Would you like to point out one left-wing terrorist group equivalent to the Boogaloo, the Proud Boys or this bunch of loonies who plotted to kidnap a middle-aged woman?
Edit: of course not. It's easier to downvote.
Edit: of course not. It's easier to downvote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front
I think they were the first domestic terrorists.
I don't see any such attack by any left-leaning group.
And blow up a bridge and potentially attack law enforcement while they're at it.
I consider this bombing a decent success though. :)
Hyperbole much?
If the far right groups were reacting to being habitually killed/beaten by the state, and if one of their primary stated goals wasn't to kill/beat people purely for being on the other side of politics, then yes, they would be equivalent. But those two differences are enormous.
This 24-year old mother was killed for arguing with BLM supporters: https://www.foxnews.com/us/indiana-woman-shot-killed-argumen...
In 2016, 5 police were killed, and 9 others injured by Micah Xavier Johnson, who "was angry over police shootings of black men. He stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
It seems odd to bring up the death of Heather Heyer in the article, but omit these.
That's a very biased description of this altercation. Regardless, it's clear from the sparse and strained examples given in replies to the parent question (ELF, Weather Underground, BLM, antifa) that the difference is stark. The closest thing to contrary evidence is the individual you mentioned retaliating against the police, and yet even that most extreme example still illustrates the difference. The groups the president encourages are much more exclusively motivated by simpler, more irrational, ideologically-rooted hatred, and, critically, are organized around that tenet. They aren't just angry protestors lashing out unproductively in response to an enormous injustice - they want to beat/kill/expel people for being liberal or minorities or immigrants or Muslim. They're an explicit threat to society itself.
"A man who said he was fed up with racism against black people was convicted of killing four white men in a race-related rampage in California's Central Valley" -- https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-man-guilty-ki...
"Aaron J. Danielson, an American supporter of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, was shot dead in Portland, Oregon, allegedly by—from all available evidence—Michael Forest Reinoehl, a member of the far-left Antifa movement." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...
"a Nebraska antifa group published a list of names and photographs of 1,595 ICE officials [..] Activists of the group said through a bullhorn that Carlson was promoting hate and chanted "We will fight, we know where you sleep at night!"" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#2018%E2...
2 police shot in ambush, then protesters shouting slogans like "Death to the police!" showed up to the hospital treating them: https://www.foxnews.com/us/protesters-hospital-los-angeles-s...
"James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
Let me know when you have enough examples that you won't call them "sparse".
> and, critically, are organized around that tenet. They aren't just angry protestors
A few of the above examples seem quite organized. And the way they chase down a car that evaded their blockade, box him in with two cars, and try to drag him out of the car, looks very organized as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZRMIt2uvwY
> lashing out unproductively
"Half of the Fortune 100 pledge $2B to fight inequality" -- https://www.axios.com/half-fortune-100-pledge-fight-inequali...
University of Southern Maine asks students and faculty to sign BLM statement and antiracism pledge -- https://reason.com/2020/08/07/university-of-southern-maine-a...
> in response to an enormous injustice
https://archive.is/o/tNht3/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-... claims there's no racial bias. If you don't trust it, you can check the statistics [1,2] yourself: non-Hispanic whites are 2.4x more likely than blacks to be killed by police (2.7x more if counting only unarmed deaths), per comitted homicide. Using homicide as proxy for violent crime because it's unaffected by biased or excessive policing.
I won't deny there's often injustice to police killings, but if there's racial bias, it's (on average) not in the direction you think. Or do you think I should not have normalized to violent crime, but to population? If so, then do you also believe the police is massively biased against males aged 20-30, much much more than against blacks?
[1] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
My "unproductive" remark was meant to include long term and perhaps indirect consequences, and was only provided as a charity to the opposite argument.
As for the police injustices, I already don't take a strong stance on exactly how pronounced the role of race is, aside from the obvious corollary aspect (i.e. not necessarily causative), but that's why I don't argue in defense of one race. I don't think these examples refute my premise, or the practical significance of it.