Far right violence

[aelf]

There's been a number of incidents of hate crimes by the far right, but they've mostly gone under everyone's radars but the SJWs. Here in OT, a few prominent posters have recently been claiming that the left is more violent than the right.

I don't know what casualties left-wing violence have been responsible for recently, but there's stuff like this recently from the far right:

Officials: 17-year-old Muslim girl assaulted and killed after leaving Virginia mosque

Police found remains Sunday thought to be those of a missing Virginia teenager who they say was assaulted and disappeared overnight after leaving a mosque in the Sterling area, and a 22-year-old man has been charged with murder in connection with the case.

The mosque, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) in Sterling, and relatives identified the girl as 17-year-old Nabra Hassanen of Reston.

Fairfax County police identified the man charged with murder in her death as Darwin Martinez Torres of Sterling.

According to accounts from police and a mosque official, a group of four or five teens were walking back from breakfast at IHOP early Sunday when they were confronted by a motorist. All but one of the teens ran to the mosque, where the group reported that the girl had been left behind, according to Deputy Aleksandra Kowalski, a spokeswoman for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office.

The girl’s mother said detectives told her that Nabra was struck with a metal bat.

“I can’t think of a worse instance to occur than the loss of a 17-year-old on Father’s Day, as the father of a 17-year-old myself,” Loudoun County Sheriff Michael L. Chapman said.

A possible hate-crime motivation is among the things authorities are investigating, police said. Detectives think the remains are those of the girl, but the chief medical examiner’s office will confirm the identity and manner of death, Fairfax police spokeswoman Tawny Wright said.

Link

I know the modus operandi is to deny that these 'lone wolves' have any connection to the far right. Even when they profess to believe in the same ideas, people are more keen on emphasising that the perpetrators have no connection with some group or other à la Breivik.

Well, here's one more example from across the pond that shows how the far right condones this stuff:

Finsbury Park attack: Counter terror police investigating after one man killed in van attack near mosque

One man has died and several more are injured after being hit by a van in a suspected terror attack near a mosque in London.

Counter terror police are investigating the incident in Finsbury Park, where eight people have been taken to hospital and two more were treated at the scene.

“The driver of the van - a man aged 48 - was found detained by members of public at the scene and then arrested by police in connection with the incident,” a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said.

Witnesses said the vehicle veered off the road into worshippers leaving prayers in Finsbury Park shortly after midnight.

“From the window, I started hearing a lot of yelling and screeching, a lot of chaos outside," a woman who lives opposite the scene told the BBC.

"Everybody was shouting: 'A van'€™s hit people, a van€'s hit people'.

“There was this white van stopped outside Finsbury Park mosque that seemed to have hit people who were coming out after prayers had finished.”

The former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Lennon, was condemned for "attempting to justify" the attack by accusing the mosque of past links with extremists.

Link

I just thought claims that the left is more violent should be put into perspective with real examples of the deaths brought about and condoned by the far right and its sympathisers.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Far right is more violent of course. It is and it has been and it always will be. Violence is inherent to far right ideologies, all embracing anti-egalitarianism, racism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, etc, etc, etc, and all the sort of crap that lead to oppression and violence towards the ones perceived as different and consequently inferior. Worse, while far left violence usually happens in the context of public protest and demonstrations and against police or private property, far right crimes are particularly despicable and repulsive, consisting a little squad of extremists cowardly beating some random defenceless immigrant or some homosexual. Not comparable.

 

[luiz]

Far right is more violent of course. It is and it has been and it always will be. Violence is inherent to far right ideologies, all embracing anti-egalitarianism, racism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, etc, etc, etc, and all the sort of crap that lead to oppression and violence towards the ones perceived as different and consequently inferior. Worse, while far left violence usually happens in the context of public protest and demonstrations and against police or private property, far right crimes are particularly despicable and repulsive, consisting a little squad of extremists cowardly beating some random defenceless immigrant or some homosexual. Not comparable.

Really? So, say, the Sendero Luminoso was not despicable enough for you? Not enough massacres of poor peasants, not enough bombs in shopping malls? How about the Red Brigades? The Red Army Faction? Hell, before the boom of Islamist terrorism of the last decades, left-wing terrorism was by far the most deadly in the West.

Which is not to say the far left is worse than the far right. Both are despicable. Both have a violent segment and largely non-violent one. But your comparison is completely unfair. The left wing "equivalent" of neonazis or the KKK are not whiny teenage black blocs, it's the freakin Sendero Luminoso.

I don't think "cruelty Olympics" are very productive. Both extremes are horrorible, and anyone who sympathizes with them is horrible too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There are literally no details about the perpetrators of either of those incidents in the articles at all, aside from their ages and sexes. Surely you could find better examples than this?

 

[Kyriakos]

The EDL?

Fortunately they seem to be dead as a party. Maybe it had to do with those infamous muslamic rake gangs

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Really? So, say, the Sendero Luminoso was not despicable enough for you? Not enough massacres of poor peasants, not enough bombs in shopping malls? How about the Red Brigades? The Red Army Faction? Hell, before the boom of Islamist terrorism of the last decades, left-wing terrorism was by far the most deadly in the West.

Which is not to say the far left is worse than the far right. Both are despicable. Both have a violent segment and largely non-violent one. But your comparison is completely unfair. The left wing "equivalent" of neonazis or the KKK are not whiny teenage black blocs, it's the freakin Sendero Luminoso.

I don't think "cruelty Olympics" are very productive. Both extremes are horrorible, and anyone who sympathizes with them is horrible too.

Obviously there are many crazily bloody examples like Sendero Luminoso, Stalin or the Khmer Rouge, But i am thinking on the terms of the OP, in a more domestic violence we see daily at home in the so called developed countries. There are lots of hate crimes from far right activists, not so many from far left. I think there are not doubts far right ideologies, by definition, favor this kind of crimes more than far left ones.

 

[luiz]

Obviously there are many crazily bloody examples like Sendero Luminoso, Stalin or the Khmer Rouge, But i am thinking on the terms of the OP, in a more domestic violence we see daily at home in the so called developed countries. There are lots of hate crimes from far right activists, not so many from far left. I think there are not doubts far right ideologies, by definition, favor this kind of crimes more than far left ones.

Well the Red Brigades and the RAF were active in developed countries until relatively recently. They engaged in the same sort of domestic violence as far right groups active in the same period. The Sendero Luminoso was also domestic violence, though in a poor country.

Nowadays in the West there was a marked decrease in political terrorism, which of course was more than compensated by the rise of Islamic terror.

I agree that violence and hate are an inherent part of far right ideology. But the far left is also very focused on hatred and confrontation, which is why historically it has attracted so many sociopaths (like the Sendero or the Baader Meinhof gang).

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Completely agree with Luiz that this sort of dick-waving contest over who has the bigger body-count or who is potentially more threatening is absolutely senseless. We should just skip it and discuss the actually interesting aspects of politically oriented terrorism.

Maybe this is just me, but I see a huge difference between an organized terror cell like the RAF and far-right terrorism today. It seems that for a far-right terrorist it is actually enough to murder an immigrant, a muslim, a progressive, essentially a foot soldier. This is the complete opposite of what terrorists like the RAF wanted. They selectively killed ex-SS members or ex-Nazi politicians that were still active in Germany.

They selected their targets carefully, made sure that their act had some political importance and would drive their agenda forward. It seems that killings from right wing terrorists or "lone wolves" are often done for attention, out of pure hatred, out of mental illness, but I doubt many of these people think they can completely "cleanse" their country by killing an immigrant.

But there is a new side to left-wing terrorism now. In Germany it is called "the black block". It's violent anarchist-leftist extremists that show a completely different kind of poltical violence: Engaging the political "opponent". They show up to far right gatherings and provoke, start fights and so forth. So, essentially, almost dumbed down to the level of far-right terrorism. The only difference being that far-right terrorist often target "innocent" civilians who they have no personal relation to. So for this reason I still prefer todays "left wing extremists", at least they're not after me or my friends. As long as they beat each other up, they keep the damage minimal.

I know some of the "black block" people personally. They're scary. More organized than one would think.

 

[civver_764]

So any time a minority is killed it's a "far-right" political violence? Does that mean any time a white person is killed by a minority we can call that "far-left" political violence?

Gonna post this compilation again:
https://fusiontables.google.com/data?docid=1hmh7MncFInF_LmbYBA9bePIYFyqQhU6Zj9ro9jB7#rows:id=1

Those are all explicitly anti-Trump crimes, with media sources and police reports included. There are 178 listed, mostly in the last year.

 

[Borachio]

Politically or religiously motivated violence, I think, happens when a person is convinced that they're right (no pun intended, I mean of course "correct"), nobody is listening to them, and they think they should be listened to.

I'd expect it to happen equally on the left and right extremes of the political spectrum. And as far as I know, it does.

It could be, though, that people just like being violent. And will find any excuse for it.

 

[Akka]

If the OP wanted to really point at the far-right violence, islamic terrorism would be the obvious choice (considering it dwarfs all other politically motivated attacks put together).

I wonder why it's not the case.

 

[Kyriakos]

If the OP wanted to really point at the far-right violence, islamic terrorism would be the obvious choice (considering it dwarfs all other politically motivated attacks put together).

I wonder why it's not the case.

It is problematic to label such as "right", though. I mean, depends on whether right/left is primarily defined by class issues (capital vs labor) OR by social values (conservative vs progressive etc).
I am pretty sure that most far-left people are not that different from most far-right people; they just yell to the inverted totem pole. That said, "far" here is also usually nonstandard a term, and often is used to accuse regular views of supposedly having extreme undertones. (Eg) Neither Bernie nor Corbyn are far-left. They are popular due to speaking sense to a large part of the population.

 

[Akka]

It is problematic to label such as "right", though. I mean, depends on whether right/left is primarily defined by class issues (capital vs labor) OR by social values (conservative vs progressive etc).

I think that islamic terrorism is pretty much full on far-right on the entire spectrum.

I am pretty sure that most far-left people are not that different from most far-right people, they just yell to the inverted totem pole.

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm the one who claims that SJW are the left-wing clones of the Tea Party Republicans, you know

 

[Borachio]

You don't think that Islam has some left wing aspects to it?

 

[aelf]

If the OP wanted to really point at the far-right violence, islamic terrorism would be the obvious choice (considering it dwarfs all other politically motivated attacks put together).

I wonder why it's not the case.

Actually, yes, I agree that Islamic terrorism is a good example of far-right violence. But the people who claim that the left is more violent than the right today tend not to link Islamic terrorism with the right.

There are literally no details about the perpetrators of either of those incidents in the articles at all, aside from their ages and sexes. Surely you could find better examples than this?

Abdulrahman said: "I managed to get the driver of the van when he came out of his van.

"He wanted to run away and was saying, 'I want to kill Muslims'. So he came back to the main road and I managed to get him to the ground and me and some other guys managed to hold him until the police arrived, for about 20 minutes I think, until the police arrived.

Link

Oh, right. I'm talking to the guy who never bothers to find out anything but loves to ask for evidence.

 

[Kyriakos]

You don't think that Islam has some left wing aspects to it?

As does Christianity. Which is why i find it problematic to label all islamic terrorism as far-right. While most (?) of the west-living youths who do it appear to be middle-class, the situation is not at all this in places where people fight back opression; eg palestinians enrolled in such acts are having no future, no money, and are under a foreign regime, so one cannot seriously call that as a far-right mentality. The latter usually manifests as a reaction to loss of status, instead of being in a historically terrible status in the first place.
Though i am wary of using right/left when it comes to terrorism (infact i am wary of terrorism discussion, given it is apparently manipulated by the media; remember Al-Qaeda? yesterday's Goldstein).

 

[aelf]

So any time a minority is killed it's a "far-right" political violence? Does that mean any time a white person is killed by a minority we can call that "far-left" political violence?

Extremely disingenuous reasoning, but expected. These cases are not just minorities being killed. They are being killed because they are minorities, a contemporary right-wing motive.

 

[luiz]

Completely agree with Luiz that this sort of dick-waving contest over who has the bigger body-count or who is potentially more threatening is absolutely senseless. We should just skip it and discuss the actually interesting aspects of politically oriented terrorism.

Maybe this is just me, but I see a huge difference between an organized terror cell like the RAF and far-right terrorism today. It seems that for a far-right terrorist it is actually enough to murder an immigrant, a muslim, a progressive, essentially a foot soldier. This is the complete opposite of what terrorists like the RAF wanted. They selectively killed ex-SS members or ex-Nazi politicians that were still active in Germany.

They selected their targets carefully, made sure that their act had some political importance and would drive their agenda forward. It seems that killings from right wing terrorists or "lone wolves" are often done for attention, out of pure hatred, out of mental illness, but I doubt many of these people think they can completely "cleanse" their country by killing an immigrant.

But there is a new side to left-wing terrorism now. In Germany it is called "the black block". It's violent anarchist-leftist extremists that show a completely different kind of poltical violence: Engaging the political "opponent". They show up to far right gatherings and provoke, start fights and so forth. So, essentially, almost dumbed down to the level of far-right terrorism. The only difference being that far-right terrorist often target "innocent" civilians who they have no personal relation to. So for this reason I still prefer todays "left wing extremists", at least they're not after me or my friends. As long as they beat each other up, they keep the damage minimal.

I know some of the "black block" people personally. They're scary. More organized than one would think.

Good post. I'll note however that while the RAF was very careful in choosing their targets, they didn't give a damn about who they actually killed in the process.

If you ever go to the Siemens campus in Perlach, Southern Munich, you'll see a plaque remembering the murder of two people by the RAF. One was a high ranking Siemens executive, considered an "enemy of the people" by them. The other was... His driver, who left behind a widow and a bunch of young kids. Hardly a well chosen victim, no?

So there you had a bunch of bored middle class youths executing a poor chauffer in the name of "class struggle". It's almost a perfect summary of the far left.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Link

Oh, right. I'm talking to the guy who never bothers to find out anything but loves to ask for evidence.

Erm... is it too much to ask that you actually post quotes that back up what you're saying in your own OP? I'm supposed to go digging for evidence that you can't even be bothered to provide for your own case?

 

[civver_764]

Extremely disingenuous reasoning, but expected. These cases are not just minorities being killed. They are being killed because they are minorities, a contemporary right-wing motive.

Well for one, we don't know the motivation of the person behind this attack. But let's assume that he's your standard white male and he votes right-wing. This is still not "right-wing" violence. Why?

Because you're conflating racial violence with political violence. When it comes to racial violence, we're not in the realm of "left" vs "right, but instead of "white" vs. "middle eastern" vs "black" etc.

Antifa and the like are committing political violence because they are attacking people for their political beliefs. On this spectrum we see that the left is more likely to engage in political violence than the right.

This guy and ISIS are committing racial (or religious) violence because they are attacking people for their race. On this spectrum we see that middle-easterners are more likely to engage in racial violence than whites.