Islam

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

There is source under it for a reason. Didn't think you guys wanted me to put the full list of 300+ attacks on here

 

But it's all there for anyone who doubts it's validity or is otherwise interested

 

Just remember, Terrorism has no religion

You're missing my point.

What are they counting for terrorist attacks?

And why point out religious based terrorist attacks and not any other religious based crimes? And what percentage of that religion is actually doing these acts?

It's still a biased chart with little to no explanation to push your agenda, and it's an attempt to say "See told you, it's totally this, this is the issue, definitely."

The fact that you keep putting things like "Just remember, Terrorism has no religion" and other snide/sarcastic/inflammatory comments into your "debate" posts is kind of defeating the purpose of this section.

I feel you're taking opposing views too personally.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You're missing my point.

What are they counting for terrorist attacks?

And why point out religious based terrorist attacks and not any other religious based crimes? And what percentage of that religion is actually doing these acts?

It's still a biased chart with little to no explanation to push your agenda, and it's an attempt to say "See told you, it's totally this, this is the issue, definitely."

The fact that you keep putting things like "Just remember, Terrorism has no religion" and other snide/sarcastic/inflammatory comments into your "debate" posts is kind of defeating the purpose of this section.

I feel you're taking opposing views too personally.

Uh? How about the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. It's not my fault that you don't see Catholics going around bombing hospitals. The chart is based on the ideology the attackers embody. Is there a more correct term you would like to put the "Islamic Extremists" under?

 

Nah this isn't personal. I don't particularly want to be killed at all, not by an Islamist, nor by any other cult. I don't need to tell you, "told you so" the bodies count kinda speaks for itself

 

My only agenda to to try and keep out country safe mate, and there is a very damning correlation between the ideology of Islamic Extremism and the devastation of the attacks...

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Uh? How about the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. It's not my fault that you don't see Catholics going around bombing hospitals. The chart is based on the ideology the attackers embody. Is there a more correct term you would like to put the "Islamic Extremists" under?

 

Nah this isn't personal. I don't particularly want to be killed at all, not by an Islamist, nor by any other cult. I don't need to tell you, "told you so" the bodies count kinda speaks for itself

I'm saying that the chart is just giving an open-ended number without any explanation on what it actually means, or how damaging it is in the long run, comparatively. It's another scare tactic.

Technically you should be more afraid of drunk drivers than terrorists then.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm saying that the chart is just giving an open-ended number without any explanation on what it actually means, or how damaging it is in the long run, comparatively. It's another scare tactic.

Technically you should be more afraid of drunk drivers than terrorists then.

That's the fear-niche strawman.

 

Just because I should be wary of Drunk Driving, does not mean I shouldn't be wary of other dangers

 

It's not open-ended. Based on the definition of Terrorism, here is a record up to March 2016. Broken down by ideology. The conclusion to draw is that Islamic extremism has a lion's share of the attacks, and that the whole argument that "terrorism has no religion" is a load of hogwash

 

Last I checked, Drunk Driving wasn't terrorism, but I could be wrong on that 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

That's the fear-niche strawman.

 

Just because I should be wary of Drunk Driving, does not mean I shouldn't be wary of other dangers

Explain. Because that chart itself feels very straw man.

 

What I mean is you don't put so much effort into damning drunk drivers or other threats, and single this out. Meaning you put more stock into it, personally. Which leads you to be less objective when discussing it. Just pointing out the pattern.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Explain. Because that chart itself feels very straw man.

 

What I mean is you don't put so much effort into damning drunk drivers or other threats, and single this out. Meaning you put more stock into it, personally. Which leads you to be less objective when discussing it. Just pointing out the pattern.

Fear-Niche strawman

 

A is more dangerous than B, despite both A and B being dangerous, I should fear A, B is irrelevant.

 

It sets up the argument to fail, because cellular oxidation has a 100% fatality rate and nobody has managed to escape it yet....guess that's the only thing we should fear in life

 

Now that's not fair, we don't even really have a DUI or alcohol thread, but when it came up in the past, I was one of the few who wanted to raise the drinking age to 24 so the pre-frontal cortex could fully develop and the odds of poor choices being made were lower. 

 

The chance of something being done about the DUI problem is low, the chance of something being done about Islamic extremism is pretty high. I'm trying to stay on topic in the thread, and prioritize based on results. If I was nonobjective in the matter, I would be damning all muslims for this, which I am notably not.

 

I suppose you're trying to hint at this 

 

 

Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data

 

As Loonwatch puts it:

 

Only

6% of terror attacks are by Muslims

 

7% of terrorism is by Jewish extremists 

 

66% of terror attacks are by leftists and Latinos 

 

This would appear to defy common sense.  Reports of bombings, shootings, stabbings and even beheadings by terrorists cross the newswire each day.  Some are indeed the work of communist groups or nationalists, but the vast majority are clearly the product of Islamic extremists who kill in the name of religion. 

 

Loonwatch is playing a couple of tricks here - the biggest being that they are drawing on domestic data only.  In other words, when they say that 94% of terrorists aren't Muslim, they actually mean in the United States, where terror attacks are relatively rare and Muslims make up only 1% of the population.  

 

So, if we ignore the overwhelming bulk of attacks across the globe, Muslims are "only" six times more likely to commit acts of terror than the general population.  The numbers get even worse for Loonwatch on closer examination. 

 

As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy.  While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993. 

 

When Americans hear the word 'terrorism', however, what comes to mind isn't vandalism, but rather those acts of genuine violence that are intended to cause loss of life.  So, how do we focus on these incidents and filter out the rest?

 

Well, perhaps the best way of knowing whether terrorists are serious about killing people is if they actually do.  Since Muslims and non-Muslim terrorists have equal opportunity to kill, Loonwatch shouldn’t object to an analysis of only those attacks which cause deaths.  What does the data have to say when we exclude non-lethal attacks? 

 

Even by the FBI’s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States.  Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death.  Of these, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills (civilians only), while non-Muslim attackers racked up 196.  

 

Thus, what the FBI report is really saying is that a demographic which makes up only 1% of the American population accounts for one-fourth of all deadly terror attacks in the U.S. and 94% of related casualties!  (The 94% statistic is somewhat ironic because it is the same figure than Loonwatch is touting to dispel concerns).  The Jewish population in the U.S. is more than twice that of Muslims, but there were only three so-called Jewish attacks during the entire 25 years (all by the "Jewish Defense League") with a total of three killed.  

 

Since 2005, there have been at least six additional deadly attacks that would probably qualify as terrorism in the U.S. even to the FBI.  One was the 2012 shooting by a skinhead that resulted in six deaths at a Sikh temple and the other five were by Muslims, which left 19 dead.  This means that since 1980, Muslims in the U.S. have been 35 times more likely to commit terror than all other demographics combined.  

 

Now, the point of all this isn’t to "prove" that any particular person is dangerous.  The numbers are quite low and it is unlikely that the Muslim you know personally is all that different from you, much less plotting mass murder. A person's nominal religion is not grounds for thinking a certain way about them or for reaching conclusions that are based on anything other than their own words or deeds.

 

What we are demonstrating is how Muslim propaganda groups like Loonwatch and CAIR knowingly manipulate the public into false conclusions about Islam using disingenuous methods.  They are also dishonest when they try to confuse people into thinking that criticism of Islamic bigotry means hatred for Muslims. 

 

Taqiyya may be a part of Islamic law, but a noble cause never requires a lie. 

 

Then again... how noble can a religion really be when it's most vocal members are far more concerned about image rather than the dead and dismembered victims of its most devout?

 

A 2015 study found that 99.5% of all suicide attacks worldwide were also motivated by Islam.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/

 

But please don't take my word for it, there are some problems in the Israel study to be noted as well

[Aerion Brightflame]

Technically it's not a comment about inherent danger, it's a comment about frequency. 

 

It isn't a strawman argument to regard a threat of a significantly lower probability of occur as less dangerous than one that occurs frequently. Just to highlight how slim the odds are of you being killed in a terrorist attack in mainland US more die per year due to lightning strikes I think. 

 

The level of fear we treat some kind of deadly event should really be proportional to the frequency of said event, not the odds of actually dying in said event. You should be more afraid of being in a fatal car crash than a fatal terrorist attack because a car crash is far more likely to occur. 

 

It's still accurate I would say to not be overly afraid of terrorism on US soil given the tiny probability of you actually being involved in such an act. It really is tiny. It's a similar line of logic to saying 'You have a cough, your first thought shouldn't be 'oh god I have Lung cancer I'm going to die'' because it's an unlikely thing to happen. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Fear-Niche strawman

 

A is more dangerous than B, despite both A and B being dangerous, I should fear A, B is irrelevant.

 

It sets up the argument to fail, because cellular oxidation has a 100% fatality rate and nobody has managed to escape it yet....guess that's the only thing we should fear in life

 

Now that's not fair, we don't even really have a DUI or alcohol thread, but when it came up in the past, I was one of the few who wanted to raise the drinking age to 24 so the pre-frontal cortex could fully develop and the odds of poor choices being made were lower. 

 

The chance of something being done about the DUI problem is low, the chance of something being done about Islamic extremism is pretty high. I'm trying to stay on topic in the thread, and prioritize based on results. If I was nonobjective in the matter, I would be damning all muslims for this, which I am notably not.

Well it's not straw-man there cause I wasn't using that as an argument for why B is irrelevant, just to point out that you focus on B and seem to be more personally invested.

And it is fair. I mean. You MADE this thread after all. And you tend to be the majority of where this kind of discussion comes from. Get what I mean?

If people focused more on the DUI problem and cracked down on it as hard as they do about terrorism, it would be easier to change. But yes that's for another thread.

 

As to the bolded. The results you have chosen to present are very vague, specific, targeted results. It seems biased and doesn't really give much details. And I don't mean details about the attacks. I mean details such as.

-Which groups are doing it and how do they relate to Islam as a whole

-What's the solid, concrete, damage done by Islam compared to others as a whole. Including more than a death toll number.

And so on. It's just a sort of throw away statistic that doesn't actually tell anyone much when you get down to it.

[Aerion Brightflame]

You know CowCow that the chart Winter posted is just a visual representation of the data from this page:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

 

That's got all the details on the individual attacks in question if you wish to look at them. Including the things you highlighted. 

 

It's a really shitty graph to use because as you said it didn't tell us much on a visual inspection, but the information is there for further analysis. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You know CowCow that the chart Winter posted is just a visual representation of the data from this page:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

 

That's got all the details on the individual attacks in question if you wish to look at them. Including the things you highlighted. 

 

It's a really shitty graph to use because as you said it didn't tell us much on a visual inspection, but the information is there for further analysis. 

Mate, I literally had the link right under the pic, and even mentioned that to him....

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Mate, I literally had the link right under the pic, and even mentioned that to him....

 

Hey, atleast terrorism has no religion

 

Yes and I had to look up the fairly small print source at the bottom.

I never said it wasn't there. I said it was kind of a crappy "debate". Given that's the point of this area it'd been good for you to provide more information and context rather than say "Go find it yourself".

My point was the chart itself is a shitty point to make.

 

Also the link STILL doesn't provide all that much. It doesn't compare it to damage done by other religions or even explain the actual effects very well. However it DOES show me that they lumped together "Islam" under so many different factions that it really feels like a pointless chart.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Because it's grouping them under ideologies rather than religions...?

 

It's not trying to compare the damage of 'Islam' to other religions, it's comparing the number of attacks of Islamism to those committed by other ideologies. The religion point is kinda irrelevant because it's not talking about a religion. 

 

The reason why so many factions such as IS, Al-queda, Boko Haram ect ect are grouped together under Islamic Extremism are because all of them are terrorist groups that fall under the ideology of Islamism. It's not an insane idea really. 

 

The link doesn't explain the effects of the attacks because again, it's not trying to. It's simply listing the attacks - You use the extended links to find out the damage and create additional plots and such from that, as should go without saying. 

 

The plot was a terrible thing by itself, but you are kinda criticising the plot for not plotting and considering things it was ever attempting to plot. Which is weird. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Because it's grouping them under ideologies rather than religions...?

 

It's not trying to compare the damage of 'Islam' to other religions, it's comparing the number of attacks of Islamism to those committed by other ideologies. The religion point is kinda irrelevant because it's not talking about a religion. 

 

The reason why so many factions such as IS, Al-queda, Boko Haram ect ect are grouped together under Islamic Extremism are because all of them are terrorist groups that fall under the ideology of Islamism. It's not an insane idea really. 

 

The link doesn't explain the effects of the attacks because again, it's not trying to. It's simply listing the attacks - You use the extended links to find out the damage and create additional plots and such from that, as should go without saying. 

 

The plot was a terrible thing by itself, but you are kinda criticising the plot for not plotting and considering things it was ever attempting to plot. Which is weird. 

Which is why it's a bad thing to bring up in this thread. It doesn't really prove any substantial points. It's unhelpful at best and fear-mongering at most. Plus, Winter brought up the religion thing himself. Giving he brought up "Terrorism has no religion" and then linked to a chart that said Islamism was predominate among ideologies.

Even comparing Islamism to other ideologies, just swap my words for religion with ideologies and it's basically the same thing.

 

I'm more so not understanding what the point of bringing up the chart was in the first place. It's a flimsy argument to say that Islam is the problem, given context of the thread.

[vla1ne]

well, not gonna jump into the whole chart thing, but:

 

I'm more so not understanding what the point of bringing up the chart was in the first place. It's a flimsy argument to say that Islam is the problem, given context of the thread.

there's a point to it. the point is that islam (the religion), while not a large problem, could easily become one if left unchecked. for evidence of this, look at literally every religion that was allowed to grasp a seat within politics. what one might call a 'minor issue' today, is very capable of escalating into a far larger one. the argument could be made, from that chart, that the problem should be nipped in the bud while it remains relatively minor. the thread is about islam, and the chart demonstrates that islam has a large share of the religious terrorist pie in first world (among other) countries. so the argument could, should, and has been made, that islam is in dire need of reform on the scale of christianity/ catholosim/ everyotherreligion, before it can fully become the problem that it's already growing to be.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.politico.eu/article/german-intelligence-warns-of-is-hit-squads-among-refugees/

[vla1ne]

http://www.politico.eu/article/german-intelligence-warns-of-is-hit-squads-among-refugees/

...is that supposed to be surprising?/s

 

pretty much everybody on the right, and even some of us on the left have been warning about something akin to this for at least a year or so in advance. it's not a surprise so much as it is an eventuality.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

...is that supposed to be surprising?/s

 

pretty much everybody on the right, and even some of us on the left have been warning about something akin to this for at least a year or so in advance. it's not a surprise so much as it is an eventuality.

Polls don't show people that afraid. Immigration ban is only about 53% popular in the US from Muslims terrorist nations. 47% wanna die apperently

[Aerion Brightflame]

Or maybe people think that a few hundred out a million people isn't actually that terrifying...?

 

As V1ane said, it was an eventuality. But it being like that doesn't mean we should automatically be fearful. 

[vla1ne]

Polls don't show people that afraid. Immigration ban is only about 53% popular in the US from Muslims terrorist nations. 47% wanna die apperently

it's not that they want to die, they simply don't see it as a threat. whether or not it is is up for discussion, alongside the question of how deep the roots are growing, but that'll be found out in time.

[Dad]

People are more afraid of the fact that it is possible, than the fact that it could not be possible at all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37211788

 

 

[Dad]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37211788

 

 

 

Much as I hate what's going on, I want straight up evidence this is Islam extremism before we start pointin' fingers.  We ain't twelve.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Much as I hate what's going on, I want straight up evidence this is Islam extremism before we start pointin' fingers.  We ain't twelve.

That's fair, delete/hide post till we know if you want

[Dad]

That's fair, delete/hide post till we know if you want

 

No, it's fine.  Generally speaking, we don't know who this attack is related to.  The comment was to keep everyone cool and stop conclusion jumping before it started.  In addition, we have seen spikes in terrorist attacks from Islamist Extremists, so I understand the rationale of posting it here.

 

Once we have more information, it will be able to be discussed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b538929486f493da85e84d7ee7470a5/buried-thousands-72-mass-graves-ap-finds

 

Still, even the known numbers of victims buried are staggering — from 5,200 to more than 15,000.