Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can they deny the Vegas killers were right-wing terrorists? First off, characterizing two nuts shooting and killing three people as terrorism is a stretch. Secondly, they certainly could be fairly characterized as right-wing, and I certainly wouldn't deny it, but what is being objected to is the notion that being right-wing was what caused them to kill other people, as opposed to them being crazy ex-convicts. There have been murders committed by left-wing people, some of which for political reasons - does that mean that left-wing ideology forced them to kill people? Of course not. There is nothing in almost any ideology with significant numbers of American adherents that commands or even condones random shootings of people.
There are tens of millions of other right-wing people in this country, and you don't see any of them shooting up police officers at CiCi's pizza. There are probably a few million others that hold extreme right-wing views, and you don't see any of them shooting up police officers at CiCi's pizza, either. To suggest that they are all latent murders and terrorists, as a lot of you pro-government people are, is ridiculous, slanderous, and dangerous, because it legitimizes government suppression of dissent up to and including violence. Just look at the "War on Terror" to see how those designated as terrorists are treated - do some soul-searching and ask yourself "is that what I really want peaceful Americans to be treated?". That's what you're playing with when you officially designate people as terrorists, and it is exactly what these "crazy anti-government ideologues" have been warning you about during the Bush and Obama regimes.
Also, I thought you Democrats were opposed to "politicizing" scandals and issues of great moral import such as people being killed in Benghazi, and then you turn around and politicize a random murder - I just don't get where you're coming from .
"Their Facebook pages detail a descent into a murderous rage, railing against a tyrannical government and parroting talking points from fright-wing radio hosts such as Alex Jones and militia movement groups such as the Three Percenters while 'liking' the pages of conservative activist groups ranging from the Heritage Foundation to FreedomWorks and the NRA. Miller’s profile picture was a skull wearing an American flag bandana against a backdrop of crossed knives over the word 'Patriot'...[Jared] Miller Miller reposted articles from Alex Jones’s InfoWars website, promoted slogans about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives being a domestic terrorist organization, and was deeply into Second Amendment advocacy organizations."
And yet, some people, including several on this forum, continue to insist the Millers were "liberals" or "left-wing." How can people be that dense???
The difference is that I (nor would most conservatives) wouldn't support someone that was friendly with them after knowing that they were domestic terrorists, as the obama's were friendly with dorn and ayers.
How can they deny the Vegas killers were right-wing terrorists? First off, characterizing two nuts shooting and killing three people as terrorism is a stretch. Secondly, they certainly could be fairly characterized as right-wing, and I certainly wouldn't deny it, but what is being objected to is the notion that being right-wing was what caused them to kill other people, as opposed to them being crazy ex-convicts. There have been murders committed by left-wing people, some of which for political reasons - does that mean that left-wing ideology forced them to kill people? Of course not. There is nothing in almost any ideology with significant numbers of American adherents that commands or even condones random shootings of people.
I disagree with just about all of this.
First of all, just calling people "crazy" and leaving it at that doesn't explain anything. It seems to me a way of avoiding uncomfortable facts. I don't know if these people were "crazy" in a clinical sense or not. I kind of doubt it. But in any case, the reason their "craziness" played out the way it did clearly had everything to do with their ideology. The same would be true of left-wing people who killed for political reasons, whether or not they were "crazy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Also, I thought you Democrats were opposed to "politicizing" scandals and issues of great moral import such as people being killed in Benghazi, and then you turn around and politicize a random murder - I just don't get where you're coming from .
I am not a Democrat, so don't waste your time screaming "Benghazi!" at me. But I think people who say we shouldn't "politicize" events like this are imbeciles. This was not a random murder. These people were clearly motivated by a political ideology. What they did was inherently political. We can no more separate politics from this crime than we can separate math from engineering. It is at the heart of the matter.
Its going to take more then a couple incidents for me to characterize these sorts of things as "belonging" to one side or another. Once its a regular pattern I might, its not there yet.
And im no fan of the right on this board I assure you.
Its going to take more then a couple incidents for me to characterize these sorts of things as "belonging" to one side or another. Once its a regular pattern I might, its not there yet.
And im no fan of the right on this board I assure you.
Well, there's been about one (successful) attack a year since Obama was elected:
Not exactly tons of attacks, but lately domestic right-wing extremist attacks against the US appear more numerous and effective than Islamic terrorists.
Not exactly tons of attacks, but lately domestic right-wing extremist attacks against the US appear more numerous and effective than Islamic terrorists.
And one a year just isnt enough for me to say "OMG those folks are right wing terrorists". Talk to me when its more common.
I could probably point out that people with the middle name of wayne commit murders more often, and we should declare people with wayne to be danger.
Never underestimate the power of delusion and denial. The RWNJs don't want it to be true so they pretend it isn't true even though it is obvious to any intelligent person. The RWNJs do this on topic after topic after topic. This is why so many people say they are not rational people.
And one a year just isnt enough for me to say "OMG those folks are right wing terrorists". Talk to me when its more common.
I could probably point out that people with the middle name of wayne commit murders more often, and we should declare people with wayne to be danger.
Well, it's simply a fact that these folks are right-wing extremists, regardless of how common it is. Failed/foiled attacks also seem to have increased, to expand the sample size somewhat. I don't know whether we should necessarily panic about it yet, but it does strongly seem that there has been an uptick in right-wing incidents in the last several years. And they are certainly more numerous than any other ideological threat.
I strongly suspect that the proportion of people named "wayne" who commit mass murder is not noticeably higher than other populations, and lower than for the population of right-wing nuts, but perhaps I'm wrong.
First of all, just calling people "crazy" and leaving it at that doesn't explain anything. It seems to me a way of avoiding uncomfortable facts. I don't know if these people were "crazy" in a clinical sense or not. I kind of doubt it. But in any case, the reason their "craziness" played out the way it did clearly had everything to do with their ideology. The same would be true of left-wing people who killed for political reasons, whether or not they were "crazy."
You are wrong. These people were "crazy", that is why they framed it in a political ideology that they said they subscribed to, but obviously did not understand.
They said they believe in "freedom", which is the absence of violence or coercion on peaceful people. They used violence on peaceful people. So you can not attach them to freedom, they didn't know what they were talking about.
Same with "right-wing", if the ideology promoted killing, almost half the country would be out killing people, just because these people gave themselves a label doesn't mean they understood it or fit under that label.
Left-wing people have killed for their ideology, which I assume they misunderstood if they were out killing people... this does not link the left-wing to terrorist activities.
I have looked into both ideologies, and neither advocates killing your political opponents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
