Australian Politics Forum - defending terrorists with misleading statistics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98944

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #90 - Dec 31^st, 2018 at 7:15pm

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 10:12pm:

Brian do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Two points, FD. The first is, you have not proved that the statistics Greg has quoted are "misleading". The second is that you have not shown how Greg is using these statistics to "mislead".

Get back to us with your answer to those two questions and I might be interested in discussing this further. Simply throwing mud is pointless however most of what you do is pointless, isn't it? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So that is a no? You are afraid to have your own opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics to defend Islamic terrorism unless I give it to you?

That's a question.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98944

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #91 - Dec 31^st, 2018 at 7:26pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 6:49pm:

moses wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 4:32pm:

A fact of psychology is:

People endorse whichever position reinforces their connection to others with whom they share important commitments.

People who condemn islamic terrorism therefore certify the following as being the most pertinent facts.

EUROPOL TERRORISM

Terrorism

The overall terrorist threat to the security of the EU remains acute.

The main concern of Member States is jihadist terrorism and the closely related phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters who travel to and from conflict zones.

Recent attacks in the EU demonstrate the intent and capability of jihadist terrorists to inflict mass casualties on urban populations in an effort to induce a high state of well-publicised terror.

The carefully planned attacks continue to demonstrate the elevated threat to the EU from an extremist minority, operationally based in the Middle East, combined with a network of people born and raised in the EU, often radicalised within a short space of time, who have proven willing and able to act as facilitators and active accomplices in terrorism.

Of the 12 trends identified in the latest TE-SAT, most related to jihadist terrorism. While there was a large number of terrorist attacks not connected with jihadism, the latter accounts for the most serious forms of terrorist activity as nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks.

muslim terrorists are the main threat, muslim terrorists cause the most deaths and injuries, the muslim jihadist is the reason the threat level is acute in Europe.

Now jump to the other side the apologists and supporters of islamic terror, all endorse facts which reinforce their position they push a fact that other forms of terrorism outnumber islamic terrorism.

They are desperate to slither around the truth that islamic terrorism is the most deadly form, deliberately committed by muslims to inflict the most number of injuries and deaths of innocent men women and children (including babies in prams).

Just depends which side of the fence you're on as to which fact you are going to promote.

I'm absolutely certain I'm on the right side.

The side of non-Jihadist terrorists?

The Europol report shows that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe have nothing to do with Jihadism, moses.

Why do you continually defend the 84% of terrorists who aren't Muslims?

I'm curious.

Because Moses is a white supremacist virtue-signaller. He doesn't give a hoot about the Muselman. His aim is to ban the tinted races. Your Muselman is merely first cab off the rank, an easy mark.

Why do you think FD started this board in the first place? Friendly discussion? Civilised debate? Sustainable fishing and carbon taxes?

FD wanted a benign version of Stormfront. Surprisingly enough, a number of members have gone straight to the source and migrated there.

After all, why bother reading between FD's lines and watching him squirm and stutter and evade? Just come out with it.

The tinted races are ever so offensive.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #92 - Dec 31^st, 2018 at 8:03pm

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 5:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 10:12pm:

Brian do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Two points, FD. The first is, you have not proved that the statistics Greg has quoted are "misleading". The second is that you have not shown how Greg is using these statistics to "mislead".

Get back to us with your answer to those two questions and I might be interested in discussing this further. Simply throwing mud is pointless however most of what you do is pointless, isn't it? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So that is a no? You are afraid to have your own opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics to defend Islamic terrorism unless I give it to you?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, FD. Unwilling to answer questions? Tsk, tsk, how typical of a stirring troll, hey? Get back to us when you're willing to come out from under your bridge. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #93 - Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #94 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #95 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:26am

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am:

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Brian you appear unable to distinguish between misleading and "factually incorrect". Are you having trouble comprehending the question, or are you just afraid of your own opinion? Why do apologists for Islamic terrorism inevitably take on the slipperyness of the Muslims they are defending?

Do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #96 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 9:31am

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:26am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am:

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Brian you appear unable to distinguish between misleading and "factually incorrect". Are you having trouble comprehending the question, or are you just afraid of your own opinion? Why do apologists for Islamic terrorism inevitably take on the slipperyness of the Muslims they are defending?

Do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. More questions. When you answer mine, FD, I may answer yours. OK? Now run along, back to the little kiddies' playground... Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #97 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:15am

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 9:31am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:26am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am:

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Brian you appear unable to distinguish between misleading and "factually incorrect". Are you having trouble comprehending the question, or are you just afraid of your own opinion? Why do apologists for Islamic terrorism inevitably take on the slipperyness of the Muslims they are defending?

Do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. More questions. When you answer mine, FD, I may answer yours. OK? Now run along, back to the little kiddies' playground... Roll Eyes

So you *might* reveal to us whether you are brave enough to form your own opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #98 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:48am

Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/2017-eu-terrorism-report-142-failed-...

135 of the 142 dead were killed by jihadists and you cockwombles keep insisting that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the report by parrotting an irrelevant statistics merely to deflect attention from the scale of these murders for Allah.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #99 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:37am

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:15am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 9:31am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:26am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am:

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Brian you appear unable to distinguish between misleading and "factually incorrect". Are you having trouble comprehending the question, or are you just afraid of your own opinion? Why do apologists for Islamic terrorism inevitably take on the slipperyness of the Muslims they are defending?

Do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. More questions. When you answer mine, FD, I may answer yours. OK? Now run along, back to the little kiddies' playground... Roll Eyes

So you *might* reveal to us whether you are brave enough to form your own opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

You won't know until you answer my questions, Freediver, now will you? Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #100 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:40am

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:48am:

Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/2017-eu-terrorism-report-142-failed-...

135 of the 142 dead were killed by jihadists and you cockwombles keep insisting that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the report by parrotting an irrelevant statistics merely to deflect attention from the scale of these murders for Allah.

I am unsure who you're talking to, Soren? I have made no such claims. I have merely defended Greg from what appears, on the surface, to be unwarranted attacks against the EuroPol statistics. Until you address the reality that more non-Jihadist attacks occurred than Jihadist attacks, you're just whistling dixie, Soren. A not unusual situation for you, as we all know but still the truth of what you're doing... Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #101 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 12:04pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:40am:

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:48am:

Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/2017-eu-terrorism-report-142-failed-...

135 of the 142 dead were killed by jihadists and you cockwombles keep insisting that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the report by parrotting an irrelevant statistics merely to deflect attention from the scale of these murders for Allah.

I am unsure who you're talking to, Soren? I have made no such claims. I have merely defended Greg from what appears, on the surface, to be unwarranted attacks against the EuroPol statistics. Until you address the reality that more non-Jihadist attacks occurred than Jihadist attacks, you're just whistling dixie, Soren. A not unusual situation for you, as we all know but still the truth of what you're doing... Roll Eyes

As the report shows, jihad is by far the most deadly terrorist threat, dwarfing all others put together by an immense margin. That's not islamophobia or whistling dixie, cockwomble, thats reality - the thing you have been unmoored from for far too long.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:58pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #102 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:47pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:15am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 9:31am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:26am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 8:17am:

Frank wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 9:44pm:

1. The statistics are misleading because the report makes in abundantly and repeatedly clear that Islamic jihadi terrorism is the biggest, most significant and most resource-intensive terrorist threat in Europe (and indeed around the world wherever Muslims are present).

2. Turd is using the numerical count of events that are classified as 'terrorist' related incidents and he tries to mislead about the truth of the above point.

Bwian, you are as thick and deceptive and stupid and way out of your depth as Turd, Arssie and the rest of the 'yeah-but' mail order fools. To F Orf with bells on is a new year resolution you should all make.

And a happy new year to you, Soren.

1. Greg has made no misrepresentation of the statistics that he has presented, as far as I am aware. He has made a simple statement ("most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature") which is factually true. You and other Islamophobes refuse to accept what the EurPol report has claimed for reasons based, I suspect on your Islamophobia.

2. This has not been "misleading" at all. You believe Islam is the greatest Terrorist threat and refuse to accept any information that refutes that point, even if it is from official EuroPol reports. Greg has been factually correct, "most Terrorism in Europe is not Jihadist in nature". Now you and FD and other Islamophobes can either swallow reality or you can keep on your own Jihad against Muslims or in other words, you can look even sillier than you presently do. Roll Eyes

Brian you appear unable to distinguish between misleading and "factually incorrect". Are you having trouble comprehending the question, or are you just afraid of your own opinion? Why do apologists for Islamic terrorism inevitably take on the slipperyness of the Muslims they are defending?

Do you have an opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. More questions. When you answer mine, FD, I may answer yours. OK? Now run along, back to the little kiddies' playground... Roll Eyes

So you *might* reveal to us whether you are brave enough to form your own opinion on whether Greg is using misleading statistics do defend Islamic terrorism?

You won't know until you answer my questions, Freediver, now will you? Roll Eyes

I know you are afraid of your own opinion on the matter.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 145935
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #103 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:58pm

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 12:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:40am:

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:48am:

Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/2017-eu-terrorism-report-142-failed-...

135 of the 142 dead were killed by jihadists and you cockwombles keep insisting that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the report by parrotting an irrelevant statistics merely to deflect attention from the scale of these murders for Allah.

I am unsure who you're talking to, Soren? I have made no such claims. I have merely defended Greg from what appears, on the surface, to be unwarranted attacks against the EuroPol statistics. Until you address the reality that more non-Jihadist attacks occurred than Jihadist attacks, you're just whistling dixie, Soren. A not unusual situation for you, as we all know but still the truth of what you're doing... Roll Eyes

As the report shows, jihad is by far the most deadly terrorist treat, dwarfing all others put together by an immense margin. That's not islamophobia or whistling dixie, cockwomble, thats reality - the thing you have been unmoored from for far too long.

You're using misleading statistics to hide the truth.

The vast majority of all terrorist attacks in Europe are not carried out by Jihadists.

Why do you continue to defend the people who are carrying out 84% of all attacks?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #104 - Jan 1^st, 2019 at 2:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:58pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 12:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:40am:

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 10:48am:

Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/2017-eu-terrorism-report-142-failed-...

135 of the 142 dead were killed by jihadists and you cockwombles keep insisting that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the report by parrotting an irrelevant statistics merely to deflect attention from the scale of these murders for Allah.

I am unsure who you're talking to, Soren? I have made no such claims. I have merely defended Greg from what appears, on the surface, to be unwarranted attacks against the EuroPol statistics. Until you address the reality that more non-Jihadist attacks occurred than Jihadist attacks, you're just whistling dixie, Soren. A not unusual situation for you, as we all know but still the truth of what you're doing... Roll Eyes

As the report shows, jihad is by far the most deadly terrorist treat, dwarfing all others put together by an immense margin. That's not islamophobia or whistling dixie, cockwomble, thats reality - the thing you have been unmoored from for far too long.

You're using misleading statistics to hide the truth.

The vast majority of all terrorist attacks in Europe are not carried out by Jihadists.

Why do you continue to defend the people who are carrying out 84% of all attacks?

They are near-harmless compared to the jihadi death toll, Turdy Mcwankpuffin.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged