Why are most (if not all) American Terrorists RIGHT WINGERS?

[Taverner]

Timothy McVeigh...The Bath Disaster...All those shooters who went on rampages lately...the Tennessee Church Shooter...

I can think of only one home grown terrorist attack that could even be remotely tied to the left wing, and that was the Wall Street bombing at the turn of the century (done by an Anarchist - which to me seems more like extreme Rightwingnuttery than anything)

Hell, even the Symbianese Liberation Army was more hopped on crazy than ideology

So why are we tolerating this kind of hate ideology today?

[maveric]

1. They are terrified of change.

Most seem to be deeply religious too.

[Ikonoklast]

2. Outside ot the Weathermen, not many.

But, don't discount what they did. It was domestic terrorism.

[Taverner]

4. True - OK we have one instance

[WeDidIt]

40. The Unabomber was a left wing extremiest

Theodore Kaczynski was an example of perhaps the most extreme leftism out there.

[Taverner]

41. He was a serial killer though

Not sure the two equate - maybe they do?

[WeDidIt]

46. Planting bombs for political reason to have his "maifesto" published

Yep, that's terrorism.

[wuushew]

53. Why do you say his terrorism was left wing?

He was essentially a violent luddite.

Unabomber Manifesto http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#The_danger_of_leftism

To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can't have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can't make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society" without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

EPIC FAIL

[Raspberry]

72. I thought he had

"Earth in the Balance" in his shack when he was caught.

[wuushew]

77. I also saw those rumors on the web

it seems to be a meme spread by conservative Gore haters circa 1998.

Kaczynski was well read. Here are his books, of which Earth in the Balance is not listed.


http://skepticalbureaucrat.blogspot.com/2008/04/unabombers-reading-list.html

[On the Road]

67. I Guess You Could Describe Him as a Leftist,

but from reading the "Unabomber Manifesto," Ted Kaczynski didn't sound like any leftist I've ever read. He just wanted to destroy technology and throw everyone back to the Stone Age. His beef was about the lack of freedom in modern society with its large institutions, which smacks more of libertarianism or the anarchism of the right.

Actually, Kaczynski sounded more like Tyler Durden -- in fact, I've wondered whether that's where Chuck Palahniuk got the idea for Tyler's philosophy.

[readmoreoften]

78. Kaczynski was hardly a leftist.

He was not a socialist and in fact he was not even *social.* He just had SERIOUS axes to grind with the CIA and university establishment. (He was a former student at Harvard and witnessed the MK ULTRA experiments.)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fuggbush21]

74. Just one?

Terrorism isn't confined to a single political ideology, in any sense of the imagination. Here's a report given to the Department of Energy in 2001 that goes pretty indepth in Left Wing Terrorism. It does give some comparisons to Right Wing Terrorism, but is mainly aimed at discussing the threats posed by radical leftists.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf

[populistdriven]

79. Ayers and the Weathermen killed never killed anyone

[fuggbush21]

94. The only reason they haven't had any confirmed kills

is because some of their members blew themselves up before they could attack a military function. The Greenwhich Village explosion happened while they where making bombs intending to attack a social gathering of officers from Ft. Dix. As for unconfirmed deaths, there are a number of unsolved bombing deaths attributed to them.

The Weathermen where a terrorist organization through and through.

[cascadiance]

100. It's the same with the ELF, they have attacked property not people!

[Juche]

3. animal rights activists

I think it is a giant insult to put animal rights activists under the banner of terrorism because for the most part they only commit property damage (which is still illegal, but which isn't the same as targeting civilians).

One thing I do notice is that left wingers (ALF, weather underground) destroy property and try to spare human lives (The weather underground used to phone into buildings telling them to evacuate before the bomb went off) whereas right wingers like McVeigh or Al Qaeda intentionally target civilians. I have no idea why that is, and I do know WU and ALF have targeted people before, but I don't think they've targeted innocent civilians the way McVeigh and Al Qaeda did.

I would consider AL Qaeda a right wing terror organization since they are motivated by religious fundamentalism, xenophobia and a fear of social change.

[Taverner]

5. The ELF are vandals, not terrorists

I agree

[Buzz Clik]

6. Bullshit. They are terrorists in every sense of the word.

As are the assholes who burn acres of hybrid poplars because they think that plant breeding and genetic modification are identical.

One thing that American terrorists have in common (both rightwing and leftwing) is rank stupidity.

[Taverner]

8. OK - if they are "terrorists" how exactly are the inflicting "terror"?

The folks who's property they destroy aren't in fear - they have insurance.

No one is ever hurt or killed when they vandalize property.

Now I will agree, they are incredibly stupid. But let's not be like Dubya, and suck all the meaning out of the word "terrorist" so it means nothing.

[Buzz Clik]

10. That's a pretty weak argument.

Have you ever had any property vandalized? Something as mundane as having your car keyed can be very disturbing. I cannot imaging what it would be like to have my business burned to the ground because the perpetrators don't like SUVs.

Funny thing about terrorists -- they always find a way to rationalize their activities.

[Juche]

17. Yes, we are terrorists aren't we

Brilliant inductive logic you've got there Buzz.

Nobody said property damage doesn't do psychological harm. But its not the same as intentionally targeting civilians. Both are crimes, but they are not the same thing. I would rather have my car burned by people who did it when they knew I wouldn't be sitting inside of it than have my family murdered. Both are crimes but they aren't the same thing.

[Buzz Clik]

23. You cannot redefine the word "terrorism" simply because you don't like the associations.

Stepping on a bug is murder, as is pre-planned brutal dismemberment of another human being.

Unfortunately, the English language is very poor at making subtle distinctions; we rely on our emotional interpretations to do that for us.

I do not pretend to put Timothy McVeigh and William Ayers in the same pot; but, both espoused terrorism. Sorry, but it's a fact.

[Juche]

30. What makes you think I'm ok with the bombings and vandalism of ALF and WU

I'm not saying what they did was ok. I am saying that destroying property when you no that no civilians will be hurt is not the same as targeting property when you know there will be hundreds or thousands of civilians inside.

If the weather underground phoned the Murrah federal building and said 'a bomb will go off in 2 hours so evacuate everyone' that is not the same as McVeigh bombing it when he knew there would be hundreds of civilians inside.

It is not the same thing. And left wingers can and do commit terrorism, so I have no qualms about admitting that. Communist and anarchist groups have committed terrorism in tons of countries. But I don't think/know if recent and contemporary left wing groups are guilty of intentionally targeting civilians in the US.

[Buzz Clik]

34. You're arguing about degrees of terrorism.

I don't equate the Weathermen and McVeigh. Nor do I suggest that you embrace violence. We're arguing about the ideas and concepts ONLY.

[paulsby]

56. nobody said they are the same things

they are different manifestations of terrorism

ultimately, it's a semantic wank.

if you want to REDEFINE terrorism as not including those acts that target property, then they aren't terrorists.

but then i can redefine the word "chair" to not include any chair made out of metal.

thus, my metal thing i sit on is not a chair.

that's not logic.

it's semantical wank.

[Juche]

59. Ah. So my definition of terrorism is semantics, but yours is valid

Sure, lets debate the subject with the assumption that your definition is true and mine isn't.

If terrorism is 'intimidation designed to achieve political or social goals' then going 'tsk tsk' when someone violates social norms is a form of terrorism.

To me terrorism is the use of violence against non-combattant civilians to achieve political, religious or social ends. By that definition ALF and WU are not terror organizations. But neither are the insurgents in Iraq who target US military personnel.

[paulsby]

64. no, my definition is in common use

and yours is used by a subset of people, almost exclusively apologists or minimizers for groups like ELF et al.

i don't want to get all linguist on ya and stuff (leave that for chomsky) but words have common meanings.

it's really that simple.

terrorism can mean whatever you want it to mean "to me" as you so aptly put it.

it's really irrelevant to the underlying issue. nobody disagrees that ELF targets largely STRUCTURES not people. that is a substantial difference between what they do and for example what mcveigh did.

feel free to refer to property-targeted terrorism for example.

and clearly, in the spectrum of evil, targeting a building is not as bad as targeting a human being.

duh

but they are both terrorism

and the law takes that into account too.

terrorism that targets people and results in death can and does result in the death penalty.

ELF style terrorism DOESN'T

it's a matter of degree. just as (for example in my jurisdiction), 1st deg. murder can get a death penalty, and 2nd degree can't

[Juche]

65. No, your definition is not the common one, believe it or not

There is no consensus on what constitutes terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,<1> and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.<2> Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls."<3> Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament states that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."<4> For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.

[paulsby]

66. sorry, i'll take the dictionary, the FBI, and federal prosecutors over wikipedia lol

Terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

we are speaking american english. that's the language we speak in this country. and the dictionary, the legal system, etc. here all include property based terrorism as terrorism.

[cascadiance]

101. Then when are they arresting Bush and company for these crimes!

They seem to have followed this definition of terrorism, and probably have killed far more people than any other American terrorists...

[Richard Steele]

97. According to the Dictionary: Yes, that's exactly correct.

His is valid, yours is childish BULLSHIT.

It's a FACT.

[Chulanowa]

49. So that makes me a terrorist, I suppose

Since as a child not only did I spray-paint public property, I also carbved my name into desks at school and even broke a few windows. More recently I painted a few harsh words on the side if a bulldozer after the jackasses that owned it kept parking it in my yard. I've also liberated four abused dogs in my day.

Holy shit, lot my ass up before I strike again!

[Buzz Clik]

63. Nope. Never said that or even implied that.

[Antirepubmachine]

83. So which of there reasons did you commit your crimes for?

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

[MajorChode]

81. They are terrorists and they do inflict terror

They are NOT just vandals. Burning down things goes WAY beyond vandalism. When you intentionally set a fire you have no idea how big the fire is going to get. They spike trees with no regard for the loggers that might be killed or injured. They publish guides on how to build and deploy firebombs. I'm simply a matter of time before they kill someone. The ALF nuts routinely use all sorts of terrorist tactics including harrassing employees with death threats. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center calls these nutjobs terrorists.

There have been violent attacks in Europe including one assasignation of a political candidate and some of those attacks have been cheered on by the eco-nutjobs here.

It's precicely the same mentality of the anti-abortion nujobs. It's only a matter of time before the eco freeks have their own Eric Rudolph or maybe even a Tim McVeigh.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=89

[elleng]

13. I wouldn't call it stupidity.

Some people get into groups linked to one or another theme. The people have similar emotional needs, and one thing leads to another. The group itself gives the people and its acts superficial legitimacy, and on they go.(Obviously more complex than this, but I wouldn't call any of it stupidity.)

[Buzz Clik]

16. I'll concede that point. "Ignorance" would have been a better word.

[MADem]

42. Precisely.

:thumbsup:

[ColbertWatcher]

57. I think the GOP-controlled media would agree with you.

It seems the only time I see the prefix "eco" any more is when it's followed by "terrorist" and when describing anyone who believes the environment should be protected against unregulated commerce.

It starts as a story about ELF, then that definition is expanded to include anyone else who has any respect for the planet.

If the GOP-controlled media is good at anything it's the slippery semantic slope.

[Buzz Clik]

62. Are dictionaries published by the GOP-controlled media? Just curious.

I hear the term "eco-friendly" much more frequently than eco-terrorist.

[ColbertWatcher]

76. I don't know what it means that you don't see it, but I do.

Oh well.

As far as the dictionaries including more words with the prefix "eco" than just terrorists means that the GOP-controlled media have a limited vocabulary when it comes to protecting the environment.

[stray cat]

50. Threatening a person and his family is terrorism and that is the intent

[paulsby]

54. those are not mutually exclusive.

this is a tired argument, and one i hear frequently. it never gets any better

"they only target property"

if you want to redefine the word terrorism to only refer to those acts that target people, then you would be correct.

but then i can redefine words to prove anything, no matter how ridiculous.

words have meaning. terrorism is not limited to crimes against persons.

[Buzz Clik]

7. "left wingers destroy property and try to spare human lives" Truly civilized terrorists,

Leftwing terrorism is generally more palatable than the random murders on the right.

[Taverner]

9. Again, if there is no terror - they can't be terrorists

Vandals, yes. Stupid, yes. Doing more harm than good, yes. Counterproductive to the environmentalist cause, yes.

But terrorists?

[Buzz Clik]

14. The defiinition of terrorism is pretty simple:

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

Destroying property to make a political point fits that definition perfectly.

Killing more than 2900 people is the extreme edge of terror; throwing red paint on a person wearing a fur coat is the softest form of terror. Both are terrorist acts.

[Juche]

19. No, it is not that simple

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism

S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

[Buzz Clik]

29. I don't understand your point at all. The owner of an SUV dealership is a civilian.

Burning his vehicles targets him to inspire him and others to quit selling and buying SUVS. Burning cars is a violent act for the purpose of attaining ideological goals through coercision and fear. It's terrorism by your own definition.

Your definition never suggests that the target of terrorism has to be harmed. Even when terrorists kill innocents, the targets are the unharmed survivors, not the dead.

[Juche]

33. Ok, you are right

For my replies I have basically just been talking about terrorism as it relates to physical damage against civilians, not psychological harm designed to control people's behavior.

If you consider using psychological harm and intimidation to control other people's behavior, then yes ALF and WU are terrorist organizations.

[Taverner]

39. But by that same logic, freeway blogging is terrorism

As is spray painting "Yanqui Go Home" on a US Embassy

[Juche]

58. Terrorism is such a loaded word

Intimidation designed to control people's behavior is a continuum and I reserve the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' for people who intentionally target civilians. If the definition of terrorism is 'intimidation designed to control and influence people's behavior' then frowning and shaking your head in an attempt to shame someone when they do something embarassing is a form of terrorism.

Kidnapping and torturing someone over 4 days is a form of battery, but so is flicking someone with your finger. However labeling them both 'battery' and leaving it at that is a stretch.

What groups like ALF and WU do is a form of intimidation, but because they actively try to avoid physically harming civilians it is in a different ballpark than the intimidation groups like Al Qaeda, the KKK or McVeigh commit, because they intentionally target innocent civilians.

I'm not comfotable calling the WU and ALF terrorist orgs because they do not target civilians for physical harm or death. They psychologically intimidate civilians, but do not murder or torture them.

[MajorChode]

82. They don't yet, but how do you think those other groups got started?

There have been murders and assaults in Europe, mostly because the movement has been around longer.

And McVeigh had a lot of fringe nut cheerleaders, supporters, and others who inspired him and identified methods and targets.

When a nutjob becomes frustrated when spraypainting buildings, setting fires, and calling in death threats aren't enough, they will eventually take it to the next level. It's important to identify these groups in the begining and shine a bright light on them. It's not that much different than the neo-nazis or any other fringe nut group, and just because you might be able to somewhat identify with their cause doesn't mean they deserve any sympathy, respect, or support in any way shape or form.

[dustbunnie]

75. The word "terror" implies the use of psychological harm and intimidation.

The murdered don't fear anyone.

The use of violence in any shape or form to coerce a group of living people to behave as you wish, is terrorism.

[Taverner]

28. So by that definition, graffitti is terrorism

[Buzz Clik]

32. Maybe, but sometimes it is.

If you scrawl, "Kilroy was here" in chalk on a brick wall, that isn't terrorism. But, if you spray paint swasticas on the front doors in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, it's a form of terrorism.

It's one of the weakest forms of terrorism, but it fits the definition.

[Taverner]

35. Let's just say I spray paint "Bush is the enemy of the world" on a wall

By your definition that is terrorism

And so would freeway blogging

And so would protesting without a permit

[Buzz Clik]

55. Why is that terrorism?

[quakerboy]

92. How so?

Given the definition he used above, "The use of violence in any shape or form to coerce a group of living people to behave as you wish, is terrorism"

How does spraying that on a wall coerce anyone to behave as you wish?

Protesting with or without a permit could potentially cross that line. But graffiti or freeway blogging does not do so unless it is done in such a way as to coerce someone. Just putting a viewpoint into a textual or graphic format is not coercive. Perhaps if you sprayed "prosecute bush or we start the revolution" you might have a point, but that was not your example.

[Taverner]

99. But by the above logic - wouldn't blowing up an SUV be an act of violence

Even with no one in it?

At least by that poster's defintion

[quakerboy]

102. blowing shit up does seem to contain the seeds of violence

What does that have to do with your assertion that graffiti is terrorism under that posters definition?

[msongs]

21. if I warn you I'mm gonna blow up your house, and DO IT when you leave, will YOU feel terrorized? or

will you look at the wreckage and say to everyone,

"gee that was fun I hope it happens to you and your kids because it's not really terrorism, it's just making a political point"?

spreading fear and destruction is terrorism no matter who does it.

Msongs

[Taverner]

25. extremis ad absurdum

Logical fallacy of exaggerating each side to the extreme

[Juche]

12. Yeah, they are civilized

Property damage is not the same as targeting civilians which is not the same as targeting military personnel or targeted assassinations. All are crimes, but they are not the same thing. Personally I only consider the intentional targeting of civilians to be terrorism. The rest are vandalism and insurgency.

You target civilians in an effort to terrorize people. The more arbitrary and unfair the targeting of civilians, the more terror you inflict. You can't lump that in with targeting property and doing it in such a way to avoid killing civilians.

[Buzz Clik]

18. If I looked outside my bedroom window and saw a cross burning on my lawn...

I would be terrified. And that cross might not even be mine.

:shrug:

[Juche]

22. Fair enough

[anonymous171]

69. Correct. Left wing terrorism is generally directed at property or institutions.

Whereas RW terrorism is directed towards other people (minorities, feminists, gubment agents, etc.)

[Kaleva]

11. Depends on who is percieved as being in control

Anyone who would have attempted to start up an organization in South such as the KKK prior to the the Civil War would have been thought of as a kook even by the slave holders.

[imdjh]

15. It all depends on what you consider right wing, doesn't it?

It tends to take on the "No true Scotsman" construct.

[Raspberry]

20. Well,

there was quite a bit of left-wing violence in the 60's and 70's. I remember a bombing on the U. of Wisconsin campus. A math teacher or something died. The Weather Underground accidentally blew up a bunch of their own people, and had planned to kill a lot of others.

Sorry, I don't think the right-wing has a monopoly on terrorism.

[fascisthunter]

24. oh, the Right Wing sure does seem to have a monopoly on terrorism

make a comparison of incidences between left wing and right wing n this country. You will find that the right wing is extremely violent in comparison. But is never really given the honest comparison in the media...

[fascisthunter]

26. you make a really good point... the bias in American media is obvious

[SmileyRose]

27. I disagree

IMHO both far wings have their crazies. I don't associate Republicans with Timothy McVeigh any more than I associate Democrats with Eco Terrorists torching car lots.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. Tree spiking is terrorism

Was the Unibomber a righty or a lefty? I'm not sure.

I will readily agree that leftists in this country are not nearly as likely to stockpile arms and ammo, or to blow up federal buildings at this time.

[Taverner]

37. OK now that qualifies

Tree spiking ends up with the loggers getting maimed or killed

But tree spikings are a bit rare, with the majority of terrorist acts being done by RWingers

[starroute]

80. Tree spiking was never meant to be terrorism

The idea was to make logging uneconomical by spiking trees so they could not be cut down -- and then marking them visibly to make sure that would be the result. Give or take the occasional idiot, there was no intention to have any logger risk injury by cutting into a spiked tree -- and the last I checked out the arguments, which was back in the 90s, environmental activists were engaged in heated debate over whether spiking was too dangerous to use at all.

Tree spiking is typical of much left-wing radicalism, in that it is intended to make certain corporate activities unprofitable -- such as cutting down old-growth forest -- after legal action has failed to prevent them. Since corporations worship profit alone, will gladly incur fines for illegal behavior if the fines are small compared to the profits, and have shown considerable ability to buy off the politicians, the thinking is that cutting into their bottom line in a serious way is the only thing that will influence them.

In that sense, monkey-wrenching is not much different than smearing paint on baby seals, or product boycotts, or calls for divestment, or even raucous public mockery -- except for the destruction of property part. The idea is to render certain kinds of socially harmful activities financially unproductive.

Right-wing violence, on the other hand, is not only not financially-based but doesn't even seem to have any plausible coercive effect. Shooting liberals is not meant to scare people out of being liberals. If anything, it's seen as the call to an all-out culture war, whose ultimate objective is to kill liberals and/or overthrow the government. So maybe that shouldn't be identified as terrorism, either.

I can only conclude that Americans, both right and left, have just never gotten the hang of what terrorism is supposed to be about. Maybe we're just too used to having advertising available for the purpose of molding public opinion instead.

[MADem]

36. I think crazy basstids come from both sides of the fence. I would have to see some

statistics proving otherwise to change that view. If you have to go back to the Turn of the Century for an example, you slept through the sixties and seventies or you were not born and your history teacher in school let you down.

I kinda think Patty Hearst would think that "hopped on crazy" doesn't quite describe those SLA bums. She probably would veer closer to "terrorist," I'm thinking.

[Taverner]

38. Don't get me wrong, the SLA were terrorists

But my question was were they really left wingers? Probably.

[MADem]

44. Well, yeah. They wanted Patty Heart's rich daddy to give money and food to the poor.

He did it, and they STILL didn't release her.

They were definitely sitting way over on the left side of the room, in the "asshole" section. Just like these rightwing nuts are sitting in the "asshole" section on their side of the venue, as well.

[Taverner]

45. Problem is the RW Asshole section has a lot more seats

[MADem]

47. Well, I dunno about that. They've been in the news more, lately.

But these things seem to be a bit cyclical...

[The Straight Story]

43. I don't think the rw extremists are different than the lw ones

Both want to control the lives of others through laws to an absurd level and essentially want less diversity and more power to shape the world into their version of utopia.

So when one says that a person who committed a terrible act is a rw I wonder how we know that since the only distinction between the two camps is which party they want to help them achieve their goals of controlling others.

I see both sides of that coin (extremists) as the enemy. And if the inference is that only those on the rw are bad and foster hate then we eventually lose because instead focusing on principles we focus on ideological labels and defending those who claim to be part of 'our' camp.

The question is not, imho, why are terrorists rw'ers, it is why do some people want nearly total control of the lives of others and how do we keep them from getting it?

[Juche]

60. No, they are quite different

Bob Altemeyer, who writes about authoritarianism has found that there are almost no left wing authoritarians. Nor should there be as left wingers are associated with discord with the status quo and egalitarianism, and authoritarianism is associated with dependence on the status quo and tolerance for inequality. However if left wingers are the authority figure (red china for instance) then there is left wing terrorism like what happened in China when Mao started the cultural revolution. That was left wing terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism#Right_and_left

Some of the traits associated with authoritarianism include aggressiveness, a fear driven outlook, tolerance for brutality against those who get in your way, etc. These traits all make someone more likely to support terrorism against civilians.

Left wingers may become terrorists in an effort to overthrow the status quo and promote egalitarianism, while right wingers become terrorists to uphold the status quo and inhibit egalitarianism. So right wingers commit terrorism to keep blacks in servitude, but left wingers commit it to give black people equal rights.

I am not a terrorist apologist, and targeting civilians for death and intimidation is always wrong, but I do believe the motives of left wing terrorists are at least a little better than right wing terrorists. Right wing terrorists kill civilians so they can keep blacks, women and gays in submission, or forcibly convert everyone to their branch of a branch of Islam. Left wing terrorists bomb evacuated cars and empty buildings so they can promote animal rights and an end to poverty. Both are crimes, and both are intimidation. But it is not the same thing.

If a left winger decides to start murdering civilians and won't stop unless the government adopts his political viewpoints that is terrorism. But by and large I don't think left wing extremists do that as much as right wing extremists, at least not in contemporary America.

[The Straight Story]

70. This paper disagrees somewhat:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf

D. Guttman (1979) also sees terrorist actions as being aimed more at the
audience than at the immediate victims. It is, after all, the audience that may
have to meet the terrorist’s demands. Moreover, in Guttman’s analysis, the
terrorist requires a liberal rather than a right-wing audience for success. Liberals
make the terrorist respectable by accepting the ideology that the terrorist alleges
informs his or her acts. The terrorist also requires liberal control of the media for
the transmission of his or her ideology.

(the above was referenced in the paper, interesting read)

"Some of the traits associated with authoritarianism include aggressiveness, a fear driven outlook"

A fear driven outlook is something I sadly see a lot of on both sides. Carried to the extreme it becomes oppressive and strangles freedom.

[stray cat]

48. Threats and actioan against scientists are supposedly so called progressives

if its related to research and not abortion.

[LBJDemocrat]

51. The anarchists were rightwing?

That's a ridiculous argument, similar to how Hitler is considered left-wing by FReepers. Enough revisionism, please: There have been right-wing terrorists and left-wing terrorists throughout our history, as well as terrorists who can't be boxed into the left/right spectrum (e.g. John Brown). Right now, there are more right-wing terrorists because the left is in power.

[Taverner]

52. My actual answer is I am not sure where Anarchists stand on the spectrum

One might take the argument that Anarchists are to Political Ideology as Atheists are to Religion.

But I don't know

[Juche]

61. FTR, I love that we can have intelligent discussions on these issues here

I remember reading a blurb once where a journalist said 'you do not see the kinds of in depth discussion of the issues on right wing blogs that you see on left wing blogs'. You probably aren't going to see an intelligent and serious discussion like this on stormfront or freerepublic. Yay us

[backscatter712]

68. Left wing terrorists are pretty rare.

There's the Weathermen, and a few groups like ELF and Earth First, but aside from that, not very many.

I also note that left-wing attacks seem more often (though not all the time) to focus on property damage rather than trying to kill people, though people do get hurt or killed in these incidents.

But for every Weather Underground or Earth First, there's ten right wing groups - KKK, neo-nazis, militias, Minutemen, religious groups, anti-abortion groups, lone nuts like Timothy McVeigh, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah. Ten right-wing violent nuts for every left-wing violent nut. The ratio's probably higher than that.

[Raspberry]

73. Were Stalin and Pol Pot terrorists?

Were they left wing?

[MajorChode]

84. You're talking about state terrorism vs individual and nut group terrorism

They are two different things. Also Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. were totalitarians which are decidedly right wing(at least in the traditional sense of the phrase). It's hard to imagine a totalitarian without some form of state supported terrorism.

[che man]

86. so if communists are RW; is Cuba run by a RW dictator?

What about Zimbabwe? Mugabe must be RW too. 

What about the dictatorships of the Middle East? All RW? 

Man; I did not realize we were surrounded by all these RW nut
jobs

[MajorChode]

90. RW in the authoritarian sense

I specifically qualified my statement as I used it, which you apparently missed. In the original sense of the terms, right wing = more authoritarian, left wing = more power to the people.

However many people like to use the terms in purely the economic sense which very much confuses them. That's exactly how you have wingnuts claiming Hitler was on the political left because his party happened to have the word "Socialist" in it. There's very little concensus on how the terms should be used and what was once considered "left" is now considered "right". It's also quite possible to be on the left politically and on the right economically and vise versa.

The reality is the terms are next to useless today unless you're trying to provoke an emotional response from a mouthbreather.

[Initech]

71. Right wing has lots of guns, and lots of mouthpieces on AM Radio.

Mouthpieces = Limpballs, Hannity, O'Reilly, and so on.

Hate + ammo = terrorism. Simple enough equation.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Initech]

87. Left wing terrorism isn't about murdering people

[MilesColtrane]

91. "Get me away from here"

30 minutes or it's free

[JI7]

88. the Islamic Terrorists are Conservative also

oppose women's rights, gay rights, etc. all about God and other religious shit.

[Danger Mouse]

89. What about anarchists like Leon Csolgosz?

He was one of many anarchists in the late 1800's early 1900's to assassinate a head of state.
Would you consider their kind right or left?

[tavalon]

93. Lack of motivation on the left

Most of us know what the catch phrase 4:20 means and we know how to use it to chill out?

[wuushew]

95. kick

:kick:

[old mark]

98. The SLA was mainly criminals and some ideologues who were

foolish enough to believe them. They were not "revolutionaries any more than the Manson "family" were lef wing or counterculture people - they were people who were controlled by criminals, inflicted a lot of pain and suffering on others and who paid a price for their foolishness.

Weather Underground had some serious bombers and a few killers, and lots of others who were mainly FOS.

mark

[Control-Z]

103. Funny you bring that up.

I caught a few minutes of a right wing radio program in the car last week, and the host (have no idea who he was) made the same observation. Left wing extremists are generally not destructive, but when they are, it is to property and not to people. Right wing extremists destroy and take lives.

I don't think there is really a question of why. These people escalate their party's beliefs to the extreme.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Don't forget the weathermen for the lefties

but it comes from the same place, left or right... a complete sense of hopelessness and loosing whatever you want

These days, I'd say the nutty right is loosing hope that whatever world they want to bring cannot be achieved peacefully

Of course this is the very simple answer, there are many long books on this