Stronger far-right terrorism in the US in the '90s

This is a second take on the topic of the "republican fascism" thread, which went down in flames a while ago.
Can you think of good PoDs for much worse and widespread terror attacks à la McVeigh in the '90s and early 2000s*? What would an internal War on Terror look like? What consequences would it have on the Republican Party?

*I had thought of the even more liberal Cuomo (Sr) winning the nomination and election instead of Clinton, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about American politics to know if that is correct
 
Last edited:
There's a reason that thread went down. A thread with this name can be trouble.
The better question is stronger internal terrorism in the United States. How that would happen would be the rising of the far left and far right in the United States. More protests that lead to terrorism, abortion bombings, eco-terrorism, religion inspired bombings, etc.
 
There's a reason that thread went down. A thread with this name can be trouble.
The better question is stronger internal terrorism in the United States. How that would happen would be the rising of the far left and far right in the United States. More protests that lead to terrorism, abortion bombings, eco-terrorism, religion inspired bombings, etc.

The OP specifically asks for 'right-wing' terrorism.

If you're looking for something in the 90s I'd suggest reading up on the Summer of Mercy. That could have easily blown up (literally) into something much larger and much worse. Perhaps Tiller gets assassinated earlier ITTL, with all the associated consequences and butterflies thereof.
 
McVeigh assassinating Wesley Clark*, Janet Reno, or Bill Clinton rather than blowing up the federal building might do it.

Killing 20 kids in a day care center, complete with an iconic photo of a firefighter carrying a dead little kid out, is really good way to alienate people from your cause, especially when you go all cold-blooded and call the kids "collateral damage" when you get caught.

Without OKC, there might be more popular support for and less scrutiny of the militia movement. That could in turn lead to more, smaller-scale attacks.

*He provided tanks from Fort Hood for the Waco siege, in possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. He might be an easier target than the politicians and killing a soldier is less outrageous than killing a civilian and less likely to attract the uber-wrath that going after the President would.
 
I could see a Neo-Nazi uprising inspired by the Turner Diaries, like the McVeigh bombing itself.

An actual uprising aimed at taking territory or a terror campaign?

OTL saw "The Order" rob banks (I think) and murder Jewish radio personality Alan Berg.

However, I don't think there are enough neo-Nazis to mount an old-school uprising, unless you want the "Boise Commune" that gets crushed real fast.
 
Have either Jerry Brown or Mario Cuomo elected, and have them implement a strong liberal program. Have the first major far-right attacks be of a form that, like Merry Prankster suggested, doesn't entirely alienate people. More then anything, have Cuomo/Brown push a strong gun control law.
 
An actual uprising aimed at taking territory or a terror campaign?

OTL saw "The Order" rob banks (I think) and murder Jewish radio personality Alan Berg.

However, I don't think there are enough neo-Nazis to mount an old-school uprising, unless you want the "Boise Commune" that gets crushed real fast.

A terror campaign. The American Neo-Nazis have no real power, except in prisons. Even there, their reasoning for the disproportionate amount of minority prisoners is "Affirmative Action".
 
The only way you get more 'far-right' terrorism is if the Feds commit more Waco's, Ruby Ridge's and similar fuckups against the militia movements. Bonus points if you also have a strongly liberal President who acts completely unapologetic.

This strengthens the Republican Party. Newt and the Reps are never going to apologize for the militias but they will hammer the Dems for the alienation/polarization and the screwups themselves.

The only way you're going to get strong movement on the right in the 90's is if you have pushback, and even then anything even closely approaching OKC will eviscerate the movement unless you have some ultra colossal fuckups.
 
No way is there any kind of organized terror campaign. There are a significant number of potentially violent 'right wing' extremists, but they do not agree with each other or have common goals. One group is a Millenialist cult; one is Neo-Nazi, one is anti-black, another is anti-government in general, etc. etc. Some would condone attacks only against 'enemy' politicians; some only defensive violence; some would accept violence against certain demographics, etc. Group A that believes Israel is God's vanguard in the coming Armageddon are not going to get along with group B that thinks Hitler lost the war because he was too soft on the Jews.

A couple of things that could activate large numbers of these groups (but not get them to cooperate) would be an openly Socialist administration (hardly likely!) or a national firearms ban with vigorous enforcement targeted against numerous right wing groups (not much more likely).

Not all such groups would espouse terrorism, and they really don't have any other effective means of action. Those that did support some kind of terrorism would not agree on acceptable targets and means. Terrorist attacks by any of them could only strengthen the establishment's position and lead to retaliation against many groups. Given these things, there would be much inter-group hostility and perhaps even violence.

Net result: Most of the violence is by groups 'defending' themselves against BATF or other paramilitary forces. After several uncoordinated and generally ineffectual terrorist attacks, a number of harsh restrictions on civil liberties are imposed. These are widely unpopular, but nothing comes of that.
 
Top