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.

Anonymous wrote:Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

This. I expect the book burning to ramp up soon.

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.

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).

Prince Andrew anyone?

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 another that rates Trump’s sexual harassment accusations and his public “sexualizing” comments?

Is there an independent agency that lists Trump’s statements in context. Then rates them on the a continuum of calm to violence?

I’d love to see that.

At least they can’t scrub the video footage of Trump’s violent rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:Thankful for the Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140if_/https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/306123.pdf

Thanks for this article summarizing federally funded research on domestic terrorism. I like how the authors presented the federal awards discussed in the text.

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.

Only idiots who can’t think out their trust in AI.

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.

Clearly you don’t work with AI.

Not surprised. And you know things are going to get very, very dark in the U.S.

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.

Once again, Islamic extremism is irrelevant to the left/Right polemic. And OKC was Timothy McVeigh. Ultra-right wing anti-government. And Terry whoever. Another ultra-right wing terrorist.

Just for giggles, assume they included 9/11. What then?

Just looking since 2020, the right is responsible for twice as many incidents as the left. "Terrorism since 2020 paints a slightly different picture. Since January 1, 2020, terrorists have murdered 81 people in attacks on US soil that account for about 0.07 percent of all homicides during that time (estimated for 2025 so far). Right-wing terrorists account for over half of those murders, Islamists for 21 percent, left-wingers for 22 percent, and 1 percent had unknown or other motivations. There are not many politically motivated terrorist killings in the United States." https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states.

And for the years 2022, 23 and 24, the right is responsible for 100% of all politically motivated killings (according to MAGA's zionist buddies at the ADL). https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2024

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.

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.