A page about "left-wing" terror and violence
versus "right-wing" terror and violence
- concentrating on the USA.
Political people love to blame their opponents for the acts of extremist and deranged people.
Sometimes
there is some justification for this.
Sometimes
this is just playing politics.
On this page I may criticise the media for playing politics
but I do not deny that terrorists and killers can be right-wing,
or left-wing,
or just mentally ill.
Left-wing terrorism used to be as big in the West as Islamic terrorism is now.
This was back in the day when people believed that the Marxist revolution really could happen.
Left-wing terrorism has faded considerably since the 1970s.
Modern terror in the US is mainly Islamic terror
(which kills people)
and
left-wing eco-terror
(which attacks property).
"Christian terrorism"
has been much portrayed in cinema and TV,
but has hardly existed in real life
in recent years - until the Norway attacks.
Let us hope the
Norway attacks
are not the start of a wave of Christian / right-wing terror.
The worst ever act of domestic American left-wing or right-wing terrorism
was right-wing terrorism:
The
Oklahoma City bombing
of 1995.
By the way, for a good analysis see
Charles Krauthammer, April 28, 1995.
It
shows 46 terrorist incidents in
2000-2005 (no later list available).
I adjust it as follows:
I exclude the
anthrax attacks
because they were not apparently motivated by an ideology.
(If there is no ideology, then what makes crime different from terrorism?)
I include the
2001 shoe bomber attack,
which the FBI list bizarrely excludes.
I include the
15
Beltway sniper
attacks in 2002,
which killed 10,
which the FBI list bizarrely excludes.
This gives 61 terrorist incidents in 2000-2005.
There are 18
(1 + 1 + 1 + 15)
Islamic terror attacks,
yielding 2984
(2972 + 2 + 0 + 10)
fatalities.
Here is the breakdown by ideology:
Type of terror
Number of incidents
Percent of incidents
Number of fatal incidents
Percent of fatal incidents
Number of fatalities
Percent of fatalities
Eco-terrorism
40
65.6
0
0
0
0
Islamism
18
29.5
12
100
2984
100
Anti-abortion
2
3.3
0
0
0
0
Neo-Nazi
1
1.6
0
0
0
0
This excludes terror attacks since 2005.
This excludes terror attacks outside the US.
It is noteworthy that all of the Islamic attacks were against randomly-chosen innocent civilians.
It is noteworthy that all of the Islamic attacks aimed to kill in large numbers.
Not make a point. Not scare. Not damage property. But kill.
The left often jumps to assign various killers to the "right",
and sometimes combines this with a call for a clampdown on right-wing speech.
Sometimes these killers are really lunatics rather than right-wing.
Sometimes they are even left-wing!
Neo-nazi
James von Brunn,
the US Holocaust Museum shooter, June 2009,
has been labelled a "right-wing" terrorist,
and no doubt many vaguely think of him as a "Christian" terrorist.
In fact, he could just as easily be called a "left-wing" terrorist:
He hated Israel,
opposed the Iraq War,
thought 9/11 was an inside job,
hated Fox News,
hated neo-cons,
hated Bush and McCain,
and finally
he hated Christianity, and said he was a socialist
(the Nazis were collectivists).
He referred to "the insane teachings of Jesus", and
said the gospels are:
"stuffed with lies, miracles, guilt trips, betrayal, virgin birth, eternal damnation, salvation - a scenario appealing to the superstitious, vulnerable, ignorant yearning sheep - he named his hoax "Christianity."
...
"Christianity" destroyed Roman Civilization."
So he is not a Christian terrorist.
He is a convert to Islam,
and said in the threats that he was:
"a local Muslim terrorist on a roll."
A witness says that he:
"called himself a mujahedeen".
Acts 17 Apologetics
point out that some people rushed to call him a "Christian" terrorist,
and the local Police Chief even said:
"He picked Dearborn as a stop because of the huge Arab and Muslim population."
When in fact he picked a Shia Muslim mosque because he was a Sunni Muslim.
In a similar phenomenon to the
Tucson blood libel against Sarah Palin,
people even accused
Acts 17 Apologetics
of inciting the attack!
They have a lovely response:
"It seems that our hate speech (i.e. drawing attention to disturbing facts about Islam, while maintaining our love for Muslims) somehow caused the Sunni-Shia split. Perhaps Jem believes that Nabeel and I constructed an Acts 17 time machine, travelled back to 632 and caused division in the Muslim community right after Muhammad died. Perhaps I went to Abu Bakr and said, "Hey! You should be leader!" Then Nabeel went to Ali and said, "You're better than Abu Bakr!" Fourteen centuries later, the division we caused led a Sunni convert to attack a mosque. Acts 17 must be even craftier than we thought!"
Again, I am not denying that there is right-wing terrorism (as well as left-wing terrorism).
I am only disputing certain attacks and certain lists.
FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, as at June 2011, eloquently shows how all religions are not the same.
There is one animal rights terrorist.
Everyone else is Muslim.
There are no Christian or Jewish terrorists on the list at this time.
See larger.
The Norway attacks
happened when I was just about to slag off this 2011 video from the
Department of Homeland Security.
Their "See Something, Say Something"
video urges Americans to report suspicious behaviour.
But in this politically-correct video,
almost every suspicious person is a regular-looking white American.
This video looked a lot more stupid before the Norway attacks.
But I guess I must now concede they have a point.
Since 1995.
