DoJ Scrubbing Report on Right Wing Extremism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re more interested in shaping a narrative than in facts.

Patel yesterday stated there is no credible evidence Epstein was trafficking girls to others besides himself. I guess all those women are lying (according to him).

And Maxwell is in jail for...nothing? And Trump definitely wasn't alluding to some sick secret between he and Epstein.

Today Valhala Patel says there was a network!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They had some serious methodological issues. Perhaps the biggest being excluding 9/11.

Everyone who studies extremist violence excludes 9/11. Or is it just anyone who concludes right-wing violence is the problem? You know, the Cato Institute and the Anti-Defamation League? Or are you prepared to call both of them radical leftist organizations too since they conclude exactly the same thing. The problem is the right.

Oh, everyone excludes it. That makes it right rather than a sign of institutional bias. I’m sure everyone accurately categorized other events because they are unbiased experts.

9/11 was Islamic extremism you idiot. It has zero bearing when comparing left-wing to right-wing. Unless, the right wants to adopt them as being compatriots in the religious zealotry category.

Islamic extremism is one of the report’s categories. The report looks back to 1990 so it can include OKC, but then they need to pretend 9/11 didn’t happen to get the conclusions they wanted. Which is why this report is garbage and being pulled.
Hopefully the authors were fired and replaced with AI.

9/11 was foreign. The relevant characteristic is home-grown extremism. The right wing takes the cake for the last 20-30 years.

I took it as an admission that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Anonymous]

Also, once you start to poke around, you realize just how bad these reports are. Its basically a handful of people deciding what is right-wing and what is terrorism.

For example, this is right-wing terrorism:"Fountain Valley, California, December 2, 2024. Timothy Bradford Cole II, described by law enforcement as a documented white supremacist gang member, allegedly set fire to a bush outside a relative’s house in an attempt to catch the house on fire, as retaliation for a custody-related issue. Cole reportedly drove off when police found him near the home, but crashed into another vehicle, injuring two people and killing a third, Hong Ngoc Nguyen, a foreign exchange student from Vietnam. Authorities have charged Cole with murder, evading a police officer causing death, two counts of evading a police officer causing serious injury and arson of an inhabited structure.[25]"

Basically a custody dispute/car accident morphs into right-wing terrorism according to these hacks.

Probably not something to use to direct law-enforcement resources, but the past administration wanted to go after its enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They had some serious methodological issues. Perhaps the biggest being excluding 9/11.

Everyone who studies extremist violence excludes 9/11. Or is it just anyone who concludes right-wing violence is the problem? You know, the Cato Institute and the Anti-Defamation League? Or are you prepared to call both of them radical leftist organizations too since they conclude exactly the same thing. The problem is the right.

Oh, everyone excludes it. That makes it right rather than a sign of institutional bias. I’m sure everyone accurately categorized other events because they are unbiased experts.

9/11 was Islamic extremism you idiot. It has zero bearing when comparing left-wing to right-wing. Unless, the right wants to adopt them as being compatriots in the religious zealotry category.

By definition, the right *is* religious zealotry.

MAGA and al-Qaeda are two peas in a pod.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They had some serious methodological issues. Perhaps the biggest being excluding 9/11.

Everyone who studies extremist violence excludes 9/11. Or is it just anyone who concludes right-wing violence is the problem? You know, the Cato Institute and the Anti-Defamation League? Or are you prepared to call both of them radical leftist organizations too since they conclude exactly the same thing. The problem is the right.

Oh, everyone excludes it. That makes it right rather than a sign of institutional bias. I’m sure everyone accurately categorized other events because they are unbiased experts.

9/11 was Islamic extremism you idiot. It has zero bearing when comparing left-wing to right-wing. Unless, the right wants to adopt them as being compatriots in the religious zealotry category.

Islamic extremism is one of the report’s categories. The report looks back to 1990 so it can include OKC, but then they need to pretend 9/11 didn’t happen to get the conclusions they wanted. Which is why this report is garbage and being pulled.
Hopefully the authors were fired and replaced with AI.

MAGA love fake news so AI hallucinations are just fine for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, once you start to poke around, you realize just how bad these reports are. Its basically a handful of people deciding what is right-wing and what is terrorism.

For example, this is right-wing terrorism:"Fountain Valley, California, December 2, 2024. Timothy Bradford Cole II, described by law enforcement as a documented white supremacist gang member, allegedly set fire to a bush outside a relative’s house in an attempt to catch the house on fire, as retaliation for a custody-related issue. Cole reportedly drove off when police found him near the home, but crashed into another vehicle, injuring two people and killing a third, Hong Ngoc Nguyen, a foreign exchange student from Vietnam. Authorities have charged Cole with murder, evading a police officer causing death, two counts of evading a police officer causing serious injury and arson of an inhabited structure.[25]"

Basically a custody dispute/car accident morphs into right-wing terrorism according to these hacks.

Probably not something to use to direct law-enforcement resources, but the past administration wanted to go after its enemies.

The CATO report has damning numbers on right wing violence. I suppose you think that those guys are left leaning? Multiple studies conducted by different groups with their own methodologies point to the same conclusion =/= "handful of people deciding..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, once you start to poke around, you realize just how bad these reports are. Its basically a handful of people deciding what is right-wing and what is terrorism.

For example, this is right-wing terrorism:"Fountain Valley, California, December 2, 2024. Timothy Bradford Cole II, described by law enforcement as a documented white supremacist gang member, allegedly set fire to a bush outside a relative’s house in an attempt to catch the house on fire, as retaliation for a custody-related issue. Cole reportedly drove off when police found him near the home, but crashed into another vehicle, injuring two people and killing a third, Hong Ngoc Nguyen, a foreign exchange student from Vietnam. Authorities have charged Cole with murder, evading a police officer causing death, two counts of evading a police officer causing serious injury and arson of an inhabited structure.[25]"

Basically a custody dispute/car accident morphs into right-wing terrorism according to these hacks.

Probably not something to use to direct law-enforcement resources, but the past administration wanted to go after its enemies.

The CATO report has damning numbers on right wing violence. I suppose you think that those guys are left leaning? Multiple studies conducted by different groups with their own methodologies point to the same conclusion =/= "handful of people deciding..."

This is from the CATO report: The number of deaths in politically motivated terrorist attacks is so tiny that any statistical analysis is extremely fragile. However, there is one consistent finding from analyses of politically motivated terrorism: there aren’t many deaths. Thus, their small numbers mean it’s important to intensely analyze individual politically motivated terrorist offenses because the inclusion or exclusion of just a few killers or misclassification makes a big difference in the final tally.