The Terror Attack You Probably Didn't Hear About

a reply to: SprocketUK

A government report from last year identified 85 successful terrorist attacks in the US between Sept 12, 2001 and Dec 31, 2016. Of those, 62 (74%) were attributed to violent far-right extremists. In terms the deaths resultant from these acts Islamic terrorism was slightly more deadly with 119 deaths compared to the 106 caused by violent far-right extremists. It is worth noting that almost half of those deaths (41%) caused by Islamic terrorists came from a single event, the Orlando nightclub shooting. Prior to that domestic terrorism was more deadly.

Now obviously this report doesn't include numbers from 2017. If we take those into account, domestic terrorism has resulted in more deaths primarily due to the Las Vegas shooting.

So while domestic terror incidents may result in fewer deaths per incident the fact that it occurs at nearly three times the rate as Islamic terrorism more than makes up for the fact. To state that domestic terrorism is not a real threat to US citizens ignores the numbers. It is as much a threat if not more so.

a reply to: antar

After his arrest Wilson's mental health was originally called in to question. Following a psych evaluation he was deemed competent.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

the bigger yet seemingly overlooked story here is that this is confirmation that the media wont cover anything unless instructed to by the DOJ...

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

How else would they have found out that someone was charged with terrorism? Do you think CNN has people hired to daily check every court docket in the country just to see if someone has been charged with terrorism?

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

I have not seen anyone post about the why. Who was he trying to intimidate or coerce? what policy was he trying to influence? what conduct was he trying to affect?

If you cannot answer these questions, all you are really doing is just dividing people, and showing your own biases and prejudges

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Like I said, to me it looks like someone in the FBI or DOJ had a hard on for this guy. Someone who has a real personal hatred for scum racist neo Nazi types. I think they ran across this and decided to make his day even worse...make him pay for his racist ways. I don't think many in the FBI or DOJ would defend him from one of their own...especially if that person had some real clout or influence. They also wouldn't want to attract attention to what was happening...less questions the better for them all.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

We'll have to wait until the trial to see what all the FBI uncovered in their investigation. That said he had clear ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and had expressed in the past an interest to kill black people. I'm guessing his motivation has something to do with those factors.

a reply to: RickyD

Not sure I buy that. If you read his criminal complaint, he was charged for exactly what he did.

18 USC 1992(a)(1) & (b)(1)

18 U.S. Code § 1992 - Terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air; (a)General Prohibitions.—Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c), knowingly and without lawful authority or permission—
(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables railroad on-track equipment or a mass transportation vehicle; (b)Aggravated Offense.—Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section in a circumstance in which—
(1) the railroad on-track equipment or mass transportation vehicle was carrying a passenger or employee at the time of the offense;

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fair enough...I kinda have to agree after reading that...he did exactly what would get him charged with terrorism even if he didnt mean it to be. Maybe the locals and FBI were slow to liaison with each other on this.

a reply to: Xcalibur254



What made the Vegas guy a terrorist?

I thought he was another nutjob. What organisation was his shooting in the name of ?

a reply to: RickyD

It looks like it took a while to get warrants for his "stuff." FBI tried to interview him two days after the initial incident, he wouldn't talk to him. Locals took about a week to get a warrant through for his phone, then it took another month or so to get multiple interviews done and a warrant for his residence. ATF had to get involved because of the firearms they seized at his residence, more interviews, etc.

Not the fastest turnaround time from start to finish, but not altogether out of line either.

Well I definitely heard about this as this happened in my state.

I didn't understand why they initially charged him with terrorism at first, because the info about his cache and his affiliation weren't reported right away.

a reply to: SprocketUK

To be fair, I'm not sure I would necessarily categorize it as terrorism either. That said, every list I have found of terror attacks in the US has it listed.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't understand why you people throw out this: "Despite the fact that domestic terrorism has been responsible for more deaths than foreign terrorism it seems like law enforcement has been conditioned to not see it as a major threat."

What domestic terrorism are you talking about? The Las Vegas thing where 58 people died wasn't an act of Terrorism, it was terrifying, but it was a lone wolf nutter with severe mental disease, not politically motivated. Terrorism is "networked" politically motivated attacks perpetrated by ideological "groups" or associations like Al Queda.

I don't get the numbers on that at all.

a reply to: TonyS

Here is the report I referred to in an earlier post. Appendix II is the section you'll be most interested in.

There you go, liberals. THAT'S a racist.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: SprocketUK

To be fair, I'm not sure I would necessarily categorize it as terrorism either. That said, every list I have found of terror attacks in the US has it listed.

Males you wonder at the veracity of that list and, the motivation of those who compiled it, doesn't it?

a reply to: SprocketUK

Like I said, it wasn't just one list. It was multiple lists. From a wide variety of sources. So, at least in the collective unconscious, that event is considered a terror attack.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Not the wider one though. Even you doubt that one.
There is a tendency to echo chamber stuff like this especially when the price for diverging from the narrative professional ostracism.

I like logic. However there is none in the OP.
Apparently if a white supremacist does something it is immediately terrorism, as explained by a few here.
How comes then that 9 out of 10 muslims who do something are not terrorists but misunderstood or on drugs or bullied at school?
Very rarely is anything a muslim does called terrorism these days. Yes, people call it that but not officials or the news.

It is almost always downplayed despite almost all terrorist attacks are done by people of the islamic faith, one of them even admitting he ran people over because of the treatment of muslims.
Still, not terrorism, because muslims are peaceful and the hordes of muslim terrorists are just a concidence.


But when it comes to white supremacists, wow everything they do is instantly terrorism. They don't get the 'I've been bullied' card to play, they don't get the 'I'm actually insane' card either.

So it's the other way round to what OP claims. Whites = terrorism [i.e deliberate], muslims = peaceful [despite having killed far more people in the last few years...and more regularly].