Far right violence

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I guess when you define racism and murder as "right wing" in and of themselves then no further evidence is required. When viewed through that lens, the OP actually does provide all the evidence that's required. One simply has to buy into that world view. It's probably telling that the OP didn't even consider that that could be a bone of contention.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

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.

No one ever said nor implied that. All you are doing is killing discussion by purposefully obsctructing a thread that has potential. The bolded statement is moronic and I doubt anyone on this board agrees with it. And since you're a smart fellow I am certain you know that for a fact. So what even is the point of this dumb charade. You could've just left this post out, it adds absolutely nothing.

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.

True, the story of the RAF is a tragic one. I legitimately think they had a chance to do some good. Meinhoff was an incredibly bright woman who developed some decent ideas. But with every act of theirs they became a more perverted version of themselves, culminating in a borderline nihilist terror squad that really wasn't about anything political, but rather about violence and sef-preservation. They're probably one of the most interesting terrorist groups out there.

I think the biggest missstep was this: The death of Benno Ohnesorg should not have led to counterviolence. Yes, in my personal opinion I do think that radical measures were kind of appropriate at this certain point in time, as a kind of "wake up call" for the parents generation to realize they are surrounded by ex Nazi officials. There were Nazis in leading positions in university, high finance, leftist and conservative politics, bureaucracy.. Change was needed, but killing civilians (even killing politicians) is not the right way to bring it about.

There are other, more sophisticated ways to get attention, to provoke a response, to make changes.

I for one prefer the Spaßguerilla. They probably didn't achieve anything substantial with their actions, but at least the only thing hurt was someone's pride.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No one ever said nor implied that. All you are doing is killing discussion by purposefully obsctructing a thread that has potential. The bolded statement is moronic and I doubt anyone on this board agrees with it. And since you're a smart fellow I am certain you know that for a fact. So what even is the point of this dumb charade. You could've just left this post out, it adds absolutely nothing.

The bolded statement is all that the OP is saying! It's literally two examples of minorities being killed, and nothing else. And this is presented as if it's self-evidently "far right political violence". So you're saying that the OP is moronic, and yet somehow the thread has potential? Please explain?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

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.

What a highly unnecessary game of semantics. Race is, has always been and will always be a political issue. "Race" is not a concept inherent to human though. The modern conception of race is barely a few hundred years old. "Racial" murder are clearly political aswell. Your distinction is meaningless. Racism is a pseudo-scientific belief, a political stance, for some people that call themselves "race realists" it is quite literally an entire political ideology.

The bolded statement is all that the OP is saying! It's literally two examples of minorities being killed, and nothing else. And this is presented as if it's self-evidently "far right political violence". So you're saying that the OP is moronic, and yet somehow the thread has potential? Please explain?

To paraphrase the OP himself: Killing minorities in and of itself can never be considered a political act on that basis alone. However, killing minorities simply because they have a different skin colour, religion, sexuality et cetera makes it a political act.

Clearly the OP thinks that those people were attacked/killed due to them being a minority. It is not stated word-for-word, but clearly implied in his posts. You did not need me to explain this to you, I don't come here for this kind of pointless finger-pointing.

Kind of sad, the only one who ever engaged with the content of any of my posts is luiz.

So maybe you are right, maybe this thread is smelly cabbage.

But it probably has more to do with attitude than it has with the content of the thread.. Because some people are attempting to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Akka]

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

Of course it does, but I'd like to know why you would ask me this question while I was explicitely speaking of "islamic terrorism" ?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

"Islamic Terrorism" is not that useful of a term for discussion. Rather, we should look at something like "wahabist fundamentalist terror" "islamic state terror" "sunni/shia terror" and so forth.

Those examples might not be that great. I'm sure you all get the gist though.

Terrorists from Iran probably have completely different, maybe opposite motives than ISIS terrorists do. And those are probably different from the motives of Indonesian terrorists or Pakistani terrorists.

I would agree with the general classification of (islamic) relgious fundamentalist terror as politically right wing, the amount of parallels there, as Akka already pointed out, are absolutely insane.

 

[Hrothbern]

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.

You mention the UK,
But in many other EU countries you had roughly the christian parties on the one side and the socialist/social democratic/communist parties on the other side with some or more liberals.
Whereby the christian parties were in their roots partly anti-liberalist/anti-enlightenment. And ofc with the increased secularisation of their voter base that changed.
Islamic parties match well with those (roots of) western christian parties.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

To paraphrase the OP himself: Killing minorities in and of itself can never be considered a political act on that basis alone. However, killing minorities simply because they have a different skin colour, religion, sexuality et cetera makes it a political act.

Clearly the OP thinks that those people were attacked/killed due to them being a minority. It is not stated word-for-word, but clearly implied in his posts. You did not need me to explain this to you, I don't come here for this kind of pointless finger-pointing.

So omitting "... because they are a minority" off the end of a sentence, even when it kind of seems to be implied (at least that was my reading of it) is enough to turn something that would make the basis of a promising thread into something "moronic"?

 

[civver_764]

No one ever said nor implied that. All you are doing is killing discussion by purposefully obsctructing a thread that has potential. The bolded statement is moronic and I doubt anyone on this board agrees with it. And since you're a smart fellow I am certain you know that for a fact. So what even is the point of this dumb charade. You could've just left this post out, it adds absolutely nothing.

Your accusations are wholly unnecessary and do much more damage to the thread than my post. Just because I expressed something you disagree with doesn't mean I'm trying to obstruct the thread. Nobody is trying to stop you from having the discussion you want to have on this topic, so please extend me the same courtesy.

What a highly unnecessary game of semantics. Race is, has always been and will always be a political issue. "Race" is not a concept inherent to human though. The modern conception of race is barely a few hundred years old. "Racial" murder are clearly political aswell. Your distinction is meaningless. Racism is a pseudo-scientific belief, a political stance, for some people that call themselves "race realists" it is quite literally an entire political ideology.

Race can certainly be a political issue, but that doesn't mean that racially-motivated crimes are political violence. In fact, I bet the people at this mosque had conservative views, so if this indeed a case of political violence wouldn't that make this anti-conservative and therefore left-wing political violence?

 

[Hrothbern]

I for one prefer the Spaßguerilla. They probably didn't achieve anything substantial with their actions, but at least the only thing hurt was someone's pride.

We had in Amsterdam in 1965 the Provo movement doing "ludieke" acties. (ludiek is in French ludique in English playfull, in German Spass)
And it was succesful, not so much against the authorities who did not know much else to do than beating up completely peaceful actions, but because it inspired so many in the Netherlands to not take the adult authoritarian view for granted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_(movement)

But with every act of theirs they became a more perverted version of themselves, culminating in a borderline nihilist terror squad that really wasn't about anything political

I lived my whole life in Amsterdam and saw from closeby the Provo's and hippies, the squatters, the peace movement, the ideological splinters in these movements, the radicalists attempts to take over the movement from the more peaceful majority.
The discussions in the squatting movement between radicals and non-radicals were exhausting everybody.
Good people leaving, radical people losing their legitimacy and getting isolated and radicalising further away deceiving themselves they still had the legitimacy
The fast generation changes of ever new young people pooring into Amsterdam from the rural areas that "knew" from rightwing papers what the movement was standing for....

It is a bit like the French Revolution that ate up her own children

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So omitting "... because they are a minority" off the end of a sentence, even when it kind of seems to be implied (at least that was my reading of it) is enough to turn something that would make the basis of a promising thread into something "moronic"?

Yes, that is what I just said. The thought "killing minorities is inherently right wing violence" is indeed moronic and I'm certain, no, make that hopeful, no one ITT would subscribe to it.

Race can certainly be a political issue, but that doesn't mean that racially-motivated crimes are political violence. In fact, I bet the people at this mosque had conservative views, so if this indeed a case of political violence wouldn't that make this anti-conservative and therefore left-wing political violence?

I apologize for not accepting your POV. Even though I heavily disagree clearly you still get to say what you want to say and that is important. In this case I think it best just to agree to disagree, though I will still reply to your example:

Personally I think (most) racist crimes are inherently political crimes, because I see (most) racism as a more-or-less concretely established political ideology.

Let me explain this: Racism, at least that is my definition, is not merely the thought that different races exist, they share different characteristics that are fundamental to those people and so forth. Racism very clearly looks at characteristics of certain "races" and evaluates these. A simple example:

"Sub saharan Africans have a lower IQ than caucasians" is merely a statement. Only when one finishes this thought in a certain way: "Sub saharan Africans have a lower IQ than caucasians and are therefore dumber, less likely to succeed economically, more prone to violence, more savage and worth less than their caucasian counterparts". these implications are, to some degree, political.

So let me examine the case you presented me with. Just for the sake of simplicity, let us say a KKK Supporter shoots up a Mosque full of hardcore conservative Muslims.

Does this now count as "leftist terrorism"? No, it certainly does not. What makes an act like this terrorism instead of mass murder and what makes an act like this racial, rightist terrorism is always the motives of the shooter.

Now go ahead and ask yourself: Did this man shoot up the Muslims because they were conservatives? No, obviously not. He shot them because his ideology tells him that all Muslims are evil and need to be killed.

As the OP already stated (and so did I), it always comes down to the motives/motivation of the terrorist. It is the single most important factor in determining whether an act of violence can be considered terrorism, political terrorism, or rightist/leftist terrorism.

Had he killed them for being conservatives then yes, I would actually consider it to be "leftist terror". That is only fair.

 

[Borachio]

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.

Except that the RAF at the time consisted of only 40% bored, or otherwise, middle class youths.( Or so QI has informed me.)

And besides very many of the aircrew weren't even British.

http://robdavistelford.co.uk/webspace/raf_bc/

Still, I wonder if your post isn't rather tongue in cheek. The percentage losses suffered by bomber crews wasn't minor.

Mind you, I've often doubted the reasoning behind the bombing strategy in the first place (never mind the morality). The Blitz having failed to daunt the British in any way (allegedly) was supposed to be effective against the Germans.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Except that the RAF at the time consisted of only 40% bored, or otherwise, middle class youths.( Or so QI has informed me.)

And besides very many of the aircrew weren't even British.

http://robdavistelford.co.uk/webspace/raf_bc/

Still, I wonder if your post isn't rather tongue in cheek. The percentage losses suffered by bomber crews wasn't minor.

Mind you, I've often doubted the reasoning behind the bombing strategy in the first place (never mind the morality). The Blitz having failed to daunt the British in any way (allegedly) was supposed to be effective against the Germans.

In this case RAF refers to "Rote Arme Fraktion", a German terrorist group that was founded after a policeman shot the student Benno Ohnesorg in a peaceful protest.

Incase you knew that I now look like a total buffoon, but yeah, just trying to help. I don't think the Royal Airforce can be considered terrorists, highly doubt Luiz would make that claim

We had in Amsterdam in 1965 the Provo movement doing "ludieke" acties. (ludiek is in French ludique in English playfull, in German Spass)
And it was succesful, not so much against the authorities who did not know much else to do than beating up completely peaceful actions, but because it inspired so many in the Netherlands to not take the adult authoritarian view for granted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_(movement)

Thank you for this post! I was not aware of this group and will read up on them once I have some spare time on my hands.

 

[Borachio]

Of course it does, but I'd like to know why you would ask me this question while I was explicitely speaking of "islamic terrorism" ?

Because, as far as I know, though I could be wrong, "islamic terrorism" (a convenient if not completely accurate catch-all) isn't completely divorced from islam.

In this case RAF refers to "Rote Arme Fraktion", a German terrorist group that was founded after a policeman shot the student Benno Ohnesorg in a peaceful protest.

Incase you knew that I now look like a total buffoon, but yeah, just trying to help. I don't think the Royal Airforce can be considered terrorists, highly doubt Luiz would make that claim

lol. Well, I live and learn! And no you don't look like a total buffoon. (That's my job, thank you.)

I'm not quite sure why the Royal Air Force couldn't be considered terrorists, though. And the cliche that they were largely middle-class isn't a new one. So they did, to me, fit Mr Luiz's characterization.

 

[BvBPL]

Incase you knew that I now look like a total buffoon, but yeah, just trying to help. I don't think the Royal Airforce can be considered terrorists, highly doubt Luiz would make that claim

I dunno, man. Some of the facial topiaries Her Majesty's armed forces seem like crimes against nature.

 

[civver_764]

I apologize for not accepting your POV. Even though I heavily disagree clearly you still get to say what you want to say and that is important. In this case I think it best just to agree to disagree, though I will still reply to your example:

Cheers, apology accepted.

Personally I think (most) racist crimes are inherently political crimes, because I see (most) racism as a more-or-less concretely established political ideology.

That seems wrong to me. Racism and racial tensions exist pretty much anywhere that we have different racial groups living together. Political ideologies are certainly informed by the existence of racism, but racism itself exists outside of politics.

Let me explain this: Racism, at least that is my definition, is not merely the thought that different races exist, they share different characteristics that are fundamental to those people and so forth. Racism very clearly looks at characteristics of certain "races" and evaluates these. A simple example:

"Sub saharan Africans have a lower IQ than caucasians" is merely a statement. Only when one finishes this thought in a certain way: "Sub saharan Africans have a lower IQ than caucasians and are therefore dumber, less likely to succeed economically, more prone to violence, more savage and worth less than their caucasian counterparts". these implications are, to some degree, political.

I disagree with this, both are merely statements. It only becomes political when you say something like "therefore low IQ racial groups should not be allowed to immigrate to our nation".

So let me examine the case you presented me with. Just for the sake of simplicity, let us say a KKK Supporter shoots up a Mosque full of hardcore conservative Muslims.

Does this now count as "leftist terrorism"? No, it certainly does not. What makes an act like this terrorism instead of mass murder and what makes an act like this racial, rightist terrorism is always the motives of the shooter.

Now go ahead and ask yourself: Did this man shoot up the Muslims because they were conservatives? No, obviously not. He shot them because his ideology tells him that all Muslims are evil and need to be killed.

Well...at the root of anti-Islamic sentiment is the idea that their views are too conservative.

 

[luiz]

Except that the RAF at the time consisted of only 40% bored, or otherwise, middle class youths.( Or so QI has informed me.)

And besides very many of the aircrew weren't even British.

http://robdavistelford.co.uk/webspace/raf_bc/

Still, I wonder if your post isn't rather tongue in cheek. The percentage losses suffered by bomber crews wasn't minor.

Mind you, I've often doubted the reasoning behind the bombing strategy in the first place (never mind the morality). The Blitz having failed to daunt the British in any way (allegedly) was supposed to be effective against the Germans.

I was referring to the Red Army Faction, not the Royal Air Force...

In fairness I should have written down the acronym when I mentioned the Red Army Faction in my first post, but still...

 

[bernie14]

i don't think anyone on the right, other than the extreme loons condone any of the terrorist acts committed by these loons...thing is, this is no longer true for the mainstream left.... or at least, the perception that violence is acceptable. case in point, the pardoning of terrorist Oscar lopez rivera, whom represented a tiny minority, killed innocents in terrorist acts, has never repented and is pardoned by a US president!!

 

[Commodore]

They are being killed because they are minorities, a contemporary right-wing motive.

It would seem so. However, as it was already pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) there weren't any details about the attackers in those stories you posted. So while it may seem like far-right extremists did this, I'm not so sure. During the election we saw several instances of people committing violent acts and trying to make it look like Trump supporters did it. The most prominent instance being that guy who burned down his church and tried to make it look like Trump supporters were responsible. And that guy was a Hillary supporter if I'm not mistaken

So we know leftists are willing to commit acts of violence and attempt to frame the right for it, so who's to say those incidents in your OP aren't just that?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

However, as it was already pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) there weren't any details about the attackers in those stories you posted.

I don't think he ignored it. I think he considers that pointing out that one of the attackers hates Muslims is actually an answer. If you share the mindset that hating and wanting to kill Muslims is not only correlated with being right wing, but is essentially synonymous, then the deliberate killing of any Muslims out of hatred for Muslims is essentially the same as voting for Trump or Theresa May.