Who is more dangerous - domestic terrorists or islamic extremists?

Opening Argument

Domestic terrorists killed his son. He wants Trump to remember that America makes extremists, too.

“A lot of people think these are disgruntled people who are out of work, but doctors, lawyers and FBI agents have all been involved with sovereign citizens,” Paudert said. “They hate government and they’re willing to kill and be killed for their beliefs.”

Of the 66 criminal justice/military homicides perpetrated by al-Qaeda and its associated movement and far-right extremists from 1990 to 2015, 54 of those deaths — more than 80 percent — came at the hands of the far right, according to an analysis by the University of Maryland’s START (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) program.

“An example of this would be an antigovernment extremist who hunts down a police officer because his ideological beliefs demand that he fight back against the government, particularly law enforcement.”

Ryan Lenz, the editor of the SPLC’s Hatewatch blog, said the key to combating far-right terror groups is forcefully engaging them.

If the Trump administration chooses to ignore the far-right threat, he said, it is risking calamity.
  1. Who is more dangerous to our Country?

    16 votes
    1. Domestic Terrorists
    2. Islamic Extremists
    3. Both
    4. None

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Status: Open Debate


  • I support President Trump policies regarding islamic extremists.  That said, both threats are important and we should not lose sight of that.   A combination strategy is warranted, and that also plays into gu control debate too.
  • While extremists are being represented as the major threat, this article is an example how much domestic terrorist activity we have as even a larger threat
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • It's a biased article that conveniently omits an Al Qaeda attack that killed 2996 Americans to make it's point.Islamic terrorists are the most troublesome because their attacks are the most organized.
  • @CYDdharta , agreed. The article also omits 911...
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @agsr That was, of course, the terrorist attack I was referring to.
  • Also omitted are the victims of left-wing violence such as the casualties for Black Lives Matter, which, in one year could outnumber the 15 years worth of victims they reported on.
  • inc4tinc4t 156 Pts
    CYDdharta, as you stated, there are so many vicitims from these extremist attacks. It is interesting that the Washinghton Post article tries to use the tragedy in what happened to somehow make a point downplaying the extremist terrorist actions.
  • Both are extremely dangerous. Although, they can execute potentially different acts of terrorism and in different parts of the world as well.
    DebateIslander and a lover. 
  • Both are a threat. Just because Trump is trying to protect the country from foreign extremists, doesnt mean that he is not taking domestic terror threats seriously as well.
  • They are different, but can have simialar effects.
  • It is important that we have policies for both external and internal terrorist threats.
  • Islamic terrorists happen to be in a different environment which they potentially adapted to. They're environment varies, but is most likely more radical than the US making their beliefs crazier and also more radical.
  • Islamic extremists are different not only because they are greater in number, but because they are organized and have a way to allow themselves access to financial resources/other resources. Domestic terrorists are usually not working in such groups, and could not create fear or mass destruction in the way that Islamic extremism has.
  • VaulkVaulk 307 Pts
    The suggestion that a Right-wing extremist hunting down a single cop to administer his twisted form of justice is somehow "Domestic Terrorism" is ridiculous.  We need to make a movement downstream, back to a world where "Words mean things" and you cannot simply re-define the meaning of a word to fit your agenda.  Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations as: the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.  Your example of the loony toon, right wing extremist hunting a cop does not fit the bill for Terrorism because his intention was NOT to intimidate or coerce someone in order to further his political or social objective.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

  • Vaulk said:
    We need to make a movement downstream, back to a world where "Words mean things" and you cannot simply re-define the meaning of a word to fit your agenda. 

    Yes, @Vaulk and @anti_islam made reasonable points.

    like vaulk said, you can't redefine a word. Trump and his cabinet are doing a bunch of that redefining lately. Including quotes, and alternative facts as they call it.
  • Both are very dangerous and capable of different acts of terrorism.

    1)off-shore mainly terrorism, not in America. Again, for the most part.
    2)focused in Middle East and possibly have different priorities, but similar.

    1) commit terror in America.
    2) usually come in from other countries and trained Bedford hand off-shore and commit terror later in a America.
    3) could find out about ISIS and other terrorist groups and dedicate themselves to it, but are not Muslim.
  • PinoPino 67 Pts
    Firstly, if America spawns its own terrorists, then why to heck should we import more?
    Whilst I stand to be corrected, I am unaware of any home grown terrorist group carrying out such atrocities as 9/11 and the San Bernardino and Boston outrages.  
    Islamic extremists are significantly more dangerous as they're not only dedicated to bringing down the government, but also the elimination of all other religions and laws and replacing them with the Muslim faith and Sharia law.
    Death to the infidels, that's all non Muslims.
    Democracy would cease to exist along with the right to religious and political expression.
    A religious fanatic will always be a greater potential danger than a political reactionary.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch