ICE Bomber’s manifesto: “I am Antifa”

And you were saying people's ignorance of the topic was disturbing...well then, should I be disturbed?

 

Just checked out the site and what a bunch of nonsense it is. Their 'studies' are clearly opinions and their main consideration for future terrorist attacks in Europe is, of course, "Islamophobia". What rubbish!

 

As you've seen those who claim terrorism is largely 'right wing' usually don't include international acts of Islamic terrorism but focus mainly on their own countries where the attacks take place. Thus a person living in Indianapolis or Kalamazoo could claim there have been no Islamic attacks ever in their cities, which would make the religion seem quite peaceful. And, of course, they can label anything 'right wing' without providing any real evidence whereas most left wing terrorists, like this Antifa jerk, tend to lt their feelings known, their own version of Allah Akbar.

 

But some never leave the starting gate.

 

We both know that the only ignoring that has gone on in this thread is by right wingers. I personally think that's dissonance. However, I've had a look at the research to see if there is an alternative perspective. Try Kearns et al. (2019, Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others?, Justice Quarterly, 1-24):

"Terrorist attacks often dominate news coverage as reporters seek to provide the public with information. Yet, not all incidents receive equal attention. Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media coverage than others? We argue that perpetrator religion is the largest predictor of news coverage, while target type, being arrested, and fatalities will also impact coverage. We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2006 and 2015 (N = 136). Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 357% more coverage than other attacks. Our results are robust against a number of counterarguments. The disparities in news coverage of attacks based on the perpetrator’s religion may explain why members of the public tend to fear the “Muslim terrorist” while ignoring other threats. More representative coverage could help to bring public perception in line with reality."

Perhaps they're just victims of the media?

 

Antifa attacks the media, like a gay asian journalist recently.

They aren't victims-they are domestic terrorists in that they commit violence primarily for political purposes.

Just like when the transgender antifa terrorist tried to burn down that ICE facility with lots of illegals stuck inside.

 

All courtesy of Trump's False Flag Dirty Tricks Squad.

I wonder how much the Trump Slush Fund paid them?

 

This is what they do to kids. 22 killed and 800 wounded. Many children, as it was a childrens concert.

Listen to the panic set in.

Antifa would do this if they could.

 

NO, they wouldn't.

Btw--When did you become such close adherent to the motivations of Antifa?

 

Why didn't you actually respond to the quote? Did you realise that jihadist attacks gets more media attention? Some of that can be accounted for by greater lethality in the crime. However, a bias remains. Does that account for the failure of the right wingers on here to acknowledge that right wing terrorism dominates incidents and is on an upward trend?

 

Antifa made a gay asian males brain bleed.

He's still alive, thank goodness.

 

Whatever it is The Squad has certainly won him the election.

 

LOL @ CNN Trying to get female Trump supporters to call him 'racist', kinda blew up in their face....

ps://www.dailywire.com/news/49570/cnn-tries-convince-gop-women-trump-racist-doesnt-ryan-saavedra
Do you think it’s just a coincidence that these four congresswomen that the president is going after none of them are white?” Kaye asked.

Why haven’t they befriended one of their white female congresswoman colleagues and let her join the group?” Dena Miller asked. “They don’t like white people. C’mon, they’re racist.”

 

Clearly you aren't able to respond to what is said. A shame, but predictable.

 

Still no mention of this story in the MSM.

 

When the squad was asked to condemn the attack, ALL of them acted as if they had no clue it even happened which is scary. What’s frightening is if they actually knew about the incident and still refused to answer, that makes everything Trump is saying completely correct. How can any sitting Congressperson NOT condemn a confirmed terrorist attack on our soil? There is only 1 answer to this question. “YES!!! I reject ALL terror committed against us citizens.”

 

When Democrats won’t actually call Terrorism, Terrorism and won’t attach Muslim or Islam to the big bad T word, they are OF COURSE glossing over it. When they are scared out of their minds to connect Muslims in any way to terrorism but will instantly find any violent act and without proof, connect white supremacy, the Alt right, Republicans and Trump to it, they are playing a VERY dangerous game. They DARE claim that Trump is inciting violence and then pull that **** on an almost daily basis. It is the height of pure evil and an obvious attempt to create hatred and spread chaos. And their ultimate goal is what exactly? What are they trying to do labeling sometimes ALL white people as racists or bigots? If they’re not trying g to destroy the fabric of this country I don’t know what it’s supposed to be.

 

I'm not particularly interested in Trump. We can leave him to threads on legitimising racism and white supremacy.

I also find the "glossing over it" difficult to follow. We know that, despite declining incidents, jihadist attacks get significantly more media coverage. We also know that the only type of terrorism on an upward trend is right wing terrorism.

Now we should be concerned with any type of terrorism. It's clear that the threat of jihadist terrorism still exists. That is made more worrying through the risk of higher casualty rates. Some folk will argue that the risks are exaggerated (which you'd expect with the military industrial complex). However, what we see in this thread are right wingers ignoring the facts. That's a poor look!

 

That is because "we" are ignoring data readily available on wikipedia. Good gawd, the last 10 years has been an absolute orgy of Islamist bloodletting. The trend in number of attacks and death tolls is constantly upwards.

For comparison, last year had five times more Islamist attacks and twice as many fatalities as the entire decade of the 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

 

That's why they'll say things like "muh research shows", yet avoid the research in their own links that disproves their claims.

 

Please stop with the misinformation. You've been found out pretending data supports your position (e.g. data which doesn't give a left/right breakdown; data which doesn't disaggregate for trends; data which doesn't focus on incidents). I've demonstrated that by reference to the research. When asked to critique that research you did a runner!

 

Uh huh.

 

Yep. Already demonstrated how you're deliberately misrepresenting the data. Already given quotes from the research which prove what I said: left wing and jihadist forms are down; right wing is up. Already acknowledged that you can't critique that research.

 

Tlaib loves Americans.

 

Thats a fake.