> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Link: https://archive.is/2024.10.24-222147/https://nij.ojp.gov/top...
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.
But I suppose it might depend on the point of the study. If the point is "what dangers should people in the US be worried about", then it's absolutely a cherry-pick. If international terrorists kill you, you're still just as dead. But if the point is "where should law enforcement focus its efforts", and if international terrorism is not the responsibility of the same people, then the distinction matters.
Note "not a responsibility" is different from "not primarily the responsibility".
If domestic islamic terrorists aren't as active as everyone think, maybe we can do with less surveillance, no?
To be honest in my country, domestic islamic terrorism killed more than any other terrorism since 2014, and even more than police, and I still don't like the surveillance state we have, it's still to much.