Australian Politics Forum - Islamic terrorism statistics

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › Islamic terrorism statistics

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 21

Islamic terrorism statistics (Read 40511 times)

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Islamic terrorism statistics
Oct 5^th, 2012 at 6:29pm

Seems some people actually think that equating graffiti attacks with 9/11 or the London bombings is a reasonable way to gauge the terrorist threat, that just incidentally happens to trivialise the mass slaughters we have seen from Muslim terrorists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Here are a few examples:

Describing how the vast majority of muslims behave is not claiming to speak on their behalf - its a mere statement of fact. Unless you dispute the fact that the vast majority of muslims don't go around rioting and murdering?

Quote:

Lets start with, do you believe what is in the Koran? Do you share the views of the people you claim to speak on behalf of? Or are you trying to project onto them what you want to believe?

You want to know if I am a muslim. Sorry, but there is far too much trolling and ad-homs on this forum already, I'm not going to feed the trolls even more by divulging irrelevant information about my personal life and beliefs.

Quote:

They are your statistics Gandalf. You presented them. I have asked you plenty of times to tell everyone what they are actually measuring.

And I have answered you plenty of times that they are measuring incidents of terrorism. Don't confuse your own dislike of this particular measure with me not explaining what it was measuring.

Quote:

Do you really think that 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings etc represent only a tiny fraction of the terrorism in the US and Europe?

Thats exactly what I think - as the data demonstrates. A terrorist attack that doesn't kill anyone is still a terrorist attack - or an attempted terrorist attack that is foiled by the authorities before it was carried out is still an attempted terrorist attack. Does it mean that these guys are just harmless pranksters who never meant to hurt anyone? Absolutely not. A terrorist attack, or an attempted terrorist attack is an act where lives are put at risk - and the vast majority of the culprits in both the US and Europe have been non-muslim.

Quote:

This is just common sense Gandalf. I don't need to do any research to demonstrate how absurdly wrong you are.

well apparently you do, because all I'm saying is that the vast majority of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks have been carried out by non-muslims. You don't even dispute that, even though you confuse yourself by saying I am "absurdly wrong". All you dispute is the significance of this fact - and that the 3 muslim attacks that have resulted in significant loss of life should be all we focus on. Thats fine, its a point of view, but its not disputing the facts that I have given you.

Now going back to what you said, please show me where in the data I presented 9/11 is treated as painting graffitti. I (foolishly) assumed you had a particular quote from an actual source in mind, but its looking increasingly likely you just pulled that out of your arse.

Quote:

Yes Gandalf, you are compeltely removing the death toll, as if it somehow does not matter to the extent of the threat.

right - and hopefully you are beginning to understand that this is in no way disputing the actual facts related to the raw number of islamic terrorist attacks - as you seemed to think before. You think the emphasis should be on number of casualties, as opposed to the number of attacks - thats fine, its a legitimate point of view, but it is not refuting anything about the actual data I presented. But for the record, the opposing point of view (which I hinted at above), is that number of actual deaths from each attack isn't necessarily a reflection of intent. We know there were a large number of attacks by non-muslims which resulted in few or no casualties. Does this mean they aimed for few or no casualties? Not necessarily. They may have been that incompetent, or didn't have sufficient resources or time to carry out the attack to its full potential. Then there are all the foiled attacks - how many deaths were they intended to create?

Quote:

Pure genius - no mass slaughters by Muslim terrorists on a scale never seen before since the last mass slaughter by Muslim terrorists on a scale never seen before. What exactly are you trying to prove Gandalf?

Try zero slaughter since the last mass slaughter by muslim terrorists. All the while, nearly all the terrorist activity during this time has been conducted by non-muslims. What does this prove? That it can be argued that based on number of attempts at mass slaughter, the non-muslim terrorist threat is greater. And also, that the demonization of muslims has been unfair and out of proportion. Lets take the Brievik shootings as an example. When news first came out, tabloids and the twittersphere were making announcements about "islamic terrorism", before it was revealed it was done by a blond whitey islamophobe. Why were people jumping to conclusions about islamic terrorism? Maybe it was the memory of 9/11, Madrid and London. Yet, no one was thinking "hmmm actually, nearly all terrorist activity in the last decade has been of a non-Islamic nature - maybe they finally pulled off a proper attack".

Quote:

I just pointed it out to you Gandalf. Read the quote I posted and my explanation of why it is a strawman.

No I don't believe you did. Stop being cryptic and show me exactly where I misconstrued your argument and claimed to refute it (thats a strawman in case you didn't know).

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #1 - Oct 8^th, 2012 at 8:58am So once again, what statistics equate 9/11 or the London Bombings to graffiti? Now that you've dedicated an entire thread to this claim, you might finally answer the question.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47366 At my desk.	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #2 - Oct 8^th, 2012 at 6:28pm The statistics that you presented do gandalf.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #3 - Oct 8^th, 2012 at 7:13pm

The statistics I presented were Europol statistics on terrorist activity in Europe from 2006-2008, and FBI statistics on terrorist activity in the United States from 1980 to 2005. The vast majority of activity in both regions are bombings - other activity includes arson, shootings, hijackings etc. As far as I can tell, nowhere does either source list graffiti as a terrorist act - which would put it alongside 9/11 or the Madrid bombings. Since you made the claim that it does, I think its only fair that you point out where.

In an attempt to move this thread away from the idiocy and childishness that you want to treat it with, let me just say, the statistics are a raw count of the number of attacks - it does not seek to compare in any way one attack with another. Therefore no one is denying that the 9/11 attack was a far worse attack than any other terrorist attack on US soil. So you are really making a strawman argument. The number of attacks is relevant though - and the revelation that the vast majority are carried out by non-muslims. It is relevant in the way we overhype the muslim terrorist threat, and don't seem to understand that if a terrorist attack is carried out in Europe or America, odds are its committed by a non-muslim. The example I cited in the other thread about the Brievik attack in Norway is particulary pertinent to this point.

Finally, yes its true that non-islamic terrorism attacks generally result in fewer casualties, but does that mean the threat is any less? Not necessarily. A bombing (which constitutes the vast majority of non-muslim terrorism) is still an act which puts lives at risk, and is definitely still a serious threat to society.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #4 - Oct 8^th, 2012 at 8:54pm

Quote:

As far as I can tell, nowhere does either source list graffiti as a terrorist act - which would put it alongside 9/11 or the Madrid bombings.

You seem a bit unsure about it now. It doesn't exactly rule it out does either? Both give very broad definitions of terrorism that includes acts with no fatalities.

Quote:

it does not seek to compare in any way one attack with another

Except that it treats them as equal. It measures terrorism in a way that completely ignores the actual magnitude of the threat or risk.

Quote:

Therefore no one is denying that the 9/11 attack was a far worse attack than any other terrorist attack on US soil. So you are really making a strawman argument.

You used it as a measure of the threat of terrorism to argue that the threat from Islamic terrorism is over rated. Do you really think we are silly enough to believe that a bunch of other attacks, many of which involved no deaths at all, means that we are wrong to fear another 9/11, London, Madrid, or Bali style attack?

Quote:

The number of attacks is relevant though - and the revelation that the vast majority are carried out by non-muslims. It is relevant in the way we overhype the muslim terrorist threat

There you go again, completely missing the point. This does not prove that Islamic terrorism is over-hyped, because you are not actually comparing the same thing.

Quote:

and don't seem to understand that if a terrorist attack is carried out in Europe or America, odds are its committed by a non-muslim

If a terrorist attack kills hundreds or thousands of people and takes things to a whole new low, odds are it is Islamic. Do you get it now?

Quote:

Finally, yes its true that non-islamic terrorism attacks generally result in fewer casualties, but does that mean the threat is any less? Not necessarily.

Obviously it depends on how you measure it. If slaughtering thousands of people matters to you, then yes it does mean that the threat from non-Muslims is less. What it boils down to is that even terrorists have highers standards than these Muslims. 9/11 killed more people than all those other non-Muslim terrorist attacks combined, yet you are deluded enough to think that you can divide all those other attacks into tiny pieces and somehow add them back together to end up with something much bigger.

Quote:

A bombing (which constitutes the vast majority of non-muslim terrorism)

Do you have evidence to back this up?

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #5 - Oct 8^th, 2012 at 11:45pm

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

You seem a bit unsure about it now. It doesn't exactly rule it out does either? Both give very broad definitions of terrorism that includes acts with no fatalities.

you are being completely absurd. You were the one who stated that graffiti was included in the stats as a statement of fact. YOU are the one who needs to back up this claim - the burden of proof is completely on you. I never said definitively that it wasn't - I only ever asked you to show me that it was, and you refuse to do so. In fact as you revealed in your very last sentence, you haven't even looked at the sources - so you couldn't possibly know. Argument fail on your behalf.

Quote:

Except that it treats them as equal. It measures terrorism in a way that completely ignores the actual magnitude of the threat or risk.

Again, it merely tallies the number of terrorist attacks - nothing more, nothing less. No one in their right mind would say that a bombing committed for some political objective that doesn't kill anyone - is not still a terrorist attack. Whether or not you might call it "less" of an attack than 9/11 or London is beside the point - they are both still terrorist attacks, and thats alll the statistics are concerned about.

Quote:

If a terrorist attack kills hundreds or thousands of people and takes things to a whole new low, odds are it is Islamic. Do you get it now?

No, thats a misconception. There have been a total of 3 islamic terrorist attacks on western soil that I can think of that have killed more than 50 people in living memory. There have been many times more islamic attacks, or attempted attacks that have resulted in little or no deaths. So just on that crude measure, chances are that an islamic terrorist attack will be of the few or no deaths kind. But more importantly, you are wrong because if you look at the history of terrorism in western Europe, islamic terrorism is not leading the body count - not by a long shot. In Spain, the ETA have killed at least twice as many civilians in terrorist attacks than islamists, and in Britain the deaths caused by islamists pale compared to the civilian deaths caused by the IRA. And these are the only two western European countries that have experienced any significant islamist attack. So you are spectacularly wrong on two counts: 1. a terrorist that kills hundreds of people in Europe is statistically *NOT* likely to be an islamist, and 2. an islamic terrorist attack is statistically more likely to result in few or no deaths. Do you get it now?

Quote:

oh right - you are seriously saying because the non-islamic terrorists haven't yet been able (through incompetence rather than lack of will) to inflict a spectacular death toll, they are somehow morally superior? Ridiculous. The number of non-islamic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks compared to the islamic attacks has been ENORMOUS - chances are that at least some of those have aimed for a large body count. That the islamists were lucky enough to pull it off (amidst all the failed and foiled attempts) is no reflection on the moral standards of the other terrorists. A bomb attack is still a bomb attack - and it most definitely does put lives at risk. That they more often than not don't kill many if any civilians is good luck rather than good management.

Quote:

Do you have evidence to back this up?

Well thanks for proving to me that you haven't even bothered to read the sources.

Here:

Now where are those graffiti attacks again? Roll Eyes

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #6 - Oct 9^th, 2012 at 5:46am fd, wasn't it you who claimed the thousands of Muslims murdered by Hindu lynch mobs were merely the victims of a few harmless graffiti attacks?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #7 - Oct 9^th, 2012 at 7:02am

^ Indeed:

Quote:

Do you count the slaughter of hundreds of Hindu by Muslims as equal to a bit of anti-Islamic graffiti by Hindus

Seems non-islamic terrorism all over the world can be trivialised as harmless graffiti. Either he is completely ignorant to the slaughter of muslims by hindus over the years, or he is trivialising the death of thousands.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #8 - Oct 9^th, 2012 at 6:16pm fd lives in some warped fantasy world where Muslims are responsible for each and every little evil that exists, and non-Muslims therefore must be the innocent victims of the evil Muslims.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #9 - Oct 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm

Quote:

Actually, what happened first was that you presented statistics, then I asked you a very simple question - what are they a measure of? - and you are yet to figure that out. I don't need to prove that graffiti is included. It is more than enough to prove my point that you still haven't figured it out. After all, this is not really a discussion about graffiti is it?

Quote:

In fact as you revealed in your very last sentence, you haven't even looked at the sources - so you couldn't possibly know. Argument fail on your behalf.

They are your sources. It is sufficient for me to prove that you have no clue what they mean. This is not a competition to see who understands statistics the best. This is all about the statistics that you presented and whether they mean what you claim they mean.
Quote:

But we are not arguing over how to define a terrorist attack. We are arguing about your ludicrous interpretation of the statistics.

Quote:

Whether or not you might call it "less" of an attack than 9/11 or London is beside the point - they are both still terrorist attacks, and thats alll the statistics are concerned about.

You think that 3000 dead people vs 0 dead people is beside the point? What exactly do you think the point is? Remember, it is not the technical definition used by statisticians that is in question, but your attempt to use non-fatal attacks to claim that we are over-reacting to the slaughter of thousands of people.

Quote:

There have been many times more islamic attacks, or attempted attacks that have resulted in little or no deaths. So just on that crude measure, chances are that an islamic terrorist attack will be of the few or no deaths kind.

WTF is your point? Are we playing some game where you pick a random attack and guess who did it? Or are we trying to measure the actual threat of terrorism.

Quote:

But more importantly, you are wrong because if you look at the history of terrorism in western Europe, islamic terrorism is not leading the body count - not by a long shot. In Spain, the ETA have killed at least twice as many civilians in terrorist attacks than islamists, and in Britain the deaths caused by islamists pale compared to the civilian deaths caused by the IRA.

9/11 killed more people than the total from the ETA and IRA combined - more than their grand total over many decades of operation. One attack by Muslims is all it took to eclipse them. No part of the world is safe from islamic terrorism. Thus, the threat is not blown out of proportion at all. Sure, if you happened to live in Northern Ireland during the troubles then they would have been a bigger threat to you. But for almost the entire western world today, Islamic terrorism is the biggest terrorist threat. No other group even comes close. The combined threat from every other terrorist organisation or cause does not even come close. Which is why to argue otherwise you have used statistics that equate 9/11 with a graffiti attack. Irish emigrants don't go round blowing up nightclubs to make a point about Northern Island. Spanish emigrants don't do that either. Only Muslims.

Do you think we are being misled into not fearing an attack from the ETA or IRA in Sydney? How many Muslim terrorists are currently in jail in Australia? How many ETA? How many IRA?

Quote:

So you are spectacularly wrong on two counts

If you are going to claim I am wrong about something, you should start with what I said, rather than making up something.

Quote:

oh right - you are seriously saying because the non-islamic terrorists haven't yet been able (through incompetence rather than lack of will)

I would argue with you over the cause, but it is beside the point. Whether Muslims are more organised as terrorists or simply more evil, it doesn't change the magnitude of the risk they pose.

Quote:

Now where are those graffiti attacks again?

Do you see 'malicious destruction' with a big 20 beside it? Think about it.

Quote:

fd lives in some warped fantasy world where Muslims are responsible for each and every little evil that exists, and non-Muslims therefore must be the innocent victims of the evil Muslims.

It is your fantasy Abu. You are yet to manage to put together a rational criticism of something I actually said rather than something you made up.

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #10 - Oct 10^th, 2012 at 8:13am

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Actually, what happened first was that you presented statistics, then I asked you a very simple question - what are they a measure of? - and you are yet to figure that out.

which I have explained about 5 times now - its measuring the raw number of terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA over the last few years. I even gave you the Europol definition of terrorism. Exactly what else do you want?

Quote:

I don't need to prove that graffiti is included.

you don't *need* to, but it would be common courtesy - after making a clear cut claim that graffiti is definitely in the statistics, the burden of proof is on you to show me where. I can only take this refusal to do so as an admission that you were wrong. It would be nice for you to have the good grace to admit your mistake, but an implied admission will have to suffice here I suppose.

Quote:

It is more than enough to prove my point that you still haven't figured it out.

I've figured it out, and I'm sure anyone else who read my 5 or so explanations of what it is about would have figured it out by now too. I'm sorry that you seem incapable of comprehending a definition spelled out for you 5 times, but thats not really my problem.

Quote:

But we are not arguing over how to define a terrorist attack. We are arguing about your ludicrous interpretation of the statistics.

no, we are absolutely arguing over how to define a terrorist attack. Please do keep up with your own idiotic argument. Your beef is that the statistics measure "graffiti" like attacks alongside 9/11 - and therefore shouldn't be considered as "real" terrorism. The interpretation of the statistics has nothing to do with it - because there's really nothing to interpret - its giving the raw numbers of attacks, nothing more nothing less. The issue is that you dispute the definitions given for what constitutes a terrorist attacks.

Quote:

thats your problem with the statistics in a nutshell. I repeat, a bomb attack is still a bomb attack that endangers lives and creates instability irrespective of how many casualties it creates. It is therefore legitimately defined as a terrorist attack. You want to redefine completely what is a terrorist attack - which is fine, and I even have some sympathy for your position - but DONT confuse this contention with me misinterpreting some pretty simple statistics.

Quote:

[quote]9/11 killed more people than the total from the ETA and IRA combined - more than their grand total over many decades of operation. One attack by Muslims is all it took to eclipse them.

Yes thats true, but my point was more relevant for Europe - where people have a tendency to cry "islamic terrorists!" whenever something happens - exactly like what happened with the Brievik shooting.

Number of casualties is a legitimate way of guaging the threat - I keep repeating that - but the number of actual attacks should be as well. Any number of the attempted or failed attacks carried out by ETA or other separatist groups in Europe is a potential Madrid or 7/7 - the threat shouldn't simply be ignored just because they have so far failed to make a spectacular attack.

Quote:

Do you think we are being misled into not fearing an attack from the ETA or IRA in Sydney? How many Muslim terrorists are currently in jail in Australia? How many ETA? How many IRA?

We are misled about other threats - absolutely. While everyone was screaming about an islamic attack in Norway, how many people were actually aware of the alarming rise in far right militancy in Europe? In Australia there's only been two terrorist attacks on Australian soil - neither of them islamic.

Quote:

I would argue with you over the cause, but it is beside the point. Whether Muslims are more organised as terrorists or simply more evil, it doesn't change the magnitude of the risk they pose.

Of course it does. If you take this absurd view that non-islamist terrorists are less of a threat because they somehow hold higher moral standards, then you basically give free reign to these other terrorists. Its a bit like in the 60s and 70s ASIO was so obsessed with the threat from communists, that it negligently ignored the far worse threat from Croatian militants we were importing. Brievik slaughtered scores of innocents while Europe was asleep to the threat from the far right.

Quote:

Do you see 'malicious destruction' with a big 20 beside it? Think about it.

prove to me that one of those 20 attacks was actual graffiti - its your claim, you have to back it up.

Quote:

It is your fantasy Abu. You are yet to manage to put together a rational criticism of something I actually said rather than something you made up.

Abu didn't fantasise your comparison of hindu terrorisim with graffiti - I even provided the quote.

« Last Edit: Oct 10^th, 2012 at 10:11am by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 17474
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #11 - Oct 10^th, 2012 at 1:50pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 8:13am:

In Australia there's only been two terrorist attacks on Australian soil - neither of them islamic.

What about the Battle of Broken Hill, was that terrorism done by muslims or do your statistics ignore this attack?

Quote:

The Broken hill massacre was a fatal incident which took place on Jan 1 1915.
Two muslim men shot dead four people and wounded seven more before being killed by Police and military officers.
While the attack was politically and religiously inspired, as declared by the perpetrators notes, the men were not members of any sanctioned armed force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Broken_Hill

A few muslims in custody for planning terror attacks in Australia, the evidence is hard to ignore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia#Militant_Islamist_Incidents

I wonder who bombed the Israeli consulate and the Hakoah club?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-26/police-reopen-1982-sydney-bombings-case/42...

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

magpie

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 119
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #12 - Oct 10^th, 2012 at 2:02pm

in looking at the thread so far, I see a lack of balance and objectivity..
most seem to be equating muslums with terrorism, bit like the american imperialists usage of the term rendition when it is actually torture.
if you exchange each and every usage of the word terrorist/s with freedom fighter/s, I think you would have accurate understanding of events.
Is this not so?

pansi1951 wrote: Israel's heart is blackened by the blood of innocent Palestinian children. Karma awaits you, Israel. Your day of reckoning is fast approaching.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #13 - Oct 10^th, 2012 at 6:23pm

Quote:

which I have explained about 5 times now - its measuring the raw number of terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA over the last few years.

Well that much was obvious from the beginning. The crucial information, which you seem oblivious to even when you present it, is what actually counts as a terrorist attack. Obviously a method that equates 9/11 with an attack where they deliberately avoid injuring people is not really useful as a measure of the overall terrorist threat - despite your protestations that it is incompetence rather than lack of will that prevents them from slaughtering thousands the way the Muslims like to.

Quote:

I even gave you the Europol definition of terrorism. Exactly what else do you want?

Have you figured out yet whether it includes graffiti attacks? The info you have provided so far does not rule it out. To me that indicates that you do not understand the statistics you claim to reflect the terrorist threat.

Quote:

Your beef is that the statistics measure "graffiti" like attacks alongside 9/11 - and therefore shouldn't be considered as "real" terrorism.

No Gandalf. I was merely pointing out the obvious - that your interpretation of the statistics as evidence that the threat of Islamic terrorism is overblown is wrong. Graffiti is real enough, but we do not need to concern ourselves with it to the same extent we do a repeat of 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali etc. You have your head so far up the arse of these statistics you have forgotten what we are talking about.

Quote:

The interpretation of the statistics has nothing to do with it - because there's really nothing to interpret

Yes there is - the threat of terrorism. Remember when you tried to do that?

Quote:

The issue is that you dispute the definitions given for what constitutes a terrorist attacks.

No I don't. I don't really care, as you should have guessed already by my unwillingness to look into the detail about graffiti.

Quote:

I repeat, a bomb attack is still a bomb attack that endangers lives and creates instability irrespective of how many casualties it creates. It is therefore legitimately defined as a terrorist attack.

As a kid I spent some time putting explosives in people's letter boxes etc. If you stop and think about it you will eventually realise that that the risk does depend on how many people you intend to kill and how many you actually kill, and the extent you go to to avoid killing people or to increase the body count.

Quote:

You want to redefine completely what is a terrorist attack - which is fine

Again Gandalf you should try sticking to what I actually say. What I want is a realistic assessment of the terrorist threat - something that your statistic clearly lack.

Quote:

but DONT confuse this contention with me misinterpreting some pretty simple statistics

You clearly and deliberately misinterpetted them, as did Abu, as did just about every empty headed Muslim apologist on this site. The difference is that you have persisted with your delusion even after the absurdity of your interpretation was pointed out to you.

Quote:

And London. And Madrid. Both of these cities have stared down domestic terrorism, yet even they recognise the new lows that Islamic terrorism is taking it to.

Quote:

Number of casualties is a legitimate way of guaging the threat

It is by far the most appropriate way. By this measure 9/11 outdid the entire historical death toll of both the ETA and IRA - and for some reason you still think we are overestimating the risk.

Quote:

but the number of actual attacks should be as well. Any number of the attempted or failed attacks carried out by ETA or other separatist groups in Europe is a potential Madrid or 7/7 - the threat shouldn't simply be ignored just because they have so far failed to make a spectacular attack.

It should in Australia. If anything Islam has given terrorists a bad name and stepped up all anti-terrorism efforts, as well as further eroding support for terrorists - except Muslim ones of course, a lot of Muslims seemed to have taken it as a positive sign and are excited by the prospect of a glorious Islamic victory (eg Abu).

Quote:

In Australia there's only been two terrorist attacks on Australian soil - neither of them islamic.

Actually I think you'll find there was one by a bunch a camel jockeys a long time ago. There have also been several thwarted attempts in recent years - highlighting the benefit of taking the Islamic threat seriously rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet as you do.

Quote:

If you take this absurd view that non-islamist terrorists are less of a threat because they somehow hold higher moral standards, then you basically give free reign to these other terrorists.

No I am not. I am just pointing out how Muslims have managed to take it to a new low. And if a terrorist group deliberately avoid hurting people then it is perfectly reasonable to consider them less of a threat than Islamic terrorists. If the Australian authorities put as much effort into investigating the IRA, ETA, animal libbers etc as they do Islamic terrorism then I would be calling for someone to lose their job.

Quote:

Brievik slaughtered scores of innocents while Europe was asleep to the threat from the far right.

Europe is not asleep to the the threat. It never went away since the Nazis were defeated. You have to create an absurd alternative reality to justify even attempting to make a point.

Quote:

prove to me that one of those 20 attacks was actual graffiti - its your claim, you have to back it up.

Like i said, it is sufficient for me to demonstrate that you still don't know what your statistics are actually measuring. You are so far off the mark there is no need to quibble about exactly how far wrong you are.

Quote:

Abu didn't fantasise your comparison of hindu terrorisim with graffiti - I even provided the quote.

Yes he does, you merely share his fantasy, and his inability to respond to what people actually say.

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #14 - Oct 10^th, 2012 at 8:51pm

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Have you figured out yet whether it includes graffiti attacks? The info you have provided so far does not rule it out.

Unlike you, I have read the europol reports I referred you to, and I can promise you graffiti is not included - anywhere. But that should be obvious anyway by reading the definition of terrorism I already provided specifically requires the use, or attempted use of violence in order to achieve political goals. That rules out graffiti right there. And as already pointed out, the vast majority of attacks have been bombings of various kinds. Any one of these is a potential 7/7 or Madrid.

Quote:

No Gandalf. I was merely pointing out the obvious - that your interpretation of the statistics as evidence that the threat of Islamic terrorism is overblown is wrong.

The popular perception out there is that not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims. This leads people to immediately assume islamists are at work whenever a bomb goes off - when statistically that is a complete misnomer. This leads to unfairly demonising an entire population, prejudice and eventually persecution. Spain and France are literally under siege from separatist bombers - letter bombs, IEDs, IIDs are going off all the time - and over 99% of them are non-islamic. No one in their right mind is going to trivialise those attacks and pretend they are not a substantial threat to social harmony and stability.

Quote:

Yes there is - the threat of terrorism. Remember when you tried to do that?

yes- and as we all know, bombs going off in letters and cafes nearly every day in France and Spain represents an insignificant threat - far far less than the .04% of bombings that are carried out by muslims. Roll Eyes

Quote:

Yes he does, you merely share his fantasy, and his inability to respond to what people actually say.

What you actually said was "Do you count the slaughter of hundreds of Hindu by Muslims as equal to a bit of anti-Islamic graffiti by Hindus " - please explain to me how else we are to interpret that other than implying that muslim terrorism in India is heinous, while hindu terrorism against muslims is no worse than a bit of harmless graffiti? You are shameless. You spit in the faces of those hundreds, if not thousands of victims of hindu terrorism. You are a class act.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 21

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page