Depends on where you want to start counting numbers. There’s been a rise in right wing violence across the globe over the last 20 years, most people who make the argument you do tend to start counting in the late 90s. The Oklahoma City bombing was obviously right wing, and horrible, but it also accounts for 77% of right wing violence.
"77% of right wing violence"? Are you referring to fatalities? I don't know what that even means, and it requires a source link.
Here's some more information to clarify this:
The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.
www.csis.org
This is the study cited in the wiki I linked earlier.
As to fatalities:
In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.
There were 168 deaths in the Oklahoma City Bombing. So if we really want to be nice here, let's just say we start the year after that, shall we? That leaves 167 deaths caused by right wing extremists since then, versus 22 or less from the left. If my maths are solid, that's a ratio of about 7.5:1.
As to the number of attacks, it looks even worse for the far right I'm afraid. Look over the link, or just recall that this study has concluded that they are responsible for 90% of all the domestic terror attacks this year.
There were a few left wing terror cells in the 60s and 70s who were fond of bombs, like the ones who blew themselves up in Greenwich village.
Marxist, revolutionary and other left wing terrorist organizations have certainly been more active at times in my lifetime.
Yeah see, the problem here is that you were making a comment about the
current political climate and
current proclivities of each ideological group. Specifically, you made a prediction about what might happen in the
immediate future.
Given that is our framework for discussion, it rather seems like bad faith to be going back 40-50 years to make your point. It's like saying the democrats are the racist party because of all the southern democrats who were in the KKK during the Jim Crow era. See the problem?
The Bugaloo movement and the Proud Boys may be right wing, yet a Bugaloo would kill a Proud Boy to instigate a civil war.
So what? You're flailing here against the facts.
There was a momentary spike of left wing violence in the mid 2000s attributed to attacks on animal research and farming, but animal rights and environmental activists are not the same as anarchists, and destruction of property or intimidation are certainly acts of terrorism.
What I see on the streets are groups of agitators representative of both political extremes, and violence from both have resulted in numerous incidents of assault and a few fatalities.
Uh huh, but the far right is more violent than the far left in today's America. It's a fact. This started with you making a comparison of possible future violence which was quite unflattering to the left. That assumption runs contrary to known facts.
Facebook
Twitter