The Confederate Flag

[Umbran]

Because they are less spectacular on TV.

They are less specatacular on TV, yes.

But they are just... less. Fewer people die. Less damage is done to cities. They are really lesser issues.

You may be the sort to think that one death has the same value as 1000 deaths. I think it is fair to say that most Americans aren't.

 

[billd91]

But Oklahoma, your poster-child for "you should have a war on right-wing terror" was done by two people and one more deemed an accomplice. All were tried and convicted. For that event, no further needed to be done.

Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.

I think he means in the sense of there was no need to bomb Tulsa with F-117s in order to take down a coordinated, tightly-knit group of American right-wing extremists. The groups espousing similar leanings are not organized, armed or acting in the same way as Islamist extremists. They have no true military style bases.

And even if they did, we have rules about using military forces within our borders.

Still, we DID step up surveillance and other anti-terrorist measures post-OKC.

 

[Ryujin]

Perhaps the simple points of the differences between police investigations and war, singular events by lone actors and conspiracies by organized groups, and perhaps Posse Comitatus should be mentioned also? There are many, many differences between internally and externally launched actions.

 

[prosfilaes]

Highly debatable, I'd say. And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.

What should be done? I'm not aware of any of the recent terrorists having any sort of group affiliation, which makes them very hard to stop. Follow up on every loudmouth on public TV and Stormfront (and other hate sites)? It's rather intrusive, involves following up thousands of people for everyone who might actually do something and misses many of them. Get our presidential candidates to stop accusing all Hispanic immigrants of being rapists? Can't hurt, but good luck.

My big serious answer is work on racism and appropriate political solutions at the school level, but that's a long-term plan that wouldn't even start to show fruit for a decade if done competently, and not with the notorious ineffectiveness of our drug programs.

 

[prosfilaes]

There was no war on ring wing terrorist after Oklahoma

So it's outrageous if the Canadians don't follow the rule of law as you see it on LFN terrorists, and it's outrageous if the US doesn't go after innocent citizens not connected to Timothy McVeigh?

Maybe the fact you didn't see a huge war on rightwing terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing might have something to do with the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was a response to Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege, where a number of right-wing people who's connection to serious crime was yet lacking died in conflicts with federal forces.

As an aside; Oklahoma is a state. I'd rather you didn't boil it down to one event that happened in that state. Depending on what you're counting as terrorism, the Tulsa Race Riots possibly killed more and definitely had a more major impact.

Citation.

Citation for "But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year"? They killed over 3000 on 9/11 plus a few hundred elsewhen and then we divide that by 30 years.

The number of terror acts of ring wing extremists is much bigger than Islamist.

So? Hiroshima was blown up with one bomb. The fact that Islamists have killed way more is a real concern, no matter how much you want to dismiss 9/11. Should we worry about infrequent, highly deadly attacks or frequent, less deadly attacks? I think humans are more likely to worry about the first and absorb the later into the background.

They have more deaths if we consider that 9/11 was a fluke and not the norm.

That's debatable. Let's take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks ; the worst act of terrorism associated with the American militia group is the Oklahoma City bombings at #28. Above them are 20 attacks Wikipedia offers "Jihadism" as a cause, five for various separatist movements, one for Sikh extremism and one unknown. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeted and killed 309 Americans; the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 killed 243, including 189 Americans, on an American airliner; the 1998 United States embassy bombings were directed against American soil and killed 224, mostly locals on Kenyan soil. Every one of these events directed against the US killed more people then the Oklahoma City bombings, and all but the last more Americans. And if 9/11 is a fluke, so is the Oklahoma City bombing, and then you have a lot of events that sum up to a fraction of the deaths of these events.

But what makes them really dangerous is that they have a better public image than Islamists. Some say they oppose big government and you'll get a lot folks who will nod in agreement. Islamist can't say that.

"They". Who is "they"? Some people oppose big government. That's okay; it's hard to have a free political system and get outraged over such an opinion. To say that some elements of the radical right-wing associate with other elements of the right-wing by talking about their shared hate of big government is... okay. That's life in a real political system; people will bind on shared commonalities and ignore differences to get things done. The radical right-wing can't preach about white separatism and female subservience and get a positive response outside their base.

Some Islamists say they oppose the Americans or the west, and a billion people nod in agreement. I'm pretty sure they can preach about Islamic dominance of the planet by violence, and get an order of magnitude more positive response then the violent proposals of the US radical right-wing, if only because 1% of Muslims is a lot more people then 1% of Americans. And the Islamists have access to real cash, which the radical right-wing doesn't.

In summary: first, complaining about how Quebec separatists were treated for the mere hint of association with the LFN is not consistent with demanding a war on people with a mere hint of association with radical right-wing terrorists. We've arrested everyone associated with right-wing terrorism, but most of them have been lone losers. Second, you can cut, dice, chop and puree the numbers for terrorism in many ways, and I see where you're coming from in saying right-wing terrorists are more of a risk then the Islamists. But you're wrong when you start acting like those who disagree with you are irrational; judging the risk from Islamic terrorism to be worse then that from right-wing terrorism is an entirely supportable position.

 

[Umbran]

Highly debatable, I'd say.

"OKBOMB was the largest criminal case in America's history, with FBI agents conducting 28,000 interviews, amassing 3.5 short tons (3.2 t) of evidence, and collecting nearly one billion pieces of information"

After that effort, you figure they missed a bunch of conspirators on the Oklahoma plot that are now shooting people? This is a debate you think can be had?

And even more so now after a number of recent mass shootings than it was back in the wake of the OKC bombing.

There were individuals directly responsible for supporting and carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing. They were caught, tried, and convicted. That is not to say all American Right-Wing extremism was eradicated - just that the individuals actually involved in that act were dealt with.

 

[prosfilaes]

That sort of question doesn't deserve one.

That would be where discussion breaks down. You've made a claim that a certain death is accidental. What's the model? I propose that "a death caused by an assault in the course of committing a crime that wasn't specifically meant to cause death is accidental" would fit your claims. I don't see any other model that would justify your claim that isn't special pleading. If you want go beyond "was not/was too", you need to discuss other cases or explicit models.

An government acting outside the law is far more worrisome than a bunch of young folks trying to start the revolution.

You talk about radical right-wing groups without the same generosity; Timothy McVeigh was a young man trying to start a revolution. In revolutions, the streets oft run red with blood, and the LFN was an anti-democratic group (at least 70% of French-speaking Canadians opposed them) willing to start their revolution with kidnapping and proclamations of executions.

You've been unwilling to distinguish between actions by the democratically elected government, taken within the law as written and intended, with the support of the populace, and actions taken against the law as written. We can talk about the criminal acts and unreasonable acts of the government (which should be distinguished, especially in a democracy), but not if it demands we dismiss the crimes of kidnappers and killers.

 

[billd91]

"OKBOMB was the largest criminal case in America's history, with FBI agents conducting 28,000 interviews, amassing 3.5 short tons (3.2 t) of evidence, and collecting nearly one billion pieces of information"

After that effort, you figure they missed a bunch of conspirators on the Oklahoma plot that are now shooting people? This is a debate you think can be had?

You may notice that I didn't say that. That doesn't mean that there wasn't further to be done. McVeigh and company didn't operate in a vacuum. None of these right-wing terrorists do. There are systems of radicalization out there, operating on them as surely as Al Qaeda and ISIS websites draw recruits from around the globe. That they are loosely associated and decentralized doesn't mean that they don't exist and have a pernicious effect on the people seeking them out. Yet all too often the narrative of "lone gunman" or "small group of radicals" is what we hear. So when that lone gunman gets caught or puts a bullet in his own brain, we can all breathe a sigh of relief feeling that we're safe, when really all we need is a little more time before the next psychopath comes out of Stormfront feeling all aggrieved.

I think we really need to do a better job of putting this sort of thing in perspective. I'm not particularly afraid of Islamist terrorism. I live in Wisconsin. The odds of being targeted by some Muslim suicide bomber is pretty low considering they seem far more fixated on higher profile, prestige targets. Having a run-in with some right wing nut job, particularly with pseudo-militia fools walking around exerting their open carry rights? Much higher - though still not particularly high. There are plenty of places in the US much more likely to experience right-wing domestic terrorism than foreign-sourced terrorism of any stripe and I think people like you who don't live in "fly-over" country don't seem to understand that. The attacks on 9/11 may have shaken a lot of people to their core, but as shocking as they were, the OKC bombing hit some of us even harder.

 

[Umbran]

You may notice that I didn't say that. That doesn't mean that there wasn't further to be done. McVeigh and company didn't operate in a vacuum.
None of these right-wing terrorists do. There are systems of radicalization out there

And this is where we stop going after individuals materially connected with a specific crime, and start becoming thought police. I'm not down with that. Sorry.