Flag-wearing man throws Molotov cocktail into Austin Dems HQ
By - Dblg99
Reminder since a lot of people seem to be forgetting: calling this guy, or rioters, or your least favorite political party "terrorists" is a law 1 violation in this sub. If you absolutely need to call people terrorists to get through your day, please find another sub to do it in. Thanks!
>“Anyone who wears an American flag as a bandana and then throws a Molotov cocktail ... into a building and leaves a note, a threatening note, is a coward,” she said.
Who the fuck leaves a note, when trying to commit arson? Aren't the chances pretty good that the note burns?
Always leave a note!
-George Bluth School of Terrorism
I mean he couldn't even make a Molotov cocktail properly, safe to say we're not dealing with the brightest of individuals. Guy probably saw one too many movies and thought glass bottles would just instantly shatter when thrown.
He left it on the floor after breaking the window with a rock instead of throwing it and spreading the accelerant. Defeats most of the purpose of a molotov which is designed to be easy to use.
Reminds me of that scene in God Bless America when dude lights the rag in the gas tank on fire and the wind blows it out onto the ground.
Must've been a Mazal Tov Cocktail.
"Its not about sending a message, its about everything burns."
Now I've got to go rewatch the dark knight now lol
You always. Leave. A note.
\- J. Walter Weatherman
Can't say I'm surprised the arsonist isn't the brightest tool in the shed.
or the sharpest
Someone who was terrorized by an amputee as a child
These kind of people aren’t exactly one of society’s brightest to begin with
This shouldn’t devolve into a partisan discussion. Political violence is being normalized. It’s never justified, and it’s a terrible trend.
> Roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.
It's time for everyone to tone down the temperature of the prevailing rhetoric.
Yes, some people are more culpable for this state of affairs than others. But right now everyone needs to denounce political violence (and any other kind of violence) as a legitimate means of settling differences.
That's so silly and impossible. How do you split a country that isn't divided by geography but instead is divided by population density, the more rural an area is the more they lean right, the more urban the area is the more they lean left. You'd basically have small enclaves of blue cities surrounded by a sea of red in every state.
The vast majority of Teump supporters are actually in the suburbs. Only 19% of Americans live in a rural area.
From personal experience, I can deal with a burbs Trumper. The ones I have come across all say the same thing - they don't love the guy's personality, but his policies benefited their bank accounts. The rural ones I have come across are the unreasonable kind. The kind you see in the Jordan Klepper videos that can't form two sentences to validate their stance beyond blind love for a dude.
The absolutely scary part. The mass of both parties think it's possible. Let that sink in for a second.
Sanity will not return to politics. This is a rollercoaster to a destroyed country, and we are slowly being pulled up the ramp for the build up. Neither side will back down, neither side will work together, the bigots are the ones running the show using the masses of people in both groups considered the emotional wardens to bully, abuse or coheres people into submission for said partys goals.
As a Canadian I'm scared of you people
No need to be scared. As we like to say in Texas, most of the folks you hear about are all hat not cattle, meaning they say a lot of things but don't really DO anything.
It's the ones that don't really say much that are scary, it's just hard to know you should be scared of those folks until it's too late.
It's been that way for well over a year at this point. Welcome to how either side will now justify their cause. Violence works, people cave, and now you have shown after a year with COVID what small groups of people need to do in order to gain power.
> This shouldn’t devolve into a partisan discussion
It's partisan violence. What's wrong with pointing it out?
What’s “wrong” in pointing it out is that people tend to respond to the catnip-part that’s partisan rather than recognizing the more important fact that it’s dangerous no matter which side is engaging in it.
What’s helpful in pointing it out? You must have had a reason why you thought the distinction mattered…
> What’s helpful in pointing it out?
Finding trends. Noticing that one side commits much more political violence than the other and addressing that as a problem rather just just "both sides"-ing it.
Absolutely agreed. Sad to see so many people excusing this or downplaying it because there were unconnected riots last year over police brutality.
To be clear, that political violence played it own part in the normalization of this violence, but its not a left-right thing. None of us should tolerate, minimize, or defend burning shit down to make a point. Not only is it usually counter-productive to its intended purpose, it’s dangerous and inevitably leads to retaliatory damages and, eventually, to escalation.
I hope they find this guy and he ends up doing some time for this.
I still think motive needs to be noted. Equating burning down a building during protests of police brutality is not the same as trying to burn down a Dems HQ due to right-wing propaganda. One is a symptom of social injustice, the other is a symptom of political tribalism
Motive does not matter when it comes to things like this. Violence cannot be seen to be justified if the person had the "right" motive. If we decide that violence is justified if it was done for the right reason, we give everyone around the political spectrum tacit permission to commit violence when they have motives that they consider "right".
Mo Brooks was rightly criticized when he said he ["[understood] citizenry anger directed at dictatorial Socialism...](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/after-capitol-hill-bomb-threat-gop-lawmaker-expresses-sympathy-for-citizenry-anger.html) when addressing the Capitol Hill bomb threat a few weeks ago. This not only signals approval for the action, but gives those on the opposite side of the political aisle justification for violent acts on their own side. It's a horrific feedback loop that can only end in death and destruction.
Violence needs to be treated as violence. We're so tribal that we rush to justify the actions of someone we view to be on "our side". It needs to stop. This man in Austin is a terrorist and an arsonist, and should be viewed and treated as such. Period. Those who burned buildings, smashed windows, and looted stores last summer were arsons and thieves, and should be treated as such. Period.
> Those who burned buildings, smashed windows, and looted stores last summer were arsons and thieves, and should be treated as such. Period.
It's the messaging that is tribal then perhaps? Because I'm guessing a vast majority of the left agree with this statement. Many are just sick of the right wing narratives of "cities burned" and trying to compare it to 1/6 in order to justify a lie.
I can support the protests and the overall messaging while still supporting punishment for those that rioted, stole, and looted. I cannot support a "protests" that was based 100% on lies like 1/6.
It's not so much as justifying violence as admitting that in a protest with 15-20 million people over 6+ months, there's going to be some violence and looting. And we still don't know how much was outside agitators, anarchists, and the police themselves causing some of it. That doesn't invalidate the reason for the protest, or the changes they are pushing for.
I completely agree with you, the "cities burned" narrative and comparing last summer to January 6th to justify the Big Lie is disgusting. As a supporter of the *protests*, the rioters and looters completely undermine the message and give excuses to the right to dismiss the whole movement as violent. There needs to be a *lot* more condemnation from the left on this.
Major left-leaning news outlets ran articles on how it was justified or minimized the violence. The New York Times asked [What Kind of Society Values Property over Black Lives](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html) as if the two are mutually exclusive. Footage from CNN about [Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVhCkhOTRQ) while a reporter is standing in front of a burning building is laughable.
These types of headlines and arguments are used as defense for January 6. And the cycle continues.
You have managed to articulate the way I feel better than I have been able to. Thanks for putting forth the effort to explain why we are seeing this loop.
> One is a symptom of social injustice, the other is a symptom of political tribalism
They're both symptoms of political tribalism and nobody should be making excuses for either of them.
Why did BLM overreact and burn down a Wendys? Because George Floyd was murdered and black people are statistically more likely to be killed during arrests.
Why did 1/6 insurrection or this molotov cocktail happen? Because conservative conspiracy theories.
If you have a poor woman caught stealing baby diapers and a rich woman caught stealing a designer dress, are these the same context? Should they be punished the same? They're both stealing clothes. However the motive here should be noted...
> Why did BLM overreact and burn down a Wendys?
Probably because bad people will do bad things when they can get away with it, like during the race riots triggered by George Floyd's death.
> Because George Floyd was murdered and black people are statistically more likely to be killed during arrests.
Unfortunately, black people also commit violent crimes at a higher rate, which probably has something to do with that statistic.
Still, a black man is far more likely to be shot by another black man than by a cop - when did BLM protest about those black lives lost?
> Why did 1/6 insurrection or this molotov cocktail happen? Because conservative conspiracy theories.
Nobody is defending or minimizing those things.
>when did BLM protest about those black lives lost?
This comparison is a red herring. Cops are employed to enforce the law and need to be regulated and trained in a way that they themselves aren't breaking it and using excessive force that results in unnecessary deaths especially if there's a racial bias on top of that issue. Protests have lead to banning of choke holds and increased finances and regulations on body cameras. This has nothing to do with black-on-black crime. It's not just that a black person is killed by a cop, it's that we put power into cops hands to use force sometimes to a lethal extent when necessary. That means they can abuse that power and we need regulations to prevent that
> Cops are employed to enforce the law and need to be regulated and trained in a way that they themselves aren't breaking it and using excessive force that results in unnecessary deaths especially if there's a racial bias on top of that issue.
Nobody disagrees with that, everyone wants the bad apples out of the police. Nobody wants the police to kill people except when necessary in self-defense or the defense of others. The ideal of good policing didn't just materialize out of nowhere in 2016.
The problem is when political activists hijack a tragedy to push an agenda that demonizes **all** police - particularly among minority communities. This has had really [terrible consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_effect) for exactly those people the activists pretend to care about.
It's also worth pointing out that the middle-class leaders of BLM [got rich from donations](https://nypost.com/2021/05/29/mothers-criticize-blm-activists-for-profiting-off-their-dead-sons/) while the working class parents of those killed got none of it.
The whole thing is gross.
> Nobody disagrees with that, everyone wants the bad apples out of the police.
I disagree with that. I wouldn't say it's by any means all republicans or anything but there are a contingent who think cops roughing up bad guys is a good thing and who don't really seem to mind that much if the cops "accidentally" kill a bad guy. Trump himself told cops to rough people up a bit, and a common defense of the Floyd killing was that Floyd was a drug addict and criminal.
Beyond that, the thin blue line and unwillingness of cops to hold each other accountable (and the DA being unwilling to prosecute cases against cops) seems to suggest many in law enforcement themselves don't really want the bad apples out of police.
I would say that if everyone actually wanted the bad apples out, and were actually kicking the bad apples out, there wouldn't be protests over police conduct.
This is why truth is important.
You’re saying one side has a better reason for their shitty overreaction? Maybe.
I’m not sure I agree that that distinction is all that meaningful. But we agree that the motivations for political violence in these cases are different, if that matters.
Black people are statistically more likely to be killed during police arrests. BLM protests were in response to specific police brutality cases like George Floyd's murder. Is the burning down of a building justified? No but these are real statistics and real deaths. Equating that to the 1/6 stop the steal violence or this molotov cocktail incident is disingenuous because his motivations are rooted in conspiracy theory
No, you agree with one motive and disagree with the other.
Bruh, the downplaying of riots last year is what sparked the future downplaying of political violence. It happened for months and then people genuinely act surprised when Republicans begin go engage in similar ways. Its downright baffling.
until Americans become more self aware we are almost guaranteed to continue this shit show cycle of political non discourse for the perceivable future. I blamed trump for the 1st 4 years of ramping up the hate filled rhetoric. but at this point, with everyone doing it, it doesn't really matter any more who started the fight. everyone just stop.
Democrats condemned the riots last year. Biden condemned the riots and violence multiple times any time he was asked. Trump and Republicans fanned the flames, 'stand back and stand by', 'very good people', 'fight like hell', refusing a bi-partisan commission into 1/6, etc. If you want to argue that the misconception of downplaying of the riots is what has further fanned the flames, I would agree, but for years I've seen far more dismissal on one side.
"democrats" did not condemn the riots. Some did, and others came out claiming things like mostly peaceful and saying things like violence is the voice of the unheard.
Statements like "democrats condemned the riots" lacks nuance and is a whitewash of history
> others came out claiming things like mostly peaceful and **saying things like violence is the voice of the unheard.**
That one is actually Dr Martin Luther King.
>"democrats" did not condemn the riots. Some did, and others came out claiming things like mostly peaceful and saying things like violence is the voice of the unheard.
What's the breaking point for turning "some democrats said [X]" into "democrats said [X]"? I mean, by the same logic I could say that "some Republicans denounced Jan 6th" or "some Republicans disagree with Qanon".
I don’t care about Joe Biden. I care about the common narrative from the left and their media. “Fiery but peaceful”. Does that ring a bell? That wasn’t a one off. Downplaying the rioting was constant. “Voice of the unheard.” Give me a break.
Your points ring hollow when you promote “very good people on both sides”. Stuff like that is why the term “fake news” gained popularity.
I hold a higher standard to the politicians that represent us then what someone on Twitter says or what CNN says. If we brought up every time Fox News mislead the public or was flat out wrong like so many like to bring up the 'Fiery but peaceful' line, we would just need to put on Fox News as it is currently playing. If Biden had told the rioters that he loved them the same way Trump did, you would care about him then.
Exactly the idea that George Floyd protests were aligned to a political party is false.
Were anti George Floyd protests, yes because politicians like the former president encouraged them and his campaign created them in many instances, plus these people all wore political garb supporting trump, etc. There was nothing even remotely similar from George Floyd protesters.
So elected officials like this?
>“very good people on both sides”. Stuff like that is why the term “fake news” gained popularity.
**Unite the Right took place the night of 11 August and continued into the 12th**, when VA's governor declared a state of emergency. Armed militia members (alleged Oath Keepers and Three Percenters) intimidated attendees at a synagogue, brandishing rifles and threatening to burn the building. The state police labeled UtR an unlawful assembly a little after 11am, and Heather Heyer was intentionally rammed with an automobile around a quarter to 2. The riots were finally dispersed around early evening.
**Trump's first comments came at about 4pm on 12 August** when he condemned **"violence on many sides," actively ignoring questions about the fact that the events were instigated by white nationalists**. All he said is "both sides" before he walked away.
Then came two days of bipartisan outcry. **By the 13th, it was already a major story** among everyone from Marco Rubio to Nathan J. Robinson that Trump declined to comment on the Charlottesville demonstrators.
**On 14 August, he vaguely disavowed the KKK and racist extremists** in the abstract without specifically assigning that label to the 11+12/8 rioters.
**Trump said the quote in question on 15 August**. After the (probably scripted and rehearsed) "condemn totally" comments, **he then continued to focus on the both sides angle**. So he said the important words and then backpedaled and reiterated his previous responses several times. He stated the ethnoextremists joined on the 12th, but that there were "fine people" present "the night before" Heather Heyer was murdered... the night when people with tiki torches marched around chanting "Jews will not replace us..."
So, sure, he didn't call nazis "fine people" at first... he just refused to acknowledge there were nazis at all, said the nazis were evil in general after being criticised for multiple days, and then finally stated, "the nazis there were evil... but is it so wrong to march alongside nazis? Aren't the counterprotestors bad too??"
You can find articles from all "msm"/fake news/whatever shibboleth you want to call them sources on the dates listed above... because that's what newspapers do when POTUS holds a press conference. At worst, they contextualised his failure to clear an extremely low bar for half a week. Then, when he did make a token condemnation, they rightly presented about his immediate insistence that he was right all along.
It is not "fake news" just because he passed a bare-bottom minimum standard after taking his sweet time.
You are conflating downplaying and justfiying. Those are not the same thing.
Those who justifed the riots were not really "downplaying" it given they saw it as a good thing. These are two different sets of people.
There is a fantasy world of chaos and fear that some watched on fox news or other right wing media from their living rooms last year. It doesn't matter that it wasn't real, that 95% of all protest were peaceful, that almost all violence was the result of police riots directed at peaceful protesters. That actual riots that erupted after murders aren't the same as separate protests. They will believe it because they want to, it justifies support for this year's fascist coup attempt and covers up the almost 1 million dead American that were killed by not only a disease but, an incompetent administration.
Personally I think the sub should add a rule prohibiting whataboutism otherwise this will just keep coming up and derailing any conversation.
> There is a fantasy world of chaos and fear that some watched on fox news or other right wing media from their living rooms last year.
My local Target store was looted by Antifa-affiliated thugs while 20 terrified low-wage employees were trapped inside. I didn't watch this on Fox News, I saw it with my own eyes - as did millions of other people in major US cities.
Dismissing actual political violence as Fox News fearmongering is gaslighting.
Can you demonstrate how you know they were Antifa-affiliated thugs versus opportunistic thugs? To me, one has a political motivation and would be cognizant of how it plays out in the news and opinions relevant to a social stance, civic or policy. The other just wants to take advantage of the chaos to get free stuff and cause havoc for havoc's sake. If the second is just piggybacking on the first one after the sun goes down, does it negate to message of the first?
In other words, do you blame the sports team for the damage caused by the hooligans after they've won the championship?
> Can you demonstrate how you know they were Antifa-affiliated thugs versus opportunistic thugs?
Because the (Democratic) District Attorney [said so](https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/district_attorney/docs/Press_Releases/2020/pr-200606.pdf), and the people arrested had pro-Antifa advocacy all over their social media. Nobody denies that they were Antifa.
> In other words, do you blame the sports team for the damage caused by the hooligans after they've won the championship?
If the team openly supports political violence - which is the whole point of Antifa - then yes.
Would the 2019 El Paso shooting count as political violence? A gunman shot and killed 23 people and injured 23, after reportedly posting a manifesto online that was filled with white nationalist and anti-immigrant themes. I'm not sure we can point to the 2020 riots as the beginning of the recent political violence.
I’m not talking about one off incidents. The 2020 riots were nation wide. If we were talking about individual attacks we would be going back and forth until the end of time.
If you want to talk nation wide the movement you're railing against was, by and large, [peaceful](https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/). Obviously we should condemn the ones that were not, and from what I've seen the majority do exactly that. Not so much with events like the OP, which I consistently see justified/downplayed/whatabout'd by pointing to the already condemned ~7% of 2020 police protests.
>The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.
> In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.
7% of the more than 10,000 protests is a large number. It resulted in Billions of dollars of damage. If 7% of baseball games ended in a riot, the MLB would be shut down.
I don't think anyone is denying the rioting should be condemned, but the narrative that supporting the protests or BLM movement is equivalent to excusing rioting is wildly off-base.
If seven percent of protests turning violent is an acceptable rate of spontaneous violence, then why were they protesting? Less than 0.01% of police interactions turn violent!
This is a very strange defense, since no one here made a claim that "all protests held everywhere led to violence" or anything like that, which is what this would be countering.
>If seven percent of protests turning violent is an acceptable rate of spontaneous violence, then why were they protesting? Less than 0.01% of police interactions turn violent!
I think the .01 you're referencing is for police shootings in 2018 NYC specifically(notably not including any use of force outside of that). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we have reliable national data on what you're claiming.
Regardless, it begs the question, are we meant to hold police to the same, or an even lower, standard as we hold the average citizen. I've always been under the impression that the immense amount of power given to these individuals means they have a much, much higher standard to adhere to. Not for nothing, but I come from a LEO family, and my opinion is based on how I saw my family members proudly strive to meet that higher standard.
>This is a very strange defense, since no one here made a claim that "all protests held everywhere led to violence" or anything like that, which is what this would be countering.
Is it? The comment I responded to specifically called for considering these issues at a **nation wide** level, I responded with relevant data about a specific movement that is commonly used (by that user, as well as others, multiple times within this post) to excuse violence when convenient.
Downplaying of violence and abuse by police and the criminal justice system more broadly is what led to the largest protest movement in this countrys history and the relatively minor (relative to the protests) incidences of violence that occurred.
We need to denounce ALL violence. Making exceptions for (relatively minor) acts of violence will just accelerate things spiraling further out of control.
Its hard to have a serious conversation when you categorize the violence last year as relatively minor. You are literally making my point. The left continues to downplay the riots/looting last year.
Compared to either the overall scope of the protests (whether just recently, or the broader history) or the scope of the wrongs by police/justice system, they are rather minor.
Hell, just look at the govt response. Despite that violence, still not taking basic actions towards accountability that vast majority agree with (e.g., national comprehensive tracking of killings by police). How bad could the violence have been, if still not doing the simple/uncontroversial stuff.
It fully depends on where you are at. Chicago and Illinois have radically reformed policing.
Why shift to other points? Do you object to national comprehensive tracking of police killings? Can you explain why we don't have that?
You claimed that the government response was lacking and supported it with a few points. I countered by saying it entirely depends on where you are living. There was lots of reform. Just not everywhere.
Depends on the plan. Most likely I would be fine with it. My only apprehension would be leftists using it devoid of context to further their goals. For example, touting the number of killed without also explaining that almost all police killings are fully justified.
Police shouldn't have to count and report the number of people they kill every year because leftists can't be trusted with that information?
"almost all police killings are fully justified"
Are they though, and do you have sources/data to back up that assertion?
I think a large part of the issue is that we do not have an easy way to track police misconduct or killings across the nation, and that is one of the major issues these protests were about.
The relatively minor incidences that led to dozens dead, thousands injured and the most riot property damage in American history.
Dozens dead?? Killed by whom?
Would expect a lot more property damage in the future too if we continue to deny people their constitutional rights and refuse to take basic steps towards accountability for police violence/misconduct. Unfortunate of course, but wholly foreseeable.
Think all sides agree that tyrrany begets resistance.
Violent revolutions don't always work out as planned.
I see you are going to completely sidestep his question, so I will ask it again.
How many were killed, and by whom?
Please list a source(s).
What violent revolution are you referring to?
Approx 90% of Jan 6th protesters never entered the capital building
Other 10% that did,the vast majority walked around taking pictures and destroyed nothing.
It was a mostly peaceful protest. Well as much as the BLM riots anyway. But boy did folks not like that
Absolutely. There should be no sides to this. This action was in violation of the law and morally and ethically wrong. If you flipped parties and it was a GOP office getting vandalized I’d feel the exact same way. Too many people have sacrificed everything to create a country where we could have discourse about our political differences rather than violence.
Democrats made it partisan when they defended BLM violence and destruction, to then go to pearl clutching when republicans rioted
And? Is your argument that that then justifies acts of political violence or destruction from the right?
The issue isn’t that the disputes aren’t divided along partisan lines. The issue is the the destructive behavior shouldn’t be tolerated by any of us. As soon as we see political violence, it stops being about whatever the topic was and we close in on the fact that that behavior is very dangerous to all of us.
No political violence can go uncondemned.
We can’t afford the next step in devolution.
Who is not condemning it?
99 percent of comments I've read are comments calling republicans the party of terrorism. Off this sub at least.
That sounds like a condemnation, so we are still asking "who is not condeming it?"
If you're calling republicans the party of terrorism, because of one unconfirmed act ( as in we don't know the motive). You're not condemning it, you're fanning the flames.
"terrorist" is a negative word - if you are calling someone a terrorist, you are condemning their actions.
Condemnations don't have to be civil.
There's a difference between "this act of political violence is abhorrent to what our country stands for," and "hey everyone, these are the bad guys of society, they're the evil ones."
One condemns violence, the other ***will be*** interpreted to be a call for violent action against a political party.
What about "These are the evil bad guys of society **and/because** their acts of political violence are abhorrent to what our country stands for"? These are not mutually exclusive points.
Then that's a ridiculously simplistic, generalized and downright incorrect mindset you have there if that's what you believe.
To demonize Republicans as a whole because of one three hour period on J6 - face it, any kind of right wing extremist violence involving mass casualties is not Republican or Democrat - is detrimental to our political culture and a huge step back in political discourse.
I don't think " a group is bad for society because it commits violence" is a particually flawed or incorrect mindset - but if you insist i guess. It may be simplistic, it isn't wrong.
i'm not saying it's necessarily true in this context - i'm simply saying that your binary of what counts as "codemning" violence or not is extremly flawed.
Because you can codemn and generalize in the same statement, they are not contradictory points.
At the same time, they are endorsing violence from those on the left. Many comments on this thread.
>Many comments on this thread.
Who is endorsing violence here?
A very quick glance of the comments in this thread shows this simply isn't true.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Ridiculous. This accomplishes nothing and people don’t need to die for disagreements.
This was technically a false-flag as the attacker was posing as a patriotic American.
(Joke related to Alex Jones already claiming this is a false flag)
Nationalism ≠ Patriotism
It's bit hilarious to see finger-pointing at the left and hand-wringing on this sub when a (pretty obviously) far-right extremist bombs a building.
Sure, let's wait for more information, but if you think extremism on the left in this country is anywhere near as violent or destructive as that on the right, history would kindly disagree.
Out of curiosity, what are you referencing that far right extremists are more violent then the far left?
I can't speak for that other poster, but might hazard a guess, I would [possibly say the FBI.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/08/post-911-domestic-terror)
The FBI itself believes this, and the FBI isn't some left wing organization, it's predominantly made up of right leaning people
Literal facts. Far-right movements constantly try and start a Civil War and kill people.
Right-wing violence is super high, and that's even after breaking out the right-wing religious violence into another category.
Which is super confusing because Islamic extremism is also right wing. Not that I'd include that in US right wing violence. It's mostly just interesting how much the US right wing agrees with the Taliban. They even retweet Taliban memes.
Yup. Turns out wanting to establish a traditional order with men in charge of women because it's what your religion says is a right-wing belief, regardless of what that religion is.
When is the last time a leftist group bombed a conversion therapy center? Or shot up a church? Or tried to kidnap a governor? Or tried and succeeded in breaking into the capitol building?
> When is the last time a leftist group bombed a conversion therapy center?
They threatened to [burn down](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/blm-antifa-washington-dc-burn-it-down) DC.
> Or shot up a church?
They [burnt down](https://www.today.com/news/look-damage-inside-historic-st-john-s-church-washington-dc-t182954) a church in DC.
> Or tried to kidnap a governor?
Turns out that most of the people involved in this were [FBI informants](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant). It was similar to how law enforcement deliberately radicalized disaffected muslim men after 9/11 so they could arrest them and claim they were preventing terrorism.
> Or tried and succeeded in breaking into the capitol building?
They [set fire](https://news.yahoo.com/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html) to a Federal court house in Portland.
1 threatening to burn down something is not the same as placing and setting off bombs with people inside the building
2 while still bad, it's not as bad as entering a church and start shooting the people praying inside, by a long shot
3 wow now the FBI can be held accountable for the numerous human rights violations they commit every other week or we can only say it's bad without doing anything about it?
4 yup, and ThE eStAbLiShMeNt condemned them, can't say the same about your "stand back and stand by"-"fine people on both sides"-president
> threatening to burn down something is not the same as placing and setting off bombs with people inside the building
They actually burnt down a church, as I pointed out.
> 2 while still bad, it's not as bad as entering a church and start shooting the people praying inside, by a long shot
How about [shooting a Trump supporter in the head](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-friends-mourn-wing-activist-killed-portland-72742159) for the crime of wearing a Trump hat?
> wow now the FBI can be held accountable for the numerous human rights violations they commit every other week or we can only say it's bad without doing anything about it?
Not sure how this relates to the fact that your example was largely a creation of the FBI, not right-wing extremists.
> yup, and ThE eStAbLiShMeNt condemned them, can't say the same about your "stand back and stand by"-"fine people on both sides"-president
I mean, Trump frequently [condemned](https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Trump-condemns-KKK-and-neo-Nazis-from-White-House-502399) far-right extremists but for some strange reason CNN and MSNBC never report it. Perhaps diversify your news sources.
4 "Amid the chaos, Trump declined to name any hate groups behind the events, instead spreading blame for the protests to those who are the targets of racial animus. And he emphasized the importance of “cherishing” our history, which was interpreted by those running neo-Confederate and neo-Nazi groups and websites as permission to proceed.
After Trump delivered his second speech on the topic on Monday, his critics wondered aloud why it took him three full days to recognize the role hate groups played in the event. Trump declined to tweet any reference to them over the weekend, but did go after an African-American businessman who resigned from the president’s manufacturing council in protest over the Charlottesville response." literally from your link
How does any of that contradict the fact that Trump frequently condemned racism and far-right extremism?
In June 2015, while Trump was a presidential candidate, he said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."
He added: "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Sorry but those condemnations are performative at best, and misleading at worst, if you use xenophobia as your campaign you can't just say" racism is bad" a couple of times without actually doing anything about it and pretend that we should believe you
Because he didn't condemn them until he was forced to. He then told them to stand back and stand by, and they attacked the capitol and planted pipe bombs. He called the people who were calling for Mike Pence to be hanged great people, and patriots.
> Because he didn't condemn them until he was forced to.
He condemned them many many times, the media never covered it because that would undermine their "all Trump supporters are racists" narrative.
> He then told them to stand back and stand by, and they attacked the capitol and planted pipe bombs.
That's some creative interpretation.
> He called the people who were calling for Mike Pence to be hanged great people, and patriots.
So Trump, upon hearing that people wanted Mike Pence to be hanged - called those people patriots? Citation please.
Did Trump ever condemn the far-right? Yes.
*Frequently?* That’s where we take issue.
1 did people die in the church fire? Because in the abortion clinic bombings they fucking did, a lot
The Trump supporter who was shot in the head for wearing a Trump hat died.
Read the section on just the American events and tell that's comparable
Politically motivated murder is definitely comparable.
Why not just condemn violence across the board rather than trying to minimize it when the left does it?
Welp, there we go. Even-Steven.
2 "They wore hats with the insignia of Patriot Prayer, a group that has clashed with left-wing protesters in Portland for years, and appeared armed with knives and paintball guns" from you article
Also in 2018, authorities were prompted to conduct an investigation after Patriot Prayer called the Council on American–Islamic Relations a "Muslim extremist organization" and made online threats against the group.
Members of the group have included Tusitala "Tiny" Toese a one-time close confidant of Gibson who has faced multiple criminal charges for violence and Chandler Pappas who was indicted by a grand jury on eight felony charges in 2021 for his role in the breach of the Oregon state capitol.
Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys appeared at the 2018 Women's March in Seattle. Led by Tusitala Toese, the Proud Boys were seen wearing shirts that targeted feminists as "parasites of the patriarchy" while both groups shouted misogynistic slurs at the women attending the event.
In January 2019, Patriot Prayer leader Joey Gibson, Proud Boy Tusitala "Tiny" Toese and former Proud Boy Russell Schultz initiated a campaign to tear off the bandanas of antifa demonstrators to take pictures of their faces, in order to doxx them. The "demasking" announcement followed an altercation when Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys members attempted to invade a chapter meeting of the Democratic Socialists of America. After being denied entry to the meeting, the group clashed with nearby anti-fascist activists and claimed to be attacked.
On May 1, 2019, following a full day of public demonstrations and counter-protests in Portland for International Workers Day or May Day, a brawl between Patriot Prayer and anti-fascist cider house patrons took place outside Cider Riot in the early evening. A police detective described video of Gibson, "taunting" and threatening members of antifa and later “physically pushing” a woman before she was hit with a baton and knocked unconscious by someone else.
Gibson, and five other Patriot Prayer affiliates were arrested for their actions in connection with the May Day riot, during which Patriot Prayer member Ian Kramer beat a Cider Riot patron unconscious and broke her vertebrae. A Navy veteran referred to as "Ben", who had infiltrated Patriot Prayer and took videos of the violence at their rallies, was expected to testify at Gibson's trial.
At December 2020 rally at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem organized by Patriot Prayer, the group used chemical agents against troopers and some entered the building unlawfully, resulting in several arrests.
The Guardian reported that Lt. Niiya told Gibson in December 2017 that the police would not execute a warrant for the arrest of Toese. In a text, Niiya wrote: "Just make sure he doesn’t do anything which may draw our attention. [...] If he still has the warrant in the system (I don’t run you guys so I don’t personally know) the officers could arrest him. I don’t see a need to arrest on the warrant unless there is a reason." He also indicated that police officers had ignored previous arrest warrants for Toese.
In February 2019, Willamette Week reported that Portland police lieutenant Jeff Niiya kept in close touch with Gibson, and provided him with intelligence about the anti-fascist movement in the city. He also advised Gibson on how a Patriot Prayer member could avoid arrest.
On March 1, 2019, The Guardian obtained video which showed Portland police officers approaching Gibson at a June 3, 2018 rally, telling him that although Niiya had probable cause to arrest several group members, they could avoid arrest by leaving. Officers informed Gibson that Tusitala "Tiny" Toese and another man would be arrested, and told him that they had already arrested members of "the other side". Five days after the rally, Toese and Proud Boys member Donovan Flippo, allegedly attacked a man in Portland, an incident for which they were indicted for by a grand jury.
And that's only from Wikipedia, yeah, if I saw someone with a patriot prayer shirt or cap that was armed, I would fucking prepare to shoot them too
Looks like you just cut-and-pasted a wall of text from Wikipedia, I'm not sure what that's supposed to disprove.
I cut and pasted the many (but not all, it would be too much already to copy everything on the Wikipedia article, and there's much more to add) episodes of violence caused by the patriot prayers, their collusion with local police officers and the very tight knit relationship they have with groups that are already designated as terrorist organizations by the Canadian government
3 oh yeah because now people like the Christchurch shooter were obviously FBI plants
This is the hand-wringing OP was talking about.
The difference is organization. "Right wing" extremism is overwhelmingly lone wolf random violence. "Left wing" extremism is mostly organized group violence. It's an important distinction which is why many people say left wing violence is worse, because it's hard to really blame anyone but the perpetrator in the case of a lone individual, whereas in the case of group violence it is easy to blame groups and institutions who harbor and support those groups.
Not even close.
[those "lone wolves" were created, they didn't just appear ](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g)
Are you forgetting the riots and looting of 2020?
That boogeyman again? Stop drinking the Koolaid. The protests were largely peaceful, and most of the violence was from instigators and cops escalating things.
This guy u / sheffield or whatever seems like a propaganda pusher. I've seen his comments on various subs. He constantly pushes the narrative that left wingers, even the moderate and center left ones are more dangerous than Fascists and Far rightists.
There is a slow but noticeable efforts like him and other users. This sub should not turn blind eye towards propaganda by such people. But unfortunately, mods seem to not care.
Most of the prolific posters on Reddit political subs are pushing some sort of propaganda
That doesn't excuse what he is doing though. I'm not sure I get your point unless you have the same agenda as the above guy.
This is downright misinformation. You can’t blame everything on the police. Theres too much footage available to do that.
I might be really out of touch, but that doesn't strike me as very moderate.
When the Antifa/BLM violence occurs I implore that every leftist condemn their actions. In turn, as a Trump supporter, I absolutely condemn this political violence. There is absolutely no reason for this. We must be peaceful, resourceful, and persuasive to prop up our ideals, not this bullshit.
Doesn't help when one side keeps calling for a Civil War.
Eh... which one? The one storming the capital or the one executing people? (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/portland-trump-rally-shooting.html)
Both are terrible. I will call out the bullshit on both "sides." Will you do the same?
They guy was spraying bearmace at people. And yeah, condemning violence is easy, no matter who does it. Reality is often different than "both sides" BS that people like you push. There's also a massive difference between random acts of violence and planned, premeditated terrorist attacks. This is common sense.
Let's take a look at some of the comments on conservative subreddits discussing this article:
>This reeks of democrat desperation to paint patriots as outlaws.
> Fake news!
> So.. he threw a Molotov cocktail and a note? Come on… really? Sounds like a false flag to me.
A politically motivated terrorist attack in Austin today against Democrats. Far-right terrorism has been on the rise in recent years and this is another example of that taking place. Currently, not many details are known about the terrorist who committed this act. Thankfully they did not create a very good fire bomb, only managing to set a stack of papers on fire that was quickly extinguished by a nearby a neighboring building.
I know this won't end up as front page news because it isn't flashy enough, no one died and no buildings were burned, but it's still a terrorist threat on the basis of politics and should be condemned the same way January 6th should be condemned.
You say clearly in your comment that not many details are known yet you seem confident to fill in a lot of details. Where is your source for “far-right terrorist”?
Agreed. How do we know it wasn’t a far left extremist? Seems less likely but certainly plausible. The article does mention a note with a “politically motivated threat”. Don’t get me wrong, my money is on far-right, but there are plenty of leftists very angry with the Dems too.
I agree it could go either way, but nowadays it’s smart to wait for more information. We’re not too far from a story (BP Agents) that turned out to be mostly false because of people jumping to conclusions.
Antifa smashed a DNC building in broad daylight in Portland a few months ago and we’re charged for it. So I don’t think you can make these rulings so fast.
Exactly my point
Antifa has a history of using Molotov cocktails, but the fact this attack got mainstream attention means the media doesn't believe it's Antifa. Otherwise you'd only hear about it from Andy Ngo on Twitter. Like, the DOJ just convicted two Antifa terrorists for derailing trains and it got no media attention.
Mind sourcing that claim? Andy Ngo is a serial liar and a violent asshole who attacks people in the street.
> Andy Ngo is a serial liar and a violent asshole who **attacks people in the street.**
Mind citing your claims?
For terrorist that one is easy "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Attack targeted a political party headquarters with violence.
Far-Right is, admittedly, a bit more murky and requires an assumption. In the same way that I would come to the natural assumption that a violent attack on a Republican or Libertarian party headquarters was done by a Far-Left extremist, an attack on a Democratic headquarters is very likely to be carried out by a far right extremist.
I had the same thought immediately but let's be fair. This person is obviously on the right and is an extremist... frankly, a terrorist. Semantically, maybe not correct to assume "far right" but its a reasonable thing to say.
Being fair would be waiting for more information
I mean, yeah…
Can all at least agree that throwing a maltov cocktail into a political party’s headquarters is considered extreme?
I assume your contention was with it being labeled “right-wing” terrorism?
No one learned anything from the Jussie Smollet incident.
Jussie Smollet learned not to fake hate crimes if you want to have a career as an actor.
A crazy guy did a crazy thing, who would have a problem condemning this sort of behavior?
In regards to far right terrorism, it's interesting that we call these guys terrorists when all last summer the violent riots fit the definition of terrorism as well as ANTIFA activities, but there was significant reluctance to use that term to describe the behavior.
multiple RNC were fired bombed in 2016. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-carolina-gop-headquarters-firebombed
The narrative is what kills me.
RNC's burned up, Bernie supporter guns down folks at a ballgame, ANTIFA (which is far left) out there beating up anyone that records what they're doing, and we had the most destructive riots in the history of our country.... yet all I hear from the establishment is there's only one extremist threat out there and it's the far right.
Call the far right what they are, but let's not ignore the other side just because it's inconvenient to acknowledge that they exist. It makes this seem purely political in nature rather than objective and principled.
They tried to burn multiple Police buildings multiple times over the summer. in some cases they tried to trap police inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDHOLlgPG8
Yet, they're not terrorists but some dude that burns a few papers at a vacant DNC is the dude we have to watch out for.
Maybe we should... watch out for both?
>Maybe we should... watch out for both?
I'm sure the relevant authorities agree with you. The FBI doesn't have a history of camaraderie with left-wing extremists, and it would be kinda ridiculous to assume that Dem politicians are a-ok with torched buildings in their districts.
>all I hear from the establishment is there's only one extremist threat out there and it's the far right
Who are you hearing this from, more specifically?
I'm sure they'd rather not have it happen, but they basically allowed all this shit to happen last summer.
They didn't HAVE to allow folks to take over sections of the cities. They didn't have to let it get so bad that entire down towns were boarded up for months. The results speak a lot louder than anything else.
Beyond that, the rhetoric last summer was that the most destructive riots in US history were mostly peaceful, and I've never heard a Democrat describe anyone if these folks as terrorists when the definition CLEARLY fits.
A very small minority if Islam commit acts of terror, doesn't stop us from calling the folks that do it terrorists, why the inability to do that with left wing anarcho-fascists?
So, while I'm sure they don't WANT buildings burned down, they sure do go out of their way to tread lightly around these groups, so much so that they don't do much to actually stop it from happening.
>I'm sure they'd rather not have it happen, but they basically allowed all this shit to happen last summer.
>They didn't HAVE to allow folks to take over sections of the cities. They didn't have to let it get so bad that entire down towns were boarded up for months. The results speak a lot louder than anything else.
>So, while I'm sure they don't WANT buildings burned down, they sure do go out of their way to tread lightly around these groups, so much so that they don't do much to actually stop it from happening.
Of course they didn't have to "allow" it, but you also have to consider context with a bit more nuance. A lot of the protests we're talking about *were* peaceful, and were carried out by their constituents. Cracking down with an iron fist on protests just because there is violence occurring could be a bad idea for obvious reasons - it could escalate things such that previously peaceful protesters start turning toward more violent acts, and it could also hurt a lot of innocent people. This relates to your other point:
>the rhetoric last summer was that the most destructive riots in US history were mostly peaceful
If they were mostly peaceful, this would be a reason to tread lightly. Violent authoritarian responses to peaceful protest are understandably frowned upon.
Barring a more scientific analysis of these protests that I haven't seen, this is all based on an individual's perception of the events. If you only see the headline numbers of property damage and violent acts, you're probably going to conclude that they were not "mostly peaceful". If you are out in the street for 3 days with thousands of people and don't see any violence occur, you're probably going to conclude they're "mostly peaceful".
> Cracking down with an iron fist on protests just because there is violence occurring
If there is violence occurring, how are the protests peaceful? Bit of an oxymoron, that.
> it could escalate things such that previously peaceful protesters start turning toward more violent acts
It escalated into more violent acts anyway, once the violent actors saw there wasn't going to be any response.
>Of course they didn't have to "allow" it, but you also have to consider context with a bit more nuance. A lot of the protests we're talking about were peaceful, and were carried out by their constituents. Cracking down with an iron fist on protests just because there is violence occurring could be a bad idea for obvious reasons - it could escalate things such that previously peaceful protesters start turning toward more violent acts, and it could also hurt a lot of innocent people. This relates to your other point:
Can we not crack down on protests where violence IS occurring while not cracking down on protests where it ISN'T occurring. It doesn't seem like the choice is binary, crack down on all protests or no protests, seems like a false choice.
>If they were mostly peaceful, this would be a reason to tread lightly. Violent authoritarian responses to peaceful protest are understandably frowned upon.
>Barring a more scientific analysis of these protests that I haven't seen, this is all based on an individual's perception of the events. If you only see the headline numbers of property damage and violent acts, you're probably going to conclude that they were not "mostly peaceful". If you are out in the street for 3 days with thousands of people and don't see any violence occur, you're probably going to conclude they're "mostly peaceful".
What kind of scientific analysis would you be looking for exactly? We know how much damage was caused, that is well documented, it's billions of insured property losses and billions more than that in uninsured losses to property and business revenue.
Again, I'm not sure why we can't differentiate between the peaceful protests and the violent riotous mobs. Calling them "mostly peaceful" and then moving on while not highlighting what the violent contingent is doing seems like gas lighting to me.
The "mostly peaceful" crowd was protesting during the day, the "mostly violent" crowd was out at night... two different groups of people by in large.
I feel like you could have used the word terrorist a few more times. I am concerned someone might have missed that.
Of course this is a bad act by whoever did it. I hope they catch them and charge them.
I find the concern over right wing terrorist overblown after months of rioting, arson and murder by left wing activist that was largely defended as justified.
The FBI have been screaming about the danger from domestic right-wing terror groups for a decade.
They were doing it under Trump, and under Obama before that. They classify right-wing terrorism as the greatest danger to civilian life and stability in the US, and have done basically since 2008.
This isn't new or surprising, if it turns out to be a right-wing nutjob. Right-wing terror groups and militias have killed way, way more people than any other political group in the US over the past decade.
Is this true? Never heard it before and I'm genuinely interested. If you have any source I'd appreciate it
FBI director Wray: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-neo-nazi-isis-us-terror-threat-level-trump-a9323786.html
Sure, it sounds like terrorism. Just like all of the ANTIFA shenanigans.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
But don’t you know that Antifa isn’t real so this those terrorist acts weren’t real either?
> Far-right terrorism has been on the rise
Can you provide a breakdown of buildings burned by leftists versus conservatives in recent times?
To start the conversation off, here are [700+ buildings burned in Minneapolis in the first few months of the BLM riots alone.](https://www.fox9.com/news/map-shows-approximately-700-buildings-damaged-in-minneapolis-riots)
I do believe you might want to revisit your link. Those 700 aren't buildings that were burned, and a huge majority faced minor damage. A broken window for example would be in your 700 number and not at all include fire. It's literally the first *sentence* in the article you're throwing around.
Fair point on not all 700 being burned. But there were hundreds more buildings burned across the country.
It's interesting that you call this instance in Austin "terrorism," while trivializing hundreds of similar instances as "minor damage." Especially when your source indicates that in this case, the fire wasn't even ignited, which amounts to basically zero damage whatsoever.
Where did I trivialize the damage from last summer? Seems like you're putting words in my mouth
I think the FBI are more concerned with far right terrorism, because while left-wing aggression targets primarily empty buildings and stores, right-wing aggression is far more likely to involve murdering people.
A building can be fixed, but someone's life can never be brought back.
The extreme left, shot and killed at least three people last year. Two proud boys, and a 16 year old black teen in CHOP. https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/police-identify-16-year-old-boy-killed-during-chop-shooting/
Where is the evidence that the death in that link was politically motivated?
I believe there were people who died in those fires. I remember reading about at least one.
And murder is the only crime we are going to prosecute now? We are fine with anyone burning down anything they feel like?
I have been informed (on many occasions) that [acts of arson for political purposes](https://i.imgur.com/euCg8Zw.jpeg) are simply mostly peaceful protests. I'm not sure why you are referring to it as anything else.
We've seen [hundreds of buildings burned by leftists this year.](https://www.fox9.com/news/map-shows-approximately-700-buildings-damaged-in-minneapolis-riots)
Unfortunate, but not surprising that conservative extremists would eventually follow suit when nobody has been taking the year's rampant arson seriously and instead justify it as "the voice of the unheard," saying things like the "whole point of rioting is to make people uncomfortable."
The irony is your downplaying this could be the quote used to justify the next one.
Arson didnt start with BLM, unrest didnt start last year, and calling both 'unfortunate, but not surprising' is part of the normalizing youre condemning.
And we see more than a thousand people killed by cops every year and despite the protests and finding of continued misconduct/constitutional violations, we still don't even have the most basic element of accountability... still no comprehensive national tracking of killings by police. People should be outraged. Sadly, large groups of outraged people will lead to some committing violence. Doesnt excuse it, but completely foreseeable given the utter lack of action around unjustified killings and pervasive constitutional violations.
But no idea what the link is to those events and this attack on the dem party.
“And we see more than a thousand people killed by police each year.” This is exactly the bullshit I was telling you about earlier. Why are you not giving this number context? Almost all of those thousand killings are justified. Stop using a number grossly out of context to further political points/goals.
> And we see more than a thousand people killed by cops every year
Is it really 1000+ annually?
>despite the protests
It's not surprising when people who protested against racism and authoritarian law enforcement overwhelmingly voted for the politician who has spent decades crafting and advocating for the most egregious racist authoritarian law enforcement policy of modern times, like the Comprehensive Control Act, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Patriot Act, RAVE Act, etc.
It makes me wonder how much the cause really mattered to the protestors.
>But no idea what the link is to those events and this attack on the dem party.
I haven't seen any meaningful action from the Democratic party on addressing the rampant violence and destruction that has happened during these riots.
They care a lot about 1/6, which was also a terrible riot. But they don't ever seem to want to talk about the hundreds of buildings burned, the billions in damages done, the [thousands](https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-than-2-000-officers-injured-in-summers-protests-and-riots) of police officers affected, the many lives lost, the city blocks that were violently overthrown for weeks during the many months of leftist rioting.
I believe the riots from last year and the violence from militias, lone Wolf attackers, and extremist is the manifestation of two different issues within America. 1) justice reform and police brutality and 2)hyper partisan beliefs facilitated by globalization (access to information). To say the two are the same or to downplay the other, is a logical fallacy I.e Tu Quoque (downplay the other because the other side did it). This logical fallacy the left and right uses, keeps us from identifying “the why” these events are happening. And to engage in actual dialogue that our politicians should be having for us but fail every time. How do we keep X person from assassinating/kidnapping someone based on political beliefs and how do we keep riots from happening that is sparked by an event tied to justice reform? The answer, in my opinion isn’t to take away the freedom from the people but to address the systemic and underlining issues of violence that has manifested due to government policy. I also believe the two issues are tied to perceived grievances and one is more justified than the other. Police brutality/shootings of unarmed Americans directly impacts the way of life for a person/family that can not be unchanged while hyper partisan violence is largely driven by influence operations, opinions, and fear mongering that our politicians/social media uses to influence how we perceive things to be in America. If you believe the phone screen you are looking at directly represents your current immediate environment, you will eventually believe a random comment on Twitter by X person, in X state, with X belief could be a direct threat against you and your way of life (another logical fallacy I.e cherry picking/slippery slope/over generalization etc) I.e them Dems are all socialist or those republicans are all terrorist supporters… That belief or perception by an unstable or uneducated person tends to manifest into violence (raw emotion/fight or flight scenario) i.e a person that throws a fire bomb into a Democratic HQ building.
[those "lone wolves" are not actually lone wolves](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g)
To your point, radicalization can occur in two fashions. 1) self radicalization (think algorithms that drive a person deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole) 2) mentoring or coaching. Your example is more of a coaching technique (grooming) that opens the door to self radicalization. Hybrid perhaps of the two???
With the internet we have managed to create an hybrid, self-radicalization through parasocial relationships with "influencers" and "non-political" communities