Right-wing extremists responsible for majority of deadly terrorist attacks last year

[Bodakane]

People on the far right don't operate on facts, they operate on feelings, no matter what region they are from.

[Forogil]

Yeah, I don't get the controversy here. Maybe some right-wingers just want to argue in bad faith and claim Islamic terrorism is left-wing so they have something to point to? A Venn diagram is more useful here than just black and white labeling.

The point was that they are best understood as neither left- nor right-wing, while some argue in bad faith and try to put them as right-wing.

A Venn-diagram might be more useful, but also misleading for several reasons.

However, if you insist and constructed such a diagram the likely result would be that left-wing terrorist were dominating in terms of terrorist attacks in 2019 in the EU (but not in the US) - more below.

Specifically Islamic terrorism is inherently neither right- or left-wing; and some organizations span people with different political stance. Historically it is more complicated as some that we might think of as historic Islamic terrorist (e.g., Libya under Ghaddafi) were in fact fairly non-fundamentalist.
A Venn diagram misses that by trying to put all the labels on everyone, ignoring the importance of the different beliefs for the different persons.
Even with the label "right-wing terrorists" there might be different groups that are only loosely coupled; and additionally in several summaries many of the victims of many terrorism attacks belong to the roughly same group as the attacker - indicating that there are also internal power-struggles.

Similarly ethno-separatists (leading in terms of attacks in Europe, but no longer in the EU) are neither inherently right- or left-wing; although many also have political views.

Specifically in Europe the majority of the terrorism attacks were made related to N. Ireland, and I would assume by a group calling themselves IRA (the variants of IRA are normally labels given by others). The IRA has historically been socialist, similar as Sinn Fein - but the troubles is normally not understood as a primarily right- vs. left-wing conflict. (One might also claim that it is just over-reporting by the uk.)

[Felya]

The point was that they are best understood as neither left- nor right-wing, while some argue in bad faith and try to put them as right-wing.

It’s inherently right wing... there is nothing muddying the waters, other than the fact that American terrorist, are also extremely anti muslim.

- - - Updated - - -

Even with the label "right-wing terrorists" there might be different groups that are only loosely coupled

They are coupled by where they reside on the political spectrum, with the left being progressive and the right being regressive. A scope in which its being discussed...

[Endus]

The point was that they are best understood as neither left- nor right-wing, while some argue in bad faith and try to put them as right-wing.

Islamic terrorists are definitively far-right-wing. If that fact is challenging your understanding, the problem doesn't lie with the labelling, but your flawed understanding.

Historically it is more complicated as some that we might think of as historic Islamic terrorist (e.g., Libya under Ghaddafi) were in fact fairly non-fundamentalist.

Most Islamic terror organizations are primarily geo-political in ideology, and only use the trappings of religion as dressing for those geopolitical aims. That's why they're targeting geopolitical opponents and targets rather than religious ones. Al-Qaeda didn't set planes to hit the Twin Towers because the USA was Christian and they were Muslim; they did so because of geopolitical actions taken by the USA in the Middle East.

Even with the label "right-wing terrorists" there might be different groups that are only loosely coupled; and additionally in several summaries many of the victims of many terrorism attacks belong to the roughly same group as the attacker - indicating that there are also internal power-struggles.

And? "Right-wing" is a super-broad designation. It encapsulates a wide range. Variances within that range don't work against the label.

[Forogil]

It’s inherently right wing...

Ah, yes, the islamic socialist terrorist were also right-wing. Just close your eyes and white and black become the same.

[Felya]

Ah, yes, the islamic socialist terrorist were also right-wing. Just close your eyes and white and black become the same.

Right wing is a spectrum... it’s not a single point... event confining it to extreme right wing, is still a spectrum...

Edit: By the way... if you continue applying “Liberal Fascism” logic to Middle Eastern terrorism, the similarities of making such an application by American terrorist to defend their fascism... should at least imply some similarity.

[Elegiac]

Ah, yes, the islamic socialist terrorist were also right-wing. Just close your eyes and white and black become the same.

You do realise this just counters your own point, right? It's almost as if the thing distinguishing the type of terrorism is its political lean rather than its immediate cultural origin and that efforts to perpetuate the latter service an us vs. them narrative.

[Machismo]

Are people really trying to argue that fundamentalist Islamists aren't conservatives?

[Felya]

You do realise this just counters your own point, right? It's almost as if the thing distinguishing the type of terrorism is its political lean rather than its immediate cultural origin and that efforts to perpetuate the latter service an us vs. them narrative.

He used the same ‘why were nazis called nationalist socialist if they were right wing’ used by American far right, to claim that middle eastern terrorism is different. He only changed one noun...

[Elegiac]

Are people really trying to argue that fundamentalist Islamists aren't conservatives?

Yep, because Islamic liberals who have done a terrorism exist therefore Islamism isn't a reactionary nationalist movement seeking to appeal to past glories to justify present hierarchy and oppression. You heard it here first, lol.

[Machismo]

Yep, because Islamic liberals who have done a terrorism exist therefore Islamism isn't a reactionary nationalist movement seeking to appeal to past glories to justify present hierarchy and oppression. You heard it here first, lol.

Apparently, forcing women to marry terrorists, and enacting strict religious law is a progressive ideology to some people...

[Felya]

Apparently, forcing women to marry terrorists, and enacting strict religious law is a progressive ideology to some people...

You can go more luddite and simply point to the demand to return to previous time... it’s that simple...

[Elegiac]

Apparently, forcing women to marry terrorists, and enacting strict religious law is a progressive ideology to some people...

The idea that western nationalism is a purely secular ideological movement is honestly pretty fucking laughable, just gonna say. It's one of the other narratives that gets repeated to try and further an idea of European exceptionalism when really... humans be humans, and the motivations for right wing ideology are actually pretty fuckin' base.

[Machismo]

The idea that western nationalism is a purely secular ideological movement is honestly pretty fucking laughable, just gonna say. It's one of the other narratives that gets repeated to try and further an idea of European exceptionalism when really... humans be humans, and the motivations for right wing ideology are actually pretty fuckin' base.

Yes, this is the bullshit narrative that groups like the Proud Boys like to push, to pretend it's not about racism.

Only idiots buy into the lie.

- - - Updated - - -

You can go more luddite and simply point to the demand to return to previous time... it’s that simple...

I get wanting to make a distinction between types of right-wing ideologies and terrorism... but to deny simple reality is a bit absurd.

[Felya]

I get wanting to make a distinction between types of right-wing ideologies and terrorism... but to deny simple reality is a bit absurd.

I don’t... I shouldn’t have to explain that political spectrum is a spectrum... It’s muddying the waters, be it for their “side” or a misguided quest for fairness and balance. Beyond that, I don’t get it at all...

[Forogil]

You do realise this just counters your own point, right?

You realize I was being sarcastic?
And, no, people didn't think of terrorist that were part of "islamic socialism" groups as left-wing terrorists, because neither was the most prominent part of their terrorism.

Similarly the terrorist in N. Ireland aren't seen as left-wing, but as separatists or ethno-nationalists.

- - - Updated - - -

You can go more luddite and simply point to the demand to return to previous time... it’s that simple...

The nascent eco-terrorists also want to return to previous times.

[Felya]

The nascent eco-terrorists also want to return to previous times.

What is this supposed to mean?

- - - Updated - - -

And, no, people didn't think of terrorist that were part of "islamic socialism" groups as left-wing terrorists, because neither was the most prominent part of their terrorism.

How is this different from someone arguing that nazis were not right wing, because they were national socialist? That is not a legitimate argument...

[Elegiac]

And, no, people didn't think of terrorist that were part of "islamic socialism" groups as left-wing terrorists, because neither was the most prominent part of their terrorism.

Similarly the terrorist in N. Ireland aren't seen as left-wing, but as separatists or ethno-nationalists.

It's almost as if these popular distinctions are not actually reflective of reality but are instead propagated in order to service dominant cultural narratives.

Shocking. Truly, shocking.

- - - Updated - - -

The nascent eco-terrorists also want to return to previous times.

No, actually; their issue is a hierarchy and system they believe perpetuates injustice against people and the planet. That makes them left wing. There are, however, folks that espouse (ostensibly) environmentalist policies in order to further an agenda of oppression and extermination, usually in the form of eugenics disguised as population control. We call them eco-fascists, which are right wing.

And the point is that left wing terrorism isn't as remotely as much of a problem as right wing terrorism because shockingly enough people who don't like hierarchy and oppression also tend to be pretty averse to killing innocents to make a political statement.

[Forogil]

What is this supposed to mean?

I'm unsure what you have problem understanding.
Here are some terms that might help you:

Nascent: Emerging; just coming into existence.
Eco-terrorism: An act of violence committed in support of environmental causes, against people or property. Many eco-terrorist want to return earth to pre-industrial times. (Examples of eco-terrorists are ELF and likely Ted Kaczynski).
Return: To come or go back (to a place or person).
Pre-industrial times: Before the industrial revolution, starting about 1750.

So, according to your logic they are right-wing because they want to return to pre-industrial times. Few others agree. Europol sometimes lists them under "single-issue terrorists", after the main ones of Jihadist; ethno-nationalist and separatists; left-wing and anarchism; and right-wing.

[Elegiac]

So, according to your logic they are right-wing because they want to return to pre-industrial times. Few others agree. Europol sometimes lists them under "single-issue terrorists", after the main ones of Jihadist; ethno-nationalist and separatists; left-wing and anarchism; and right-wing.

Remind me why we give a shit what Europol thinks, besides an appeal to authority fallacy?