used to be as big in the West as Islamic terrorism is now.
This was back when the Soviet Union existed,
when people believed that the Marxist revolution really could happen.
Left-wing terrorism has, thankfully, faded considerably since the 1970s.
Modern terror in the West is mainly Islamic terror
and assorted loners and lunatics
rather than organised groups.
With the rise of endless
in the West,
there has been a psychological need to portray a similar
in cinema and TV.
But, while there is right-wing terror,
a specifically Christian
terrorism hardly exists in real life.
The "See Something, Say Something"
video of 2011, from the
Department of Homeland Security,
urges Americans to report suspicious behaviour.
But in this video,
almost every suspicious person is a regular-looking white American.
Yes, terror by white people (both left-wing and right-wing) does exist.
But did political correctness - not public safety - dictate the making of this video?
The worst ever act of domestic American left-wing or right-wing terrorism
was right-wing terrorism:
Oklahoma City bombing
By the way, for a good analysis see
Charles Krauthammer, April 28, 1995.
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 Bush and McCain,
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.
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!"
A friend said about him:
"He was more of a liberal type; he wasn't happy with the former [Bush] administration. He was more happy with this [the Obama] administration -- as far as presidential administrations."
Of course, primarily he was mentally ill.
But don't you think that if he was a Tea Party supporter, all hell would have broken loose?
It also emerged that the shooter created a webpage with the name
though there is no evidence he was Muslim.
gives an account of a horrific anti-Muslim crime in Dec 2014:
"In December, a man in Kansas City wrote on his SUV that the Koran was a "disease worse than Ebola," then drove it into a 15-year-old Muslim boy in front of a local mosque, severing his legs and killing him."
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.
An airport worker
has seen the "No Fly" List, and says:
"There are 9 full sheets ... a grand total of 623,920 names.
I would guess that the list is 99.5% Islamic names.
That is NOT an exaggeration, but a conservative estimate."
One of the worst examples of the left blaming the wrong people
was when a Jew-hating neo-Nazi
carried out a terrorist attack on Sikhs in Wisconsin in 2012.
Leftists blamed anyone and everyone on the right,
including more or less the entire GOP.
They even blamed Jew-loving, anti-jihad, Israel supporters,
who a neo-Nazi skinhead is hardly likely to be reading!
A white terrorist
kills 6 Sikhs at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, 5 Aug 2012.
who I did not realise was an idiot
(he has done work on closing jihadist websites),
blames Robert Spencer, 5 Aug 2012.
The assumption seems to be that this was an anti-Muslim bigot
who was too dumb to realise Sikhs aren't Muslims.
Warner seems to assert that Spencer should never talk about stories involving
Muslims and turbans, since confused retards like the Wisconsin shooter
will then attack people with turbans.
Therefore Spencer was wrong to cover the
Kurt Westergaard turban cartoon
despite the fact that it involved actual Islamic terror attacks and plots.
Talking about this and showing the cartoon is wrong,
according to Warner.
Also Spencer was wrong to cover the many ironic
such as the turban bomb that killed
Talking about these is wrong, according to Warner,
because it will confuse people like the Wisconsin shooter.
Warner's argument, weak as it was, is undermined by the fact that
the shooter turned out to be
white supremacist skinhead
who hated all non-white races,
and had no particular interest in Islam.
The idea that a Jew-lover like Spencer
would be an influence on him
The Sikh temple shooter.
Obviously an avid reader of the Jew-loving, pro-Israel Robert Spencer.
So obvious that we can go ahead and call for Spencer's arrest.
Why not blame skinhead culture?
It is obvious who to blame for the Sikh temple shooting, apart from the shooter.
We should blame skinhead culture.
But that is too obvious.
The left, for some reason, prefers to blame its normal political opponents
- regular, peaceful, parliamentary democrats.
Palin was blamed for Tucson.
Sarkozy was blamed for Toulouse.
And obviously Michelle Bachmann - or someone -
is to blame for this shooting.
The New York Times
Jihad Watch, Stop Islamization of America,
and Michele Bachmann.
"Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty ... Michelle Bachmann
... Frank Gaffney
... Peter King".
Irish Muslim (*)
blames me for the shooting, 14 Aug 2012.
He says you cannot criticise Islam
because that leads to skinheads attacking Muslims:
"Have you read the reports that demonstrate that anti-Muslim propoganda of the kind your familiar with leads to anti_Muslim hate crimes up to and including death.
How does that make you feel?"
Nice rhetorical trick.
Does that mean you cannot criticise Israel
because that leads to skinheads attacking Jews?
We can all play this dishonest game.
I reply in that thread.
(*) At least, he seems to be Muslim.
He is angry about drawings of the Prophet,
and he is very defensive of the Koran and Hadith.
He supports sharia law.
He denies being a Muslim, but his denials are not convincing.
He seems to think Islamic terrorist bombing is amusing ("Brown Bomber")
in a kind of passive-aggressive way.
"If you take Shariah away from Islam there is nothing left".
is an expert at blaming people he doesn't like for things they have nothing to do with.
Juan Cole, 6 Aug 2012, blames the Sikh temple shooting on everyone he doesn't like.
"Fox Cable News ... Rupert Murdoch ... Rush Limbaugh
... Frank Gaffney ... Michele Bachmann ... Peter King ... Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, John Bolton ... Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and others, most associated with the Republican Party".
Yes indeed, I remember them all calling for attacks on Sikhs by skinheads.
Juan Cole, 21 June 2015,
blames the pro-Israel counterjihad (!)
Charleston racist shooting
by a Nazi who hated Israel.
Juan Cole blames Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller.
Evidence provided: Zero.
No evidence the killer ever read them or talked about them
or even knew they existed.
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me (such as call me racist).
I will not debate such people.
I will block them.