic goals
Click to expand...

Ideology is not the cause, it is the excuse. No ideology in the world makes people commit acts of terror. The one thing that terrorists share in common is they are bat**** insane.
 
Jack Hays said:
Major Hasan's motive was to kill as many of Islam's enemies as possible and thereby strike fear in those who remained. It was terrorism. If he were not Muslim he would not have done it. Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. Lynching of blacks strikes me as more genocide than terrorism. What about the attack on the Family Research Council, inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center?:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't know, do you think it's terrorism. It very similar this one
:

Did Glenn Beck's rhetoric inspire violence? - CSMonitor.com
 
Redress said:
Ideology is not the cause, it is the excuse.
Click to expand...

calling it an "excuse suggests that it has no influence. And while I agree that the issues usually go beyond mere ideology, it's clear ideology helps shape our response to such things.

It's like arguing nazism had no impact on how the Germans responded to the social and economic conditions following ww2


No ideology in the world makes people commit acts of terror.
Click to expand...

Who said ideology "makes" people do things? The fact that an ideology would play into their personal calculations would not trump the fact that they were still free acting individuals who chose that course of action. But, it would be equally foolish to suggest that an individuals underlying world view would have no influence on those calculations, either.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
calling it an "excuse suggests that it has no influence. And while I agree that the issues usually go beyond mere ideology, it's clear ideology helps shape our response to such things.

It's like arguing nazism had no impact on how the Germans responded to the social and economic conditions following ww2
Click to expand...

Well, no, it is nothing like that.

Who said ideology "makes" people do things? The fact that an ideology would play into their personal calculations would not trump the fact that they were still free acting individuals who chose that course of action. But, it would be equally foolish to suggest that an individuals underlying world view would have no influence on those calculations, either.
Click to expand...

The ideology is how they justify their actions. It is not what causes their actions. The vast majority of people of every ideology do not become terrorists. Ideology is therefore not the issue. To understands what makes terrorists, we have to look at something other than ideology.
 
pbrauer said:
Events...attacks
Click to expand...

But were they done by groups? In many cases they may have been like with Al Qaeda terrorist attacks where they are recognized as a terrorist group, but it appears that most or at least many are done by individuals acting on their own. An individual that may self identify with a group does not mean that the attack was carried out by the group or that the group shares any blame.
 
Fiddytree said:
If they really wanted to, they could label "right-wing extremism" with Islamic terrorism, since it technically is a right-wing thought, but that would also complicate the narrative (unless they wanted to say "terrorism=right wing").
Click to expand...

Would that include the Tea Party too?? I've heard here that they're just awful.
 
Redress said:
Well, no, it is nothing like that.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Your saying ideology doesn't have anything to do with how we respond to world events. Well, guess what is an ideology: nazism.



The ideology is how they justify their actions. It is not what causes their actions.
Click to expand...

1) again, why do you keep using "cause" when I was clear that it does not "cause" but influences?

2 so nazism was cooked up as an elaborate excuse to kill Jews? Sorry, our morals, view of the world and how it works, and our image of ourselves are all highly dependent on ideology. And clearly all those things influence how we behave in and react to the world

The vast majority of people of every ideology do not become terrorists.
Click to expand...

Horrible argument that posits all ideologies are equal. Clearly nazism is different than western liberalism
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps, except the FRC attacker said explicitly and directly that he decided to attack based on SPLC's classification of FRC as a hate group. That case is much clearer than the Beck case.:cool:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Redress said:
The ideology is how they justify their actions. It is not what causes their actions. The vast majority of people of every ideology do not become terrorists. Ideology is therefore not the issue. To understands what makes terrorists, we have to look at something other than ideology.
Click to expand...
1. That's entirely too simplistic. That the vast majority of people in most ideologies do not become terrorists is only evidence that ideology is not, in itself, a problem. However, if a person has a variety of issues from mental illness to a sense of alienation, a particular ideology may provide them with the worldview or motive necessary to tip them over the edge to terrorism. In those cases, the ideology is, contrary to your assertions, a cause or influence for their behavior. This doesn't mean that the ideology alone is a problem anymore than a mental illness or sense of alienation would problems on their own. But, again, the ideology - in that circumstance - would, in fact, be a cause of their behavior.

2. Whether you meant to or not, your language implies that their is a single cause of terrorist behavior. You say "ideology is not the issue", "we have to look at something other than ideology" and "it is not what causes their actions". All the bold is in the singular tense and thus, indicates a single cause. However, there tend to be multiple causes for all behaviors - terrorist or not.

3. Your continuous assertions that all terrorists are just "insane" are false. Dismissing people who do unspeakable things as "insane" is just as lazy as dismissing them as "evil". Both categories are just used as catchalls to describe individuals and behaviors that people don't understand.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. That's entirely too simplistic. That the vast majority of people in most ideologies do not become terrorists is only evidence that ideology is not, in itself, a problem. However, if a person has a variety of issues from mental illness to a sense of alienation, a particular ideology may provide them with the worldview or motive necessary to tip them over the edge to terrorism. In those cases, the ideology is, contrary to your assertions, a cause or influence for their behavior. This doesn't mean that the ideology alone is a problem anymore than a mental illness or sense of alienation would problems on their own. But, again, the ideology - in that circumstance - would, in fact, be a cause of their behavior.

2. Whether you meant to or not, your language implies that their is a single cause of terrorist behavior. You say "ideology is not the issue", "we have to look at something other than ideology" and "it is not what causes their actions". All the bold is in the singular tense and thus, indicates a single cause. However, there tend to be multiple causes for all behaviors - terrorist or not.

3. Your continuous assertions that all terrorists are just "insane" are false. Dismissing people who do unspeakable things as "insane" is just as lazy as dismissing them as "evil". Both categories are just used as catchalls to describe individuals and behaviors that people don't understand.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom