Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Islamic terrorism statistics http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752 Message started by freediver on Oct 5^th, 2012 at 6:29pm

Title: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on 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).[/quote]

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 8^th, 2012 at 6:28pm

The statistics that you presented do gandalf.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on 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?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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? ::)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on 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?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Baronvonrort on 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/4223184

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Odo on 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?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on 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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on 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. ::)

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.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 9:04pm

Quote:

Any one of these is a potential 7/7 or Madrid.

They are also potentially blowing up a letterbox - not the same thing. Not all bombs are the same.

Quote:

The popular perception out there is that not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

No it isn't. You keep falling back on this because you don;t have any rational argument. It is a strawman, nothing more.

Quote:

yes- and as we all know, bombs going off in letters and cafes nearly every day in France and Spain

You sure about that? Yet again your own evidence contradicts you.

Quote:

You should interpret it the same way as my claim that your statistics equate 9/11 with a graffiti attack. Of course, this would have been obvious if you had not chopped off the second half of the sentence. If I clearly did not mean to 'spit in the face' of the victims of 9/11, why do you reach such an absurd conclusion here? It seems like a pattern of you deliberately leaving out the important information to make something appear the opposite of what it is.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 9:32pm

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

No it isn't. You keep falling back on this because you don;t have any rational argument. It is a strawman, nothing more.

that doesn't even make any sense. A strawman is misconstruing someone's argument and claiming to have refuted it. How is what I said here even remotely relevant to that? You obviously don't even know what a strawman is, so stop using the term. But the fact is, this perception about muslims is very widespread, and to deny it is simply ignorance. Countering this misconception is very important if anyone is interested in stamping out the rampant islamophobia that pervades our society.

Quote:

You sure about that? Yet again your own evidence contradicts you.

There were hundreds of terrorist attacks in Europe last year alone. The vast majority of attacks were bombings. There are 365 days in a year. You do the maths.

Quote:

You should interpret it the same way as my claim that your statistics equate 9/11 with a graffiti attack.

ie bullshit. Right we're clear on that...

Quote:

If I clearly did not mean to 'spit in the face' of the victims of 9/11, why do you reach such an absurd conclusion here?

Well you pretty much just answered your own question. You consider the victims of islamic terrorism as far more important than the victims of non-islamic terrorism. Why else would you describe muslim attacks as "slaughter" and hindu attacks as "a bit of anti-islamic graffiti"?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 10:11pm

Quote:

that doesn't even make any sense. A strawman is misconstruing someone's argument and claiming to have refuted it. How is what I said here even remotely relevant to that?

Yes. In this case it is the argument or position of an imaginary group of people. You cannot counter what anyone here actually posts, so you make up an imaginary group with an imaginary belief so you can have a glorious victory in debate.

Quote:

But the fact is, this perception about muslims is very widespread

Can you quote a single real person actually saying it, or is this another case of you making up what they think instead?

Quote:

Countering this misconception is very important

Sure, if imaginary rhetorical victories is your thing.

Quote:

if anyone is interested in stamping out the rampant islamophobia that pervades our society

Something makes me doubt the islamophobia will go away unless Muslims stop slaughtering people, and other Muslims stop making excuses for them. Perhaps you should direct your energy towards stopping that rather than telling people they have nothing to fear so long as they can't tell the difference between 3000 dead people and an 'attack' that deliberately avoids harming people. Despite all your playing round with numbers and silly excuses for Islamic terrorism, the simple fact is that a single Islamic terrorist attack killed more people than the grand total of the historical European terrorist attacks that you insist we should be more worried about.

Quote:

There were hundreds of terrorist attacks in Europe last year alone. The vast majority of attacks were bombings. There are 365 days in a year. You do the maths.

Your own statistics presented above say 318 events between 1980 and 2005. Admittedly it doesn't give the region, and chances are that you yet again have no clue at all what your own evidence is actually measuring. You like the pretty pictures and graphs, but have trouble with the actual meaning.

Quote:

Well you pretty much just answered your own question. You consider the victims of islamic terrorism as far more important than the victims of non-islamic terrorism.

No gandalf, I just said the opposite. Are you having trouble following my English or something?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 7:05am

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Can you quote a single real person actually saying it, or is this another case of you making up what they think instead?

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade claimed Monday morning that "all terrorists are Muslims."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/brian-kilmeade-all-terror_n_764472.html

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said it is a "fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism

Not all the islamists are terrorists but all the terrorists are islamist - Republican Party donor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EjLCRlgmqw

some douche has even set up a facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Not-all-Muslims-are-Terrorist-but-all-terrorist-are-Muslims/129058783771244

Any more stupid questions? Case closed. I'm done with your willful ignorance on this issue.

Quote:

Your own statistics presented above say 318 events between 1980 and 2005. Admittedly it doesn't give the region,

Thats the FBI statistics for the US. The europol data mentions hundreds of attacks in 2011 alone. Stop wasting my time, you can't even be bothered looking at the statistics you are so sure you are refuting.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 8:38am

Quote:

Stop wasting my time, you can't even be bothered looking at the statistics you are so sure you are refuting.

Sure I looked at them. That's how I knew the numbers. But they did not say where they were from and neither did you.

No matter how much you fiddle with the numbers, there is no way you can rationally use them to argue that the Islamic terrorist threat is exaggerated, when a single terrorist attack from Muslims killed more people than the entire history of the ETA and IRA combined. All it really shows is that even among terrorists, Muslims are the lowest of the low.

Quote:

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said it is a "fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism

Did you notice that he did not actually say what you are claiming? In fact he directly contradicted it. Given the context - a Muslim managing an arab news channel, he probably has it right and has statistics to back it up, even if they are specific to his region. It certainly makes more sense than you using the ETA and IRA to argue that we are overestimating the Islamic terrorist threat here.

As for the others, when you find one that is not obviously intended as a joke to make fun of people like you, let me know.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 10:09am

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 8:38am:

when a single terrorist attack from Muslims killed more people than the entire history of the ETA and IRA combined. All it really shows is that even among terrorists, Muslims are the lowest of the low.

you don't compare US terrorism with European terorism, you compare European terorrism with European terrorism - and fact is non-islamists are winning hands down - in both frequency of attacks and body count. Apparently this is too difficult a concept for you to handle.

Quote:

Right, so you've gone from "these are imaginary people saying this" to "well yeah - people say it because its true". You're just shamelessly hopping from one untennable position to another.

In any case, if he was talking about his specific region, why do you think his article had the title: "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"? ::)

Quote:

As for the others, when you find one that is not obviously intended as a joke to make fun of people like you, let me know.

You just tried to argue above that at least one person said it seriously - and that it was correct. Make up your mind, you can't take two contradictory positions and try and sustain them both.

In any case, did the GOP donor look like he was joking? Did the fox douchebag look like he was joking? It is a widely held view, and I have only touched the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand would understand this. Do a goddamn google search for once and see how widely the claim is discussed. It is there, and it is a real concern for those of us interested in the rise of islamophobia. Yes, of course muslims themselves have to smarten up their act - no one is disputing that. But these ignorant views and prejudices are certainly not helping. Just stop being a troll - if you've got nothing useful to say, the just be quiet - you are wrong, you have been proven to be wrong in spectacular fashion - just accept this and move on. For God's sake ::)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 12:47pm

Quote:

you don't compare US terrorism with European terorism, you compare European terorrism with European terrorism

Actually, if what you are interested in is the threat posed to Australia and the west in general, this is perfectly reasonable. The ETA, IRA and other local terrorist groups in Europe may not be particularly interested in broadening their attacks to the west in general, but Islamic groups certainly are, as demonstrated by 9/11, London, Madrid and Bali. 9/11 is reflective of the Islamic terrorism threat to the west in general. If you are going to start breaking it down and looking only at those few regions where other terrorist groups manage to compete with Muslims on body count, then you are completely missing the point again. You are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room so you can mislead people to argue that the threat posed by Islamic terrorism is over-rated. It is more than relevant that in a single attack Muslims outdid the entire historical body count of the terrorist groups that you think we should be more concerned about. It is also relevant that those other terrorist groups you think are a bigger problem are not actually targetting us, whereas the Islamists are. All of these things are relevant if your goal is an honest assessment of the threat rather than Islamic apologetics.

Either that or you are confused about where we all are. We are in Australia, not Northern Ireland, and the year is 2012, and Islamic terrorism is the most significant terrorist threat we face and is not blown out of proportion at all.

Quote:

Right, so you've gone from "these are imaginary people saying this" to "well yeah - people say it because its true".

No gandalf. If you want to talk about truth, how about you start with what I actually say. What the Muslim guy said is most likely true, but it is not what you were complaining about, and is certainly a more balanced analysis than yours.

Quote:

In any case, if he was talking about his specific region, why do you think his article had the title: "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"?

To get people's attention, or as a joke. He obviously doesn't actually believe that - hence his careful explanation that he does not actually believe it. I think people have actually said the same thing here plenty of times, in jest. A lot of truth is said in jest.

Quote:

You just tried to argue above that at least one person said it seriously - and that it was correct.

No gandalf. Read it again. I said he did not say it - because he did not actually say it, he contradicted it.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

9/11 is reflective of the Islamic terrorism threat to the west in general.

9/11 was reflective of the US's overbearing role in the muslim world - if you want to look at it that way. In fact the stated grievance of the 9/11 plotters was the presense of US bases in the middle east. The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe is reflective of the overwhelmingly successful integration of muslims into European society.

Quote:

He obviously doesn't actually believe that - hence his careful explanation that he does not actually believe it.

What careful explanation? Read the full article for yourself. He talks about muslim terrorism from Nepal to Sudan to Saudi Arabia to North Ossetia - or in other words all over the world. Nowhere is there any "careful explanation" that his claim is specific to a particular region. He is talking about the muslim world, and concludes:

"We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women."

Quote:

No gandalf. Read it again. I said he did not say it - because he did not actually say it, he contradicted it.

I have read it - I read the entire article from where that quote comes from. His main argument can be summed up by the sentence I quoted above. He is saying loud and clear that muslims hold a monopoly on terror all over the world. It is *EXACTLY* the same argument I was complaining about - that "not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims".

So lets just recap - and since you are so obsessed with me quoting what you actually say:

Quote:

In this case it is the argument or position of an imaginary group of people. You cannot counter what anyone here actually posts, so you make up an imaginary group with an imaginary belief so you can have a glorious victory in debate.

These were your words. You are ojecting to my claim that "not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims" is a widely held (and dangerous) view - claiming instead that this view is held by "an imaginary group with an imaginary view" - or in other words it doesn't exist. I then gave you actual examples of people saying this in mainstream media - who present this as a serious argument. This is a clear a refutation of your claim as you could ever hope to get. The view *DOES* exist, it is a mainstream view, and it is widespread.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe is reflective of the overwhelmingly successful integration of muslims into European society.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that there would be no point in terrorist activity in Europe, since all that would do is jeopardise their conquest via lawful immigration.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:22pm

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe is reflective of the overwhelmingly successful integration of muslims into European society.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that there would be no point in terrorist activity in Europe, since all that would do is jeopardise their conquest via lawful immigration.

Associating yourself with the "stealth jihad" concept erodes any credibility you might have had right there and then.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:25pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe is reflective of the overwhelmingly successful integration of muslims into European society.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that there would be no point in terrorist activity in Europe, since all that would do is jeopardise their conquest via lawful immigration.

Associating yourself with the "stealth jihad" concept erodes any credibility you might have had right there and then.

A *giggle* white muslim convert *snigger* talking about credibility. Noice.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:31pm

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

A *giggle* white muslim convert *snigger* talking about credibility. Noice.

wow you sir are a class act. Pleasure to meet you ::)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:35pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

A *giggle* white muslim convert *snigger* talking about credibility. Noice.

wow you sir are a class act. Pleasure to meet you ::)

Yes, I'm sure it is.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:41pm

Now then, pleasantries aside, what purpose would terror attacks in Europe serve? All they have to do is bide their time and Europe is theirs without a fight. A terror attack now would simply snap the honkies out of their stupor, putting an end to the colonisation.
Or does a *giggle* white mus....bwahahahaha...errr a white muslim *snigger* convert making a mention of 'credibility' adequately refute that possibility?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 12^th, 2012 at 7:17am

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

Whats interesting about this view is the idea of muslims living peacefully and harmoniously in a non-muslim society is naturally assumed to be something sinister - rather than the more obvious explanation that this is proof that they are normal peaceful people living out their lives - who get along fine with the people around them - non muslim or not.

Quote:

Or does a *giggle* white mus....bwahahahaha...errr a white muslim *snigger* convert making a mention of 'credibility' adequately refute that possibility?

just curious, but why do you have to be such a dick about this? Why are muslim converts sub-human in your view?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 12^th, 2012 at 8:30pm

Quote:

9/11 was reflective of the US's overbearing role in the muslim world

I see your logic now. Islamic terrorism is not actually a threat because you support Islamic terrorists.

Quote:

The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe is reflective of the overwhelmingly successful integration of muslims into European society.

Isn't it more - it's just that Europe has a few other terrorist problems that are still slightly ahead of the Muslims.

Quote:

The insignificant number of islamic terrorist activity in Europe

Would you care to put a body count on this insiginificant threat? Why does the fact that Muslims manage to stage bigger attacks somehow make them less of a threat?

Quote:

It was in the very first quote you posted. He directly contradicted you, yet for some reason you saw fit to use him as an example to back yourself up.

Quote:

I have read it - I read the entire article from where that quote comes from. His main argument can be summed up by the sentence I quoted above.

Which also contradicts you. But if you want to look at global statistics go ahead. If you look at Europe alone the Muslims are slightly behind the IRA and ETA, but catching up fast. If you look at north America the Muslims are competing with almost no-one and completely outdoing the European Muslims. If you look at the 'Muslim world' then we have Muslim vs Muslim all over the place, and outkilling just about everyone, as well as Muslim vs American and any other foreign institution that does give the right platitudes to Islam. And further east we have the Muslim vs Hindu terrorist competition. I like how you keep breaking it down until you find small enough pieces of the world so the Muslims can come second for a change, so I think it would be a good exercise for you to calculate the global statistics. It would show how honest you are being about putting the threat into perspective, and you could finally prove me wrong in my assertion that this Muslims has a very better grasp of the Islamic terrorist threat than you. One caveat though - don't go leaving out all the Islamic terrorism you like to make ecuses for, like 9/11, Indian attacks over Kashmir, retaliation against Hindus etc.

Quote:

He is saying loud and clear that muslims hold a monopoly on terror all over the world.

No he isn't. Why are you so incapable of reading what is actually there, even after you just quoted it?

Quote:

Whats interesting about this view is the idea of muslims living peacefully and harmoniously in a non-muslim society is naturally assumed to be something siniste

Are the 400 Muslims who marched through Sydney violent or peaceful?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Oct 12^th, 2012 at 11:08pm

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

Would you care to put a body count on this insiginificant threat? Why does the fact that Muslims manage to stage bigger attacks somehow make them less of a threat?

I already said the IRA death rate is so many times higher than muslims in the UK, and that ETA is so many times higher than muslims in Spain - forget what it was, but feel free to read over what I already said. I believe both countries have seen only one islamic terrorist attack that has resulted in casualties, but I could be wrong. That both countries have seen a steady accumulation of deaths by separatists over a long period indicates a different kind of threat - and I would argue greater threat.

Quote:

It was in the very first quote you posted. He directly contradicted you, yet for some reason you saw fit to use him as an example to back yourself up.

I think you misunderstand. The fact that he contradicts me was exactly the point. I don't believe that all or even most terrorists around the world are muslims, and I also believe that the existence of such a view in society - which is clearly widespread - is dangerous. This chap is just one example of the presence of this view. I only quoted him to point out that this view (that all/most muslims are terrorists) exists to disprove your absurd claim that this belief only comes from (in your words) "imaginary people with imaginary beliefs" - remember?

Quote:

[quote] But if you want to look at global statistics go ahead. If you look at Europe alone the Muslims are slightly behind the IRA and ETA, but catching up fast.

I don't think its "slightly behind" - as the figures I alluded to before will demonstrate. Moreover, there has been a grand total of 2 islamic attacks in Europe (that I am aware of), whereas the separatist attacks have been a constant terror for the population for literally decades.

Quote:

If you look at north America the Muslims are competing with almost no-one and completely outdoing the European Muslims.

9/11 was massive, it was the worst terrorist attack in - well probably ever. But it was also a one-off. The issue is what is the threat today. The public - understandably - is obsessed by the prospect of another 9/11 around every corner. Yet the actual evidence indicates that these fears are unfounded. My question is, while the islamists got lucky on 9/11, how many other 9/11s have been planned or attempted and failed by non-islamists over the years? How many are being planned now? I'm not saying they are an imminent threat either, but we do run the risk of missing one threat while obsessing with another. It happened in Norway last year.

Quote:

He is saying loud and clear that muslims hold a monopoly on terror all over the world.

Quote:

No he isn't. Why are you so incapable of reading what is actually there, even after you just quoted it?

what part of "we cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women" - don't you understand?

Quote:

Are the 400 Muslims who marched through Sydney violent or peaceful?

I was talking about Europe - but in any case, there are currently over 476 thousand muslims in Australia. Out of 400 protesters, I believe there were around 100 who were violent. Hmmm 100 muslims out of 476 thousand - you really gonna try and argue that violence is representative of the Australian muslim community? Good luck with that.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Bertram on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:19am

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 12^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:

Moreover, there has been a grand total of 2 islamic attacks in Europe (that I am aware of), whereas the separatist attacks have been a constant terror for the population for literally decades.

london tube bombing
glasgow airport
paris metro bombing
plot to bomb multiple airplanes bound for the us
madrid train bombing
shootings in toulouse and montauban in france
suitcase bomb plots in germany
bombing plot in denmark, 2007
amsterdam suicide attack in 2007
beslan school, moscow theatre siege and dozens of cases in russia
many attacks in turkey, an country aspiring for eu membrship

and not every crime motivated by islam is classified as terrorism but people do see what muslims do in the name of islam. for example, killing theo van gogh is classified as murder, not as a terrorist attack, but it was motivated by islam and was one to make others too afraid to be critical of islam.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:34am

The first gulf war had about 1000 times more victims than all those acts put together. What a joke. That list is pathetic.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan had just as many as did the Russian invasion of Chechnya... Beslan? You dare bring up an isolated incident that involved such a small handful of people, when we have genocides like Afghanistan and Chechnya to define the Russian-Muslim relationship for us?

I'm surprised someone could be so stupid as to bring such pathetic figures. Only because you're so incredibly ignorant I guess, you know no better.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Bertram on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:45am

i was responding to gandalf who could remember only two islamically motivated terrorist attacks in europe. my list simply shows that there were many more than 2.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Bertram on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:47am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Beslan? You dare bring up an isolated incident that involved such a small handful of people, when we have genocides like Afghanistan and Chechnya to define the Russian-Muslim relationship for us?

so beslan cannot be remembered as an islamic terrorist attack because many muslims died elsewhere?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Bertram on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:48am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

What a joke. That list is pathetic.
I'm surprised someone could be so stupid as to bring such pathetic figures. Only because you're so incredibly ignorant I guess, you know no better

is the list not true? because if it is true you have no business of calling me stupid.

btw i didn't give any figures. i listed more than 2 islamist terrorist attack. or are you saying that more than the two that gandalf could recall is pathetic? why am i incredibly ignorant if i can recall more such events than gandalf? forgetting is clever and remembering is ignorant?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 12:30pm

Bertram wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Beslan? You dare bring up an isolated incident that involved such a small handful of people, when we have genocides like Afghanistan and Chechnya to define the Russian-Muslim relationship for us?

so beslan cannot be remembered as an islamic terrorist attack because many muslims died elsewhere?

It was a Chechen response to the atrocious genocide the Russians had carried out against their people. It is usually trotted out by ignorant anti-Islamists in some lame attempt to equate Islam with the revenge the Chechen people took against the Russians. Usually this involves associating Islam with the senseless murder of children (at Beslan), completely ignoring the plight of the tens of thousands of innocent Chechen children who were tortured, raped and murdered by the Russians, and which that desperate act was in retalliation for.

Your attempt to disconnect the events at Beslan from the Russian genocide of Chechens, and parade it around as an independent act of Islamic violence, is pretty pathetic.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Bertram on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 12:44pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Bertram wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Beslan? You dare bring up an isolated incident that involved such a small handful of people, when we have genocides like Afghanistan and Chechnya to define the Russian-Muslim relationship for us?

so beslan cannot be remembered as an islamic terrorist attack because many muslims died elsewhere?

i have not attempted to disconnect beslan from anything.i simply listed is as an example.

but you now seem to be very strongly justifying the murder of school children as somehow an understandable response or even insignificant compared to the suffering of others. but the beslan massacre was not a 'desperate act'. those people held the kids as hostages for days. it was planned, it was long drawn out. it wasn't desperate.

nor were the other terrorist attack in europe that i listed desperate acts. they were terrorists attacks by people acting in the name of islam. i don't see what is so unacceptable about this.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 5:22pm

Quote:

Moreover, there has been a grand total of 2 islamic attacks in Europe (that I am aware of)

You jump rather conveniently between claiming to understand what the evidence says and using your ignorance as a debating tactic.

Quote:

9/11 was massive, it was the worst terrorist attack in - well probably ever. But it was also a one-off.

In what sense was it a one-off? Do you know something that everyone else doesn't? Or are you referring to the effectiveness of anti-terrorism measured within the airline industry?

Quote:

My question is, while the islamists got lucky on 9/11

How were they lucky? Should people have been more aware of the Islamic terrorist threat?

Quote:

what part of "we cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women" - don't you understand?

He is saying it is not a monopoly and you are deliberalty misrepresenting him. If someone told you they almost died, would you go round insisting they are actually dead? If someone claims they almost won a game, do you think that means they won?

Quote:

Out of 400 protesters, I believe there were around 100 who were violent.

Do you mean violent in that particular event, or violent in general? How many do you think support the death penalty for blasphemy?

Quote:

The first gulf war had about 1000 times more victims than all those acts put together. What a joke. That list is pathetic.

Once again Abu misses the point completely.

Quote:

It was a Chechen response to the atrocious genocide the Russians had carried out against their people.

So it was not a terrorist attack because you support it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Avram Horowitz on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm

Muslims attack my country from Gaza every single day.
There is not one single Israeli in Gaza. It is not self defense,

Hamas are doing nothing to stop these terrorists from attacking Ashdod, Yavne, Gedera etc.
They are terrorists and they fire unguided rockets not care what or who they hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:45pm

:'(
Poor little terrorist can't handle his own medicine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7i9ISMKXSA

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Big Dave on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

You do realise that is what lead to the Palestinians having to defend themselves in the first place don't you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Avram Horowitz on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:01pm

We gave them all Gaza last decade because we became tired waiting for them to decide how to run the land.
After we leave, Fatah and Hamas engage is street battles and with AK47s.

I personally have watched from checkpoint tower into Gaza and seen them fight each other.
They behave like desert dogs, they must always fight!!

But with us they pick the wrong opponent. We will not ever leave any attack not responded.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Avram Horowitz on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:02pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

You do realise that is what lead to the Palestinians having to defend themselves in the first place don't you?

There are no Israelis in Gaza.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:04pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:01pm:

Oh what saints you are...
What do you mean how to run the land, they were running the land for centuries before you tried to exterminate them Nazi style.

If they are desert dogs then I hate to think what animal that makes you guys.

How could you be the ones responding when it is you who has attacked them first???

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:04pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

You do realise that is what lead to the Palestinians having to defend themselves in the first place don't you?

There are no Israelis in Gaza.

And?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Big Dave on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:08pm

I believe that many people in that part of the world just aren't happy without a fight. It's what they live for. If the jews pulled out they'd move on to something else. They live for the afterlife and the real world gets nothing.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:11pm

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

Well the people of Palestine were living very well before occupation and extermination.
But, is this hypothesis of yours based on anything that wouldn't suggest the same thing for every part of the world?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Avram Horowitz on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:17pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

You do realise that is what lead to the Palestinians having to defend themselves in the first place don't you?

There are no Israelis in Gaza.

And?

The unguided rockets that hit schools and markets are aggression - they cannot be self defense because we are not there.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:21pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:17pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:02pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Give them a taste of hell Avram.

You do realise that is what lead to the Palestinians having to defend themselves in the first place don't you?

There are no Israelis in Gaza.

And?

The unguided rockets that hit schools and markets are aggression - they cannot be self defense because we are not there.

Forcing them into a Nazi ghetto does not make the land you forced them from yours, you do realise this don't you?

This is insulting to the people who suffered at the hands of the Nazis because you are claiming people who were stuffed into ghettos had no right to defend themselves. You should be ashamed.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Big Dave on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:21pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

My hypothesis is based on the fact that almost all arab countries in that part of the world are backward war ridden poo holes.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Avram Horowitz on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:22pm

This is what they will get.

.................................

"It can be said categorically that there is no agreement with Hamas, there has never been and there will never be. ... The only thing that has been set and said is that there will be calm. We are not interested in an escalation," Gilad added.

On Wednesday, Israel killed a Hamas militant in an air strike which it said was intended to stop rocket launches. On Tuesday, Israel killed three Hamas men, saying they had either launched attacks or were about to do so.

In southern Israel, An Israeli military spokeswoman said 86 projectiles had been fired at Israel between Tuesday and Wednesday and that the Iron Dome system had intercepted eight of them. Several homes had been damaged by Palestinian rockets

Three agricultural workers were wounded when a Palestinian rocket exploded near them in the barrage.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-militants-fire-mortar-shell-at-israel-despite-informal-truce-1.472181

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 9:34pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

You mean the towns of Isdud, Yubna & Qatra? All de-populated during the ethnic cleansing of the Zionists, and all their inhabitants fled to the giant open air concentration camp that today is Gaza??? Are these the towns you mean?? Which you claim the residents of Gaza have no relation to?

If you bombed my grandparents into a refugee camp, and then squatted in my home, I'd be doing the exact same thing as the Gazans too, as would any decent human being with an iota of dignity and self respect. Go back to Czech republic where you belong.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Yadda on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 10:29pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

The fight between Israel and her antagonistic neighbours, is a fight based in ideology.

It is not a fight for land.

It is a fight for Allah, and for the dominance of ISLAM in the region.

The Jewish people have one country, one homeland, their ancient homeland, Israel.

The moslems 'refugees' surrounding Israel have many, many countries, where they who have been displaced by wars as far back as WWI could be absorbed into, ..........if they wanted to.

But as i say.

The fight between Israel and her antagonistic neighbours, is a fight based in ideology.

It is not a fight for land.

It is a fight for the supremacy of ISLAM, in the region.

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Arab20Wave.jpg (249 KB | 64 )

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 28^th, 2012 at 1:27pm

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

My hypothesis is based on the fact that almost all arab countries in that part of the world are backward war ridden poo holes.

Right and yet you can present no evidence that wouldn't suggest the same for anywhere.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Yadda on Oct 28^th, 2012 at 3:01pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

My hypothesis is based on the fact that almost all arab countries in that part of the world are backward war ridden poo holes.

Right and yet you can present no evidence that wouldn't suggest the same for anywhere.

WA,

Can you clarify what you have written, just a little ?

The 'same', what ?

'no evidence that wouldn't suggest', what ?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Western Apologist on Oct 28^th, 2012 at 4:10pm

Sorry Yadda, I don't think there is a relevant bible verse

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Yadda on Oct 28^th, 2012 at 6:07pm

WA,

Yes i can, and you know that, and Big Dave has said.

So.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:01pm

ian wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 8:57pm:

moses wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

All you have to do is prove that muslims who are committing atrocities on a daily basis in 2014, do not believe they are observing the commands of allah, the preachings of muhammad, the teachings of islam, and the verses in the qur'an.

If you can't, then I'll take their atrocities and islamic doctrines, as being inextricably linked.

Over to you, prove me wrong.

there is zero dispute that there are far more terrorist acts and atrocities committed daily by "Christians" than by Muslims.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 7:43pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 7:11pm:

[
Sure, if you count graffiti as terrorism, there is no dispute at all.

I dont count graffitti as terrorism, why would you?

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:36pm:

here ya go FD, enjoy

Quote:

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t
The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Here are the official tables provided in the reports…

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 10:50am:

moses wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:

I take it you are backing away from the request to prove that muslims don't commit atrocities in accordance with the teachings of: islam, allah, muhammad, qur'an.

A lot of violent wackjobs try to justify their actions by using religion, it should be noted that the vast majority of the worlds Muslims are entirely peaceful and want the same security and prosperity for their families that you and I do. Im on record as stating that I beleive Middle eastern culture incompatible with western society as far as immigration goes but the distinction needs to be made between culture and religion, and my point here is that vastly more Christians use their religion as an excuse for their violent actions than Muslims do.

Add a bit of hypocrisy for good measure:

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 3:43pm:

Adamant wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 3:14pm:

Quote "Of a total of 143 court proceedings in 2007, 54 percent were related to separatist terrorism, whilst 38 percent were related to Islamist terrorism. Only one trial in 2007 concerned right-wing terrorism. This trial confirmed the sentence imposed on an individual previously convicted of the bombing of the Bologna railway in 1980."

Which resulted in 198 trials for Islamic terrorism out of a total of 449. That means about 44% of all terror acts were carried out by muslims. 30% of the muslims were found not guilty.

I do so love loonwatch its as good as tell mama in the UK which is now defunct after the Government stopped funding as it told too many lies.

No harm in trying though Ian, none at all.

P/S Been thru all this crap before with the old crew.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/tesat2008.pdf

Dont you think its a trifle dishonest to represent the statistics for Italy and falsely represent them as being for the whole of Europe? particularly as you conclude that the source you got them from is unreliable?Not a good start for you here Adamant. Please dont presume I wont notice dishonesty and lying.
Next!

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 8:53pm:

I am calling bullshit on what Ian posted.

.

No problem, post your statistics and source then.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by ian on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:08pm

Run away FD? Quote your stats.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:11pm

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Run away FD? Quote your stats.

Now now, FD asks the questions here.

Or in this case, quotes the quotes.

FD doesn’t have to say a thing. This, you see, is Freedom.

And it’s something your Muselman wouldn’t understand.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:14pm

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Run away FD? Quote your stats.

You posted this. Not me. I merely have to dispute it to demonstrate what an idiotic claim it is.

Quote:

there is zero dispute that there are far more terrorist acts and atrocities committed daily by "Christians" than by Muslims.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by ian on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:21pm

i also posted statistics and a source to back up my claim, you dispute them. Fair enough, post your source.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:21pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:14pm:

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Run away FD? Quote your stats.

You posted this. Not me. I merely have to dispute it to demonstrate what an idiotic claim it is.

Quote:

there is zero dispute that there are far more terrorist acts and atrocities committed daily by "Christians" than by Muslims.

Aren’t you also disputing the statistics of Europol?

You know, the ones where they went around and counted all those terrorist strikes?

Please explain.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by ian on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:23pm

Heres what the FBI has to say about terrorist attacks on US soil.

Quote:

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil
An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:24pm

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:21pm:

i also posted statistics and a source to back up my claim, you dispute them. Fair enough, post your source.

My stance is that you are full of crap, your statistics do not in any way back up your original claim, and they grossly misrepresent the threat of terrorism within Europe.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by ian on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:24pm

Right, so you have nothing except an unsubstatiated opinion. Gotcha ;)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by True Colours on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:26pm

How about the invasion of Iraq, the invasion Afghanistan, the invasion of Vietnam or the bombing of Hiroshima?

Christians have killed many times more people than Muslims have.

Every hijacking, mass poisoning, bombing outside of WWII, and abortion clinic shooting in Australia has been performed by Christians.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:27pm

It is merely your (idiotic) opinion that "there is zero dispute that there are far more terrorist acts and atrocities committed daily by "Christians" than by Muslims". It is merely your opinion that the European statistics validate this stupid claim. I don't even know whether you believe that the European statistics adequately capture the terrorist threat within Europe. It doesn't take much thought to realise that they systematically downplay Islamic terrorism.

Copying and pasting statistics is not a substitute for thinking for yourself.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by ian on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:28pm

dont come in this thread with your fancy facts and truth TC, unsubstantiated opinions is what we want here.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:28pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:24pm:

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:21pm:

i also posted statistics and a source to back up my claim, you dispute them. Fair enough, post your source.

My stance is that you are full of crap.

Good point, FD. Did you borrow your stance from Y?

His information comes from a Higher Source.

You know, Islamreligionofpeace, Jihadwatch, etc, etc, etc.

Also, Y believes in Gud.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:31pm

Now now, friends, there are no right or wrong answers. FD’s stance is as equally valid as anyone else’s.

FD, you see, believes in thinking for yourself.

By the way, FD, who told you to do that?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 11:22pm

magpie wrote on Oct 10^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

in looking at the thread so far, I see a lack of balance and objectivity.

No no, that’s just thinking for yourself.

FD’s been doing this, it seems, since October, 2012.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 11:37pm

Actually, it looks like FD’s been thinking for himself since 2007:

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 11:37am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822/34#34

a total of 498 terrorist attacks were committed in Europe during 2006. Those 498 attacks are broken up as follows:
* Separatist - 424 attacks
* Left Wing - 55 attacks
* Right Wing - 1 attack
* Islamic - 1 attack
* Other/Non-Specified - 17 attacks

Some things change, and some stay the same.

Always, absolutely, never ever.

On stilts.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:38pm

How far back in time do you have to go, in the US and Europe, before the total from all types of non-Muslim terrorism combined matches the death toll from 9/11, and the later attacks in Europe?

Why do all those statistics so steadfastly avoid addressing the issue of death toll?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:10pm

And this is you, addressing the statistics in 2007:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Not sure, FD. How far back in time do we have to go to suggest this -

FD thanking a poster for posting the report we're discussing in this thread:

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:46am:

Thanks skeptic, that really says it all. Some people like to blow certain issues way out of proportion.

Or this -

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 3:10pm:

My contention is if there were no attacks by muslins, there would be few if any by seperatists.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Islamic terrorism is fairly new in the west. The separatist stuff has been going on for ages - pretty much for as long as there have been empires and nation states in Europe. The separatist stuff is at the opposite end of it's life, with most movements engaged in peace movements with significant potential.
The seperatist one woud prob be in retaliation to , or prompted bny muslims killing french people.

Do you know what separatist means in this context?

freediver - I believe islam terrorism is done by muslims who correctly interperet the koran.

Despite claims to the contrary from people with far more experience in dealing with terrorism?

That is in agreeance to what hilali stated

Hilali has been rejected by his own peers.

Or this -

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 4:32pm:

seperatists want their own country cause theirs is being taken over by islam

No. Not everything is about Islam sprint, even if you try to make it so. Islamic terrorists want their own country because the west is interfering in the middle east. The separatists mentioned in the report would be non-muslim groups in Europe rebelling against the expansionist Christian empires.
freediver - islam has always been violent.

Not to any greater extent than other religions.

It is getting more violent.

Hence it is not soemthing inherent to the religion - as is usually the case there are other factors.

hilali had studied it for decades, he was their elected spokesman for all of aussie.

Until he started sprouting crap.

those dealing with terrorists are trying to placate everyone.

The people who you quoted above who disagree with you are the ones locking them up. And besides, it's a far better idea than winding people up for no good reason.

How do you know what they really think ?

How do you? There is more than enough in human nature to make people violent. There is no need to recourse to religion and to do so usually oversimplifies the problem in way that make it worse.

Why don't the "moderates" just chat with the "extremists" and show them where they have misinterpreeted it ?
Would the hamas not have discovered their error in the past 30 years ??

Talk about oversimplification.... You think differences in interpretations and people using religion to back political goals is something that can just be ended over a cup of tea? FYI, Muslims have been trying to 'chat' with the west about the US getting out of the middle east for a long time. Do you think the US listened? You yourself sprout all this nonsense about your interpretation of Islam. How many Muslims have you spoken to about it?

How far back in time?

7 years.

Which is strange, because the report you were praising 7 years ago was exactly the same report you're condemning today.

7 years ago, you said this:

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:46am:

Some people like to blow certain issues way out of proportion.

Today, you say this:

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:24pm:

ian wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 9:21pm:

i also posted statistics and a source to back up my claim, you dispute them. Fair enough, post your source.

My stance is that you are full of crap, your statistics do not in any way back up your original claim, and they grossly misrepresent the threat of terrorism within Europe.

I think we need a new Wiki, FD.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:27pm

Quote:

No. Not everything is about Islam sprint, even if you try to make it so. Islamic terrorists want their own country because the west is interfering in the middle east. The separatists mentioned in the report would be non-muslim groups in Europe rebelling against the expansionist Christian empires.

Quote:

Talk about oversimplification.... You think differences in interpretations and people using religion to back political goals is something that can just be ended over a cup of tea? FYI, Muslims have been trying to 'chat' with the west about the US getting out of the middle east for a long time. Do you think the US listened? You yourself sprout all this nonsense about your interpretation of Islam. How many Muslims have you spoken to about it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:37pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Quote:

[quote]Talk about oversimplification.... You think differences in interpretations and people using religion to back political goals is something that can just be ended over a cup of tea? FYI, Muslims have been trying to 'chat' with the west about the US getting out of the middle east for a long time. Do you think the US listened? You yourself sprout all this nonsense about your interpretation of Islam. How many Muslims have you spoken to about it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by moses on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:03pm

Meanwhile the bloodshed continues in the lands of the muslim. (no one knows why, it's got nothing to do with the malevolent degeneracy of, islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an has it?)

Known muslim terrorist groups:

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Afghan Taliban

Al-Nusrah Front

Al-Qa‘ida

Al-Shabaab

Al-Qa‘ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

Al-Qa‘ida in Iraq (AQI)

Al-Qa‘ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

Boko Haram

The Imirat Kavkaz

HAMAS

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin

Hizballah

The Islamic Jihad Union (IJU

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)

Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT)

Jemaah Islamiya (JI)

The Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)

Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)

Al-Mulathamun Battalion and its subordinate unit al-Muwaqi‘un Bil-Dima

Al-Tawhid Wal Jihad in West Africa (TWJWA),

Counterterrorism 2014

Govt site

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:15pm

moses wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

Meanwhile the bloodshed continues in the lands of the muslim. (no one knows why, it's got nothing to do with the malevolent degeneracy of, islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an has it?)

Absolutely not. You pay attention to FD.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 4:32pm:

We need to respect the facts here, Moses. FD has addressed your very point.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 11:04am:

Is it correct to say every murdering terrorist is a muslim ?
And every religious terrorist is a muslim ?

No and no.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you try to tell a Muslim what Islam is all about.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:16pm

Quote:

when you try to tell a Muslim what Islam is all about.

Trully no words.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:22pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:16pm:

Quote:

when you try to tell a Muslim what Islam is all about.

Trully no words.

FD would never do that, G. After all:

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2007 at 3:05pm:

Islamic legal systems are also based on justice.

We do not have to be happy to leave people as they are. That is the whole idea behind our intervention in remote aboriginal communities. All legal systems involve people imposing their ideas of what is acceptable behaviour on others.

Are you happy to set a precedent whereby the government dictates what sets of beliefs are acceptable?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:31pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:37pm:

No no, G, FD just believes in thinking for himself.

Indeed - and as we all know, 'thinking for himself' involves shutting his ears to anything any muslim says except Abu and Falah.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by wally1 on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 4:46pm

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by moses on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 5:04pm

You've twigged to it Wally 1.

It's a Zionist plot to turn all the mosques into intensive piggeries.

Think of the money them Jews are going to make when they corner the pork market.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 6:15pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Quote:

Wow.

I mean just totally WOW.

Freediver is one of the very few people I've ever seen on a forum develop his ideology from a tolerant progressive, common-sense world view to one of complete irrational hatred and bigotry. He has basically become an exact carricature of everything he despised and argued against

[/quote]

What is so irrational about this?

How far back in time do you have to go, in the US and Europe, before the total from all types of non-Muslim terrorism combined matches the death toll from 9/11, and the later attacks in Europe?

Why do all those statistics so steadfastly avoid addressing the issue of death toll?

Very simple questions, and the death toll is the more appropriate measure of the terrorism threat, don't you think? I even brought up the different in 'magnitude' of the terrorist attacks in my 'tolerant and progressive' days as an explanation for why the statistics paint such a different picture from the perception of the terrorist threat.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by True Colours on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 6:25pm

Christian Terror Organisations

IRA
Sinn Fein
Real IRA
Continuity IRA
Klu Klux Klan
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Army of God
Aryan Nations
Aryan Republican Army
Lord's Resistance Army
Hutaree
Anti-balaka
Red Hand Defenders
Golden Dawn
National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Issac-Muivah faction)
Loyalist Volunteer Force
Ulster Defence Association
Uslter Volunteer Force
The Covenant
The Sword
Arm of the Lord
Defensive Action
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
The Freemen Community
ETA
Fianna Éireann
The US has committed many terrorist activities such as the 1980 bombing of Bologna train station which killed 85 and wounded more than 200, or the shooting down of Iran Flight 655 which killed 290 people.

There are also Jewish terrorist organisations such as
JDL
Kach
Kahane Chai
Irgun
Stern Gang
Kingdom of Israel group
Brit HaKanaim
Bat Ayin
Keshet
Gush Emunim
The Israeli Government and the people who formed it have also conducted many terrorist operations such as the Baghdad bombings in the 1950's, Operation Susannah against US interests in Egypt, King David Hotel Bombing.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 6:37pm

That's a nice long list. Are you sure you couldn't break them up into smaller subgroups?

How does the death toll compare with Islamic terrorism?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 8:51pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 6:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Quote:

What is so irrational about this?

How far back in time do you have to go, in the US and Europe, before the total from all types of non-Muslim terrorism combined matches the death toll from 9/11, and the later attacks in Europe?

Why do all those statistics so steadfastly avoid addressing the issue of death toll?

Very simple questions, and the death toll is the more appropriate measure of the terrorism threat, don't you think? I even brought up the different in 'magnitude' of the terrorist attacks in my 'tolerant and progressive' days[/quote]

No, you argued with Sprint on this very point. You disagreed that this is the true measure of terrorism. It’s all there.

Always, absolutely, never ever, eh?

What would the "tolerant and progressive" FD have called it? Spineless apologetics?

It’s strange how some things change and some stay the same. Sprint was quite articulate back then. He wrote long, eloquent posts.

What happened?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:04pm

Quote:

No, you argued with Sprint on this very point. You disagreed that this is the true measure of terrorism. It’s all there.

I said that graffiti is the same as murdering thousands of people? Where?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:17pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:04pm:

Quote:

No, you argued with Sprint on this very point. You disagreed that this is the true measure of terrorism. It’s all there.

I said that graffiti is the same as murdering thousands of people? Where?

Do you really want me to quote your post? Truly?

Anyway, you’re answering a question with a question. Cunning, no?

Google: Taqiyya.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:21pm

Here you go Karnal, even back then it was bleeding obvious:

skeptic wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

but do u know what's the weird part? i never heard anything in the news about the separtist, or left/right wing terrorist attacks. why weren't they mentioned?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

Maybe because they are smaller...

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:22pm

Why is the same Europol report bullsh!t today, but good information back in 2007?

You haven’t addressed this yet, FD.

Is it something to do with Freedom?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:28pm

This is me pointing out the obvious issues with the statistics in 2007:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Here you go Karnal, even back then it was bleeding obvious:

skeptic wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

but do u know what's the weird part? i never heard anything in the news about the separtist, or left/right wing terrorist attacks. why weren't they mentioned?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

Maybe because they are smaller...

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:30pm

This is you thinking for yourself in 2014:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

This is me pointing out the obvious issues with the statistics in 2007:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Here you go Karnal, even back then it was bleeding obvious:

skeptic wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

but do u know what's the weird part? i never heard anything in the news about the separtist, or left/right wing terrorist attacks. why weren't they mentioned?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

Maybe because they are smaller...

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:30pm

This is you thinking for yourself in 2014:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

This is me pointing out the obvious issues with the statistics in 2007:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

Here you go Karnal, even back then it was bleeding obvious:

skeptic wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

but do u know what's the weird part? i never heard anything in the news about the separtist, or left/right wing terrorist attacks. why weren't they mentioned?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

Maybe because they are smaller...

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm

FD Mark I was of course correct.

When terrorists set out to kill as many civilians as they can, its really just down to chance how "successful" they end up being. Muhammad Atta and his crew pulled it off, but it could easily have passed by as just another footnote in the long history of terrorism in the west. Even when they managed to hit the towers, it was due to another freak of chance that the buildings collapsed causing most of the casualties (thanks in part to a history of improper structural maintenance). Conversely, I'm sure Tim McVeigh would have settled with a death toll 10 times what he got - and might conceivably have got it on a different day. Ditto for the countless other non-muslim terrorists who have proven their intention to inflict maximum civilian casualties - but were thwarted only by chance or incompetence.

If Islamists had killed 3000 people in hundreds of attacks during a sustained period of time, then the 'threat' of islamists would be a no-brainer. But when its one attack which was a complete fluke, and is not really unique amongst all the different terrorist groups in terms of ambition, then its really more accurate to identify it as something that skews the terrorist threat, rather than accurately reflects it.

The best terrorist threat measure is frequency of attacks - especially when those attacks are designed to inflict casualties. That they may sometimes fail through sheer chance in achieving the casualty rate they were aiming for is no reason to dismiss the threat in any way.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:45pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

Maybe, but as the 2007 FD pointed out, Islamic terrorists see themselves as waging a defensive war. If you’re a suicide bomber, your aim is to cause as much damage as possible because this is what soldiers do in war.

FD doesn’t claim WWII was morally worse than WWI because more people died. FD’s just picked up Sprint’s 2007 argument that Sept 11 cancelled out all other terrorist attacks because of its magnitude.

Which is strange, because back then FD disagreed completely.

The graffiti thing’s a bit of light-hearted comedy, but it’s interesting to see what FD will do with his comedy when he’s desperate.

A joke like that will last 20 pages if you feed it, you know.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

Islam is an alien and hostile creed. Why should anyone accommodate it? Why should it be treated as if it was the same as native/local creeds and cultures?

Why should the West not treat it as an alien and hostile creed? There is no reason.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:02pm

Quote:

When terrorists set out to kill as many civilians as they can, its really just down to chance how "successful" they end up being.

No it isn't. Even among terrorists, Muslims set the bar pretty low. There are several causes for the difference. One is the widespread support among Muslims for terrorism - witness for example the hypocrisy of the British imam with his "only Muslims are innocent" crap. Two is that the Muslim terrorists themselves have lower standards. Three is that the Muslim terrorists are too stupid to foresee the consequences of their actions. They get all hung up on slaughtering the infidel and forget to think about whether it will actually help their cause. It was not an accident that 9/11 killed thousands of people and lead to the overthrow of the Taliban.

Quote:

Conversely, I'm sure Tim McVeigh would have settled with a death toll 10 times what he got - and might conceivably have got it on a different day.

He probably would have if he had the support base that Muslim terrorists do. He didn't. Muslim terrorists have a bigger support base and can kill more people because more Muslims actually want to see this sort of thing happen.

Quote:

If Islamists had killed 3000 people in hundreds of attacks during a sustained period of time, then the 'threat' of islamists would be a no-brainer.

So a million people dead is the magic number before we can take Islamic terrorism seriously? Wouldn't it make more sense to recognise the threat a little bit earlier? Can you cite any other threat to human life where people insist we ignore the first million deaths in the name of political correctness?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:12pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

One is the widespread support among Muslims for terrorism - witness for example the hypocrisy of the British imam with his "only Muslims are innocent" crap.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

He probably would have if he had the support base that Muslim terrorists do.

What a load of crap. You quote one maverik imam but ignore the groundswell of public condemnation for terrorism from the muslim community after the London bombings. Muslim leaders in Britain now actively work with authorities in a very successful program to counter extremism. MI6 have published a report that states that muslim extremists in the UK are more likely to be non-mosque attending and outsiders in the muslim community.

I'm not even going to bother asking you to substantiate your claim - as I can't be bothered going through another 20 pages of spineless obfuscation.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17pm

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

No, old chap, I’m sorry - I’m sorry, but FD begs to differ with you there. He thinks people should have Freedom.

I know, it’s hilarious, but there you have it.

The civilised world can be divided into two groups: scrunchers and folders.

The tinted world doesn’t count, of course. They use their hands.

You don’t really count either, dear chap. You have your bag.

You’re more a sprayer, no?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:20pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

At least I don't eat it, like you do.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:28pm

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

At least I don't eat it, like you do.

Now now, time for bed. We’ll discuss your creations in the morning.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:46pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

At least I don't eat it, like you do.

Now now, time for bed. We’ll discuss your creations in the morning.

And you are eating it.
Miam miam.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:08pm

We’ll have to pull your posts up from.2007, old boy. Miam miam indeed.

They must have been delightful.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:11pm

You are eating shite and you are grinning.

You know it, we know it.

Miam miam (Lat, carry on).

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am

Quote:

What a load of crap. You quote one maverik imam but ignore the groundswell of public condemnation for terrorism from the muslim community

You also cited Tim McVeigh but forget to point out that just about every other person on earth opposed his actions. This proves that you are a bigot. It sounds absurd when people expect this from you doesn't it Gandalf?

How many Muslims do you think were involved behind the scenes in orchestrating 9/11? 10? 100? 1000? 10000?

Quote:

Muslim leaders in Britain now actively work with authorities in a very successful program to counter extremism.

Is this because they recognised the threat? Or did they politely inform the 'auithorities' that we have to let a million people die from Islamic terrorism before we abandon your style of politically correct spineless apologetics?

Quote:

I'm not even going to bother asking you to substantiate your claim - as I can't be bothered going through another 20 pages of spineless obfuscation.

Time to start backpedaling again now Gandalf. How many need to die before you acknowledge reality? 1 million? 2 million? Could you perhaps concede that a terrorist attack in which thousands die is a bit worse than one in which only property is damaged?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:46am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

You also cited Tim McVeigh but forget to point out that just about every other person on earth opposed his actions.

Slight difference - I didn't say that Tim McVeigh had "widespread" support amongst non-muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

This proves that you are a bigot. It sounds absurd when people expect this from you doesn't it Gandalf?

It does sound absurd when you pretend I am doing to non-muslims what you are doing to muslims.

This was a particularly silly thing to say FD.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

Is this your attempt to defend you BS claim that muslim terrorism has "widespread" support, and mislead everyone by citing a fringe voice as somehow representative of the muslim community?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

Good gracious, I just assumed you would have realised how badly you misunderstood my point by now - instead of creating one gigantic strawman out of it.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:51am

Quote:

Slight difference - I didn't say that Tim McVeigh had "widespread" support amongst non-muslims.

Islamic terrorists have enough support to pull of 9/11. How many Muslims do you think were involved behind the scenes in orchestrating it? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? A bit different from Tim McVeigh don't you think? Perhaps even a bigger threat?

Quote:

Good gracious, I just assumed you would have realised how badly you misunderstood my point by now - instead of creating one gigantic strawman out of it.

Did I imagine that you said this?

Quote:

If Islamists had killed 3000 people in hundreds of attacks during a sustained period of time, then the 'threat' of islamists would be a no-brainer.

Care to do some more backpedaling for us?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:08pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

I never said there wasn't significant support for islamic terrorism. And by 'significant' I don't mean 'widespread' or 'mainstream' which is what you clearly were implying. You only need a relatively small group of dedicated fanatics to pull off something like this. But it is by no means "widespread", and it is particularly dishonest to cite a single fanatic to imply a mainstream view, and deliberately ignore all the actual mainstream islamic bodies and leaders who unequivocally condemn it. And it is even more dishonest to answer this by rhetorically asking if these bodies were simply being cynical in their condemnation.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Did I imagine that you said this?

You imagined what I meant by it.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm

Quote:

I never said there wasn't significant support for islamic terrorism.

You did however argue that this does not contribute to Islamic terrorism being a greater threat.

Quote:

And by 'significant' I don't mean 'widespread' or 'mainstream' which is what you clearly were implying.

So I did not actually say it?

Quote:

You only need a relatively small group of dedicated fanatics to pull off something like this.

How many Muslims do you think were involved behind the scenes in orchestrating 9/11? 10? 100? 1000? 10000?

Quote:

But it is by no means "widespread", and it is particularly dishonest to cite a single fanatic to imply a mainstream view

By 'single fanatic' do you mean the British Imam who happened to get busted by the media sprouting his Islamic taqiyya?

Quote:

You imagined what I meant by it.

So what did you really mean by this?

Quote:

If Islamists had killed 3000 people in hundreds of attacks during a sustained period of time, then the 'threat' of islamists would be a no-brainer.

Are you going to backpedal, or just pretend you didn't say it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:49pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Quote:

Slight difference - I didn't say that Tim McVeigh had "widespread" support amongst non-muslims.

Depends. If your measurement of terrorism is the number of deaths, Timothy McVeigh is well up there.

Most orchestrated suicide bombings in places like Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, etc, actually cause minimal damage and death when compared to military strikes, conventional bombings and what we optimistically term, "troop surges" in civilian populations.

Their horror of terrorism comes in the randomness of the attack. This is its strength - a strength known by guerrilla fighters from Geronimo to Mao Tse Tung.

The scale of September 11 was not the number of deaths, but the sheer audacity of an attack on the centre of global trade. As everybody knows, the 3000 odd deaths on September 11 pails.in comparison to any single US bombing campaign in history, "surgical strikes" or not, for "good" reasons or not.

The scale of September 11 was purely symbolic. A beautiful day, two jumbo jets flying into twin towers, people jumping from the windows. Most importantly, it was symbolic because of where it struck: the very centre of the world.

We’ve been watching war in real time since TV news got the lightweight cameras to film it. We’ve watched death close up on the nightly news in Vietnam, tthe Faulklands, the Gulf Wars and the Balkans. Such death is always impossible to empathise with - how can you feel for hundreds of thousands of civilian "casualties"? Such death is so far from home.

But on September 11, I saw people crying at the senseless death and destruction. It shocked us. Many didn’t turn up for work. September 11 was a strike on us.

No one shed a tear when the US innvaded Panama in the late 1980s, fire bombed the barios and took out tens of thousands of the world’s poorest shanty dwellers in one afternoon. Actually, no one knew. The news only reported the invasion when the US got Norreiga in cuffs.

Such is the power of terrorism. It makes the news, it’s random.and unexpected, and it stops business. Car bombings in Iraq mean bugger all - the "real" terrorism has to strike at our existence.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 1:26pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

No one shed a tear when the US innvaded Panama in the late 1980s, fire bombed the barios and took out tens of thousands of the world’s poorest shanty dwellers in one afternoon. Actually, no one knew. The news only reported the invasion when the US got Norreiga in cuffs.

Such is the power of terrorism.

Such is the power of utter bollocks.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 1:35pm

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

Such is the power of utter bollocks.

Disagreeing with the bombing, old chap, or the figure?

Please explain.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 2:02pm

Quote:

Depends. If your measurement of terrorism is the number of deaths, Timothy McVeigh is well up there.

Sure. If you exclude Islamic terrorism, it is at the top. But you are never going to get one man hijacking four airliners and flying them into buildings. That takes organisation. That takes a broad, well funded support base. That takes Islamic terrorism.

Quote:

The scale of September 11 was not the number of deaths, but the sheer audacity of an attack on the centre of global trade. As everybody knows, the 3000 odd deaths on September 11 pails.in comparison to any single US bombing campaign in history, "surgical strikes" or not, for "good" reasons or not.

It was the biggest death toll of any terrorist attack, but that is irrelevant? People were pissed off because Muslims were audacious, not because they killed 3000 people?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 3:48pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

You did however argue that this does not contribute to Islamic terrorism being a greater threat.

Correct - because it doesn't.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

So I did not actually say it?

You said that it was widespread and quoted a single muslim in the UK as if he was mainstream.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

How many Muslims do you think were involved behind the scenes in orchestrating 9/11? 10? 100? 1000? 10000?

I don't know, but it needed to be small so that their cover wouldn't be blown. Probably less than 100.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

By 'single fanatic' do you mean the British Imam who happened to get busted by the media sprouting his Islamic taqiyya?

This is the ugly face of prejudice. Any reasonable person would expect to see some actual evidence before smearing the muslim community like this. And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy. You're becoming more and more a Yadda clone every day.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

So what did you really mean by this?

Quote:
If Islamists had killed 3000 people in hundreds of attacks during a sustained period of time, then the 'threat' of islamists would be a no-brainer.

Are you seriously still asking me this?

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm

Quote:

Correct - because it doesn't.

OK, just to be perfectly clear, you believe that the fact that there are a far larger number of Muslims willing to support Islamic terrorism compared to other terrorist groups does not increase the risk of Islamic terrorism by increasing the capacity of Muslim terrorists to kill large numbers of people?

Quote:

You said that it was widespread and quoted a single muslim in the UK as if he was mainstream.

It is a widespread view. I gave you a classic example to demonstrate this. Are you suggesting that this is only a problem if support for terrorism is 'mainstream' among Muslims?

Quote:

I don't know, but it needed to be small so that their cover wouldn't be blown. Probably less than 100.

Including all the donors who did not need to know the strategic details? In fact there could have been a whole host of people involved in pulling it off that did not need to know enough to 'blow their cover'.

Let's take your 100 people for the moment. If we compare with this with the leading contemporary non-Muslim terroist - McVeigh - do you think that the lack of an organisation to provide support for McVeigh and similar people contributed to the difference in death toll between the Oklahom bombing and 9/11?

Quote:

This is the ugly face of prejudice. Any reasonable person would expect to see some actual evidence before smearing the muslim community like this.

I am not smearing the entire Muslim community with this. I am smearing the terrorists, their supporters, and the limp wristed apologists. I even suggested some numbers for you: 10? 100? 1000? 10000? Is that all the genuine Muslims left in the world?

Quote:

And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Quote:

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Just to be clear - no. You take your own premise which I specifically rejected and pass it as my own belief. Try again.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

It is a widespread view. I gave you a classic example to demonstrate this

lol just proves my point. It is neither widespread or "classical" - you pulled that out of your arse and have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it. Thats what I mean by prejudiced.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

I am not smearing the entire Muslim community with this. I am smearing the terrorists, their supporters, and the limp wristed apologists.

You say muslim terrorism is unique in that it has widespread support, then quote a fringe muslim leader. You smear muslims by what you leave out - by refusing to acknowledge that the vast majority of muslims demonstrably reject terrorism, and offering only one example of what muslims say (clearly inferring that this is a typical voice), you are smearing the entire muslim community.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote:
And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Cute. The comment about him being the only one who happened to get "busted" is consistent with a long and favourite theme of yours of criticising muslims for making statements ostensibly criticising terrorism - because they are only concerned about the timing or the lack of organisational control or whatever. Clearly its a sinister conspiracy of calculated "condemnation" as part of a PR campaign on one hand, and keeping the muslims organised and prepared for when the real strike comes. You've said all this before FD, don't make me quote you.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

but there was no movement within the Islamic world to actually dismantle the institutions responsible for this. Instead, they did everything within their power to get in the way.

Such as?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 7:49pm

Quote:

Just to be clear - no. You take your own premise which I specifically rejected and pass it as my own belief. Try again.

So what premise are you rejecting? That Al Quaida has more supporters than Timothy McVeigh?

Quote:

It is neither widespread or "classical" - you pulled that out of your arse and have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.

Is English your second language? The British Imam is a classic example of the hypocrisy and deception. Do you know what this means?

Quote:

You say muslim terrorism is unique in that it has widespread support

No I don't. I say it has a higher death toll, and is a higher risk, because it has more support.

Quote:

then quote a fringe muslim leader

And you respond by citing a 'mainstream' western terrorist like McVeigh, apparently oblivious to what is actually being discussed.

Quote:

You smear muslims by what you leave out - by refusing to acknowledge that the vast majority of muslims demonstrably reject terrorism

Ah yes, you always were an expert on things I do not actually say. Please forgive me for not walking on eggshells while discussing Islamic terrorism. Don't go strapping a bomb to your chest or something silly like that.

Quote:

and offering only one example of what muslims say (clearly inferring that this is a typical voice)

But not actually saying that?

Quote:

It was also a theme of Abu's. Each Muslim has their own peculiar style of apologetics. They are individuals, you see.

Quote:

Clearly its a sinister conspiracy

For the ones involved in terrorism, it is a very sinister conspiracy. The rest just settle for spineless apologetics.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:08pm

Punjab: clan gang rapes seven year old Christian and kidnaps father to stop him reporting them

Religion of Peace.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:22pm

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Punjab: clan gang rapes seven year old Christian and kidnaps father to stop him reporting them

Religion of Peace.

No explanation on the US bombing of Panama City, old dear?

I think we can safely say that your thesis on Anglo-Amerikan dominance being somehow in the best interest of the world is utter bollocks. On stilts..

Would you like fries with your faeces? You can upsize for an extra 99 cents.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by austranger on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 3:17am

Pakistan, and indeed the entire sub-continent, is a twisted and violent place, with a history of colonial, religious and cultural wars, killings and pogroms, and abuses of women and girls are widespread generally.
The standards of education are abysmal across the board and human rights are so bad they're not even a joke, they're an affront to humanity entire in this 21st century.
Muslim poor generally do not report these events as a rule, but their abuse and terror is as real as the Christian and Hindi minority's is.
Laying the blame at the door of Islam is to ignore the obvious and to be selectively prejudiced, in my opinion anyway.
Islam may possibly have a long way to go to satisfy the more Christian West's ideas about religion but it is far from the barbaric institution so often, and erroneously, portrayed. Christians have no automatic claim to saintliness, in the past or even today, and I can't help but wonder why so many of them, and atheists who profess to a humanitarian morality, are so ready to be so blindly prejudiced against Muslims, it appears to fly in the face of all their so-called ethics.
Surely we don't still blame people merely by association? Yet that is exactly what is happening, I'm sorry to say.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm

austranger wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 3:17am:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

But it's easier to excuse them than hold them responsible.

Denmark and England had bloody histories. Yet they are not an affront.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:42pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote:

Correct - because it doesn't.

It is a widespread view. I gave you a classic example to demonstrate this. Are you suggesting that this is only a problem if support for terrorism is 'mainstream' among Muslims?

Quote:

I don't know, but it needed to be small so that their cover wouldn't be blown. Probably less than 100.

This is the ugly face of prejudice. Any reasonable person would expect to see some actual evidence before smearing the muslim community like this.

And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Quote:

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:45pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote:

Correct - because it doesn't.

It is a widespread view. I gave you a classic example to demonstrate this. Are you suggesting that this is only a problem if support for terrorism is 'mainstream' among Muslims?

[quote]I don't know, but it needed to be small so that their cover wouldn't be blown. Probably less than 100.

This is the ugly face of prejudice. Any reasonable person would expect to see some actual evidence before smearing the muslim community like this.

And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Quote:

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:49pm

[quote author=freediver link=1349425752/117#117 date=139839

It was the biggest death toll of any terrorist attack, but that is irrelevant? People were pissed off because Muslims were audacious, not because they killed 3000 people?[/quote]

Correctomundo. Terrorism is a shock tactic. It’s about bringing a society to its knees by creating fear and panic.

The number of casualties is a military objective, not a terrorist one.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:53pm

Sparky wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote:

Correct - because it doesn't.

And the actual evidence (of muslims overwhelmingly condemning terrorism) is dismissed as a sinister conspiracy.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Quote:

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Ah total deaths. I still disagree with you. 9/11 highlighted a serious ongoing threat. If we had done nothing, this threat would not have gone away. We would have had more terrorist attacks in which 3000 or far more people died. 9/11 was a PR coup for the Muslim terrorists, precisely because so many Muslims support terrorism. It strengthened them, and if we had danced to the tune of the limp wristed apologists, they would have grown even stronger and launched more or bigger attacks.[/quote]

That’s right, FD. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq certainly showed Al Qaida who’s boss.

There’s no terrorism in Afghanistan or Iraq anymore. Just look how many deaths we avoided.

Thank heavens for demokracy. [/quote]Why are 90% of Muslim countries basket cases Karnal? Where are the women in the decision making processes? In fact where are the women? Aren't they allowed on the street.
[/quote]

Not sure, Sparky. Never heard of Benazir Bhutto or Megawati Sukarnoputri?

They only led the biggest Muslim nations, so it’s easy to miss.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:57pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote:

Correct - because it doesn't.

Would you mind quoting me? Or are you not accusing me of this?

Quote:

3000 total deaths in hundreds of attacks over several decades represents a bigger terrorist threat than a single attack which kills 3000 people in one hit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:43pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

I have never, ever, EVER said that primitivism, tribalism, backwardness and a general hostility to enlightenment is a Muslim speciality.

I am an equal opportunity anti-primitivist. I hope this eases your pain somewhat.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:54pm

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

I have never, ever, EVER said that primitivism, tribalism, backwardness and a general hostility to enlightenment is a Muslim speciality.

Right you are, old boy. It’s a specialty of your fine establishment too, no?

Tribalism, backwardness and general hostility. No one has the right to not be offended.

Miam miam.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:00pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

Not sure, Sparky. Never heard of Benazir Bhutto or Megawati Sukarnoputri?

Not to mention the current Bangladesh PM

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:02pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

I have never, ever, EVER said that primitivism, tribalism, backwardness and a general hostility to enlightenment is a Muslim speciality.

Right you are, old boy. It’s a specialty of your fine establishment too, no?

Tribalism, backwardness and general hostility. No one has the right to not be offended.

Miam miam.

Absinthe, isn't it?

(not metho, shurely)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:19pm

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

I have never, ever, EVER said that primitivism, tribalism, backwardness and a general hostility to enlightenment is a Muslim speciality.

Right you are, old boy. It’s a specialty of your fine establishment too, no?

Tribalism, backwardness and general hostility. No one has the right to not be offended.

Miam miam.

Absinthe, isn't it?

(not metho, shurely)

Never, ever, EVER.

A jug of wine, a piece of cheese, and thou...

Hairy-arsed Muselmen poets. What would they know?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:34pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:19pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Well, shurely, the people who live there must have some role in making it a "twisted and violent place" and affront to humanity.

Hate to break it to you S, but most of the sub-continent is non-muslim.

I have never, ever, EVER said that primitivism, tribalism, backwardness and a general hostility to enlightenment is a Muslim speciality.

Right you are, old boy. It’s a specialty of your fine establishment too, no?

Tribalism, backwardness and general hostility. No one has the right to not be offended.

Miam miam.

Absinthe, isn't it?

(not metho, shurely)

Never, ever, EVER.

A jug of wine, a piece of cheese, and thou...

Hairy-arsed Muselmen poets. What would they know?

Good on ya. Sounds like - Kaparot!

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:19am

Quote:

Islam may possibly have a long way to go to satisfy the more Christian West's ideas about religion but it is far from the barbaric institution so often, and erroneously, portrayed. Christians have no automatic claim to saintliness, in the past or even today, and I can't help but wonder why so many of them, and atheists who profess to a humanitarian morality, are so ready to be so blindly prejudiced against Muslims, it appears to fly in the face of all their so-called ethics.
Surely we don't still blame people merely by association? Yet that is exactly what is happening, I'm sorry to say.

It is because we have talked to Muslims about their views.

Quote:

That’s right, FD. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq certainly showed Al Qaida who’s boss.

I think so. The Taliban and Al Quaida are now struggling to fight against democracy in their own countries. Muslims themselves are fighting back. And you are cheering for the bad guys.

Quote:

Correctomundo. Terrorism is a shock tactic. It’s about bringing a society to its knees by creating fear and panic.

Can you imagine an attack that kills 3000 people that would not achieve this?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 10:30am

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Muslims themselves are fighting back.

Whats that you say - a muslim fighting *FOR* democracy??

shurely shome mishtake

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 12:53pm

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Quote:

It is because we have talked to Muslims about their views.

[quote]That’s right, FD. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq certainly showed Al Qaida who’s boss.

I think so. The Taliban and Al Quaida are now struggling to fight against democracy in their own countries. Muslims themselves are fighting back. And you are cheering for the bad guys.

Quote:

Correctomundo. Terrorism is a shock tactic. It’s about bringing a society to its knees by creating fear and panic.

Can you imagine an attack that kills 3000 people that would not achieve this?[/quote]

I’ve described bombings here with well over 3000 civilian deaths that didn’t even get on the news.

I don’t really know why you’re questioning these points, FD. Your 2007 alter ego said exactly the same stuff.

Having a jolly chuckle, eh?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm

It made the news Karnal, and I'm sure it terrified the citizens of that country, even if the rest of the world wasn't aware of all the details. Are you deliberately ignoring the point of the question, or are you suggesting that not orchestrating a media silence on the death toll of 9/11 was some kind of PR coup by Al Quaida?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.Allah Uakbar.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, and turn the tinted world into one big sewer with no women in charge. Yes, you can do all that.

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

I take yours.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:56pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

I take yours.

good luck.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:57pm

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

I take yours.

good luck.

That’s the spirit.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Sparky on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:58pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

I take yours.

good luck.

That’s the spirit.

I don't follow a book full of ghost stories, hate and a feeling of being better than people who believe differently.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 5:21pm

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.

Allah Uakbar.

Poor old Karnal. How dare anybody be critical of Islam. It's just pure racism and a personal attack.

You can take our library books, marry our underage child brides, sew up our lips and eyelids, smash up mosques and pretend we did it, etc, etc, etc....

But you cannot take our FREEDOM.

You take your own freedom.

I take yours.

good luck.

That’s the spirit.

I don't follow a book full of ghost stories, hate and a feeling of being better than people who believe differently.

Oh, I’ll respect you in the morning, Sparky.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Caliph adamant on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 6:50pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

Reminds me of "millions of muslim babies killed in Iraq by Americans" and Tens of thousands of women in Iraq were raped by the invading pig army also the millions of muslims persecuted worldwide every year.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 7:09pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.Allah Uakbar.

So what is your point Karnal? You introduced this remember - in response to my claim that any terrorist attack that kills 3000 is going to get the publicity and induce fear. Do you think if Al Quaida firebombed New York instead and didn't tell anyone about it, no American tears would have been shed? Remember your advice about actually participating in a debate? Are you going to go back to the poo jokes now?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Dame Karnal on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 11:24pm

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 7:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Yes, FD, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Better put it in the Wiki.Allah Uakbar.

I would never tell a poo joke, FD. Never ever.

You’ve read my claim. You don’t have to agree. That, you see, is demokracy.

Well, that, and looking after our decrepid if you believe the old boy.

Only yesterday I emptied his bag. Could I offer you a snack?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:59pm

Here is another recent thread where Greg pulled out the statistics, but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458847754/165#165

An older thread on this topic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727/8#8

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:20pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism

Does bombing school kids in Pakistan with hellfire missiles count?

How about pouring burning white phosphorus on hospitals?

No? Well, I guess its understandable greg couldn't give you a single example - he probably didn't have Anders Brievik or Tim McVeigh or Joseph Kony on the tip of his tongue.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:44pm

No I think there were other reasons why he didn't give those examples Gandalf. It's all there in the link.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by issuevoter on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism

So its not about your "spiritual" blah blah, its about war? Make up your mind.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 3:36pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

No I think there were other reasons why he didn't give those examples Gandalf. It's all there in the link.

No one asked him for examples in the thread you linked. Are you sure its the right one? In that thread, every point you make about terrorism he agrees with. So what exactly is your point here FD?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:22pm

Quote:

No one asked him for examples in the thread you linked.

Except of course for the half dozen or so times that I asked him for examples.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:31pm

Strange. You linked to post 165 that had nothing to do with asking for examples.

Anyway he posted two examples on page 9 of that thread. You even acknowledged it and thanked him.

I have no idea what your game is - why are you now pretending he didn't post any examples?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:03pm

Quote:

why are you now pretending he didn't post any examples?

Quote me.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:13pm

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

I think there were other reasons why he didn't give those examples

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

Here is another recent thread where Greg pulled out the statistics, but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism

What do you think FD, do you think posts 123 and 133 is greg demonstrating "his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples"?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:17pm

Islamic extremists carried out nearly every suicide terror attack in the world during the year 2015, and the number of women and young girls among them grew exponentially, according to a report from the Institute for National Security Studies.

In the wake of last week’s Brussels attacks and the Easter-Day Massacre in Lahore, 2016 is shaping up to be a tremendous year for suicide attacks, and they bear similar characteristics to those found throughout 2015.

A research team from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, found that there were a total of 452 suicide terror attacks during 2015, and of these, a remarkable 450 were perpetrated by Muslim extremists. This means that more than 99 percent of all suicide terror attacks in the world were carried out by Muslims.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:22pm

I'm actually surprised there were two non-muslim suicide terrorist attacks.

Guess we'll have to revise the old adage "not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" eh?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:24pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:13pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

I think there were other reasons why he didn't give those examples

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

Here is another recent thread where Greg pulled out the statistics, but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism

What do you think FD, do you think posts 123 and 133 is greg demonstrating "his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples"?

Sure Gandalf. Now go back and try again.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:32pm

Try what again? Find another example of you telling porkies?

Can you explain to me again how greg "lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples" in light of posts 123 and 133?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:22pm:

I'm actually surprised there were two non-muslim suicide terrorist attacks.

Guess we'll have to revise the old adage "not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" eh?

Is flippancy the best you can do, as a Muslim?

Two out of 452 - the two exceptions prove the rule. Or does the two out of 452 suggests to you that Islam is not a motivator of suicide bombers because it's not 100% Muslims and so yoiu as a Muslim have no buy-in into this issue?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:32pm:

Try what again? Find another example of you telling porkies?

Can you explain to me again how greg "lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples" in light of posts 123 and 133?

Read it again Gandalf.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am

OK.

I'm reading "Here is another recent thread where Greg pulled out the statistics, but temporarily lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples of the nature of non-Muslim terrorism"

Do posts 123 and 133 contradict what you said here? Help me understand FD.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 10:04am

Thanks for the reference, FD. It's interesting to read examples of non-Muslim terrorism.

You might have missed Greggery's posts. G's generously provided the reference numbers. It might help you to go back and have a little look-see.

This is how we learn new things.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

No they don't. If you read the thread, Greg only posted the examples after I made an issue of his repeated posting of those statistics, but unwillingness to post any examples of the nature of the terrorism captured by the statistics.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:19pm

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

I'm willing to post as many as I can.

Shall I start flooding the forum?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:27pm

There's no flies on you Greg.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:19pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

I'm willing to post as many as I can.

Shall I start flooding the forum?

I think you can flood as much as you like but there is no flooding away the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. Nor is there flooding away of the fact that Islamic terrorism is a more defining phenomenon of the times than any other terrorism.

SO you can play whatever games you like - but Islamic terrorism remains far more significant, in geo-political and international terms today, than any other type of violence.

Islam is what the red brigades were in the 70s. Only it's far more widespread, far more dangerous and deadly and infinitely more resistant to any rational argument.

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender and submit. That's the end game.

The Euro Weenies in the governments of Europe, North America and Australia have the instinct to submit and surrender. Their people do not. That's the fracture line for the next decade or two.i

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

I don't deal with terrorists, sorry.

Here's hoping ASIO is monitoring your internet.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

I don't deal with terrorists, sorry.

Here's hoping ASIO is monitoring your internet.

:D

Why would they monitor my internet for asking you a question that you cannot answer?

"Apologist", 'don't deal with terrorists', 'ASIO' - you don't make sense!!! Every time you are put on the spot you respond with some completely unrelated Mr Miffy nonsense.

I don't think you could explain where you stand on anything, mostly because you don't know yourself. You are just covering up your insecurity of having no idea and your acute awareness of your ignorance of any coherent ideas. I have never seen you actually present anything in a coherent way. You are just a one line reactionary - no ideas of your own, only shallow little quips about everyone else's ideas.
That way you can seem - which is all you ever want - to SEEM.

But all you achieve is coming across as a no idea, insecure know-nothing obsessive, covering up your shortcomings.

You know this more than than anyone else.ii

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

I don't deal with terrorists, sorry.

Here's hoping ASIO is monitoring your internet.

:D

Why would they monitor my internet for asking you a question that you cannot answer?

You are a potential terrorist.

"You can either kill them all or you can surrender."

You are no better than them.

I'm sure the authorities will catch up with you eventually.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:21pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

I don't deal with terrorists, sorry.

Here's hoping ASIO is monitoring your internet.

:D

Why would they monitor my internet for asking you a question that you cannot answer?

You are a potential terrorist.

"You can either kill them all or you can surrender."

You are no better than them.

I'm sure the authorities will catch up with you eventually.

:D

That's IT????

You are just a one line reactionary - no ideas of your own, only shallow little quips about everyone else's ideas.
That way you can seem - which is all you ever want - to SEEM.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:22pm

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender.

You sound exactly like the terrorists.

You do realise that, don't you?

You're no better than them.

Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

I don't deal with terrorists, sorry.

Here's hoping ASIO is monitoring your internet.

:D

Why would they monitor my internet for asking you a question that you cannot answer?

You are a potential terrorist.

"You can either kill them all or you can surrender."

You are no better than them.

I'm sure the authorities will catch up with you eventually.

:D

That's IT????

We'll see.

I've passed on your details.

Sleep well tonight.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

LOL what rubbish.

Your first reference to him not posting any examples is in post 93, to which greg immediately replied there were examples in the link (which there is). You then made your first request for examples in post 95 (God knows why) - to which he provided his first copy and paste from his link 3 minutes later in post 96. You then thanked him for it.

Most absurdly, a few pages later you started this nonsense that, in your words:

Quote:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:55pm

Now now, G, FD has never said he's unwilling to use a few porkies in the fight for Freeeeedom.

In fact, every time you ask him about this, he disappears.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:28am

State Department's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism: Annex of Statistical Information:

SIGNIFICANT TRENDS
Although terrorist attacks took place in 95 countries in 2014, they were heavily concentrated geographically. More than 60% of all attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Nigeria), and 78% of all fatalities due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria).

The number of terrorist attacks in 2014 increased 35% and total fatalities increased 81% compared to 2013, largely due to activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. In certain countries, including Greece, Nepal, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Russia, terrorist attacks and total fatalities decreased.

The 81% increase in total fatalities was, in part, a result of certain attacks that were exceptionally lethal. In 2014, there were 20 attacks that killed more than 100 people, compared to two such attacks in 2013.

Terrorism in 2014 was marked by numerous kidnappings and hostage-taking events. More than 9,400 people were kidnapped or taken hostage in terrorist attacks in 2014, three times as many as in 2013. This trend was concentrated in certain countries, including Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, and was particularly influenced by an increase in attacks that involved large numbers of hostages.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

And, I did.

I posted at least a half a dozen examples, as requested.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Pho Huc on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:38pm

Look I love to argue, but these Islam threads give me a headache.

I'm just going to jump in to summarize the situation and get out without a skull splitter.

"Terrorism" has no inherit meaning. It is a term that is defined by the user's perspective. Americas "shock and awe" campaign would be viewed as terrorism by Iraq's population.

Therefore terrorism statistics are not so much a measure of violence but rather a measure of violence which is purported to be politically or religiously motivated.

I'm fighting terrorism by ignoring all the entities who use the term as a smokescreen to deflect debate on topics which actually matter. e.g Taxation, education and law reform.

Join me in my fight against the meaningless formless distracting subject and pick something constructive to argue about!

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:56pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

And, I did.

I posted at least a half a dozen examples, as requested.

Yes, Greggery, but you lost your ability to cut and paste, remember? FD ressurected this thread to prove this.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 6:15pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

And, I did.

I posted at least a half a dozen examples, as requested.

So you are not denying my version of events?

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 6:59pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

And, I did.

I posted at least a half a dozen examples, as requested.

So you are not denying my version of events?

You asked for an example of a non-Muslim terrorism, and I then provided several examples (half a dozen, at least).

These are the facts.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:02pm

So that's a yes?

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:11pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

So that's a yes?

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the terrorism problem?

We've been through this already.

I consider all terrorism a problem.

However, a terrorist act that involves graffiti is (quite obviously) in no way as serious as one that involves the loss of life.

Moreover, nobody has ever suggested that it is.

You asked for an example of non-Muslim terrorism, and I provided you with many.

If you think you're not going to like the answer, don't ask the question.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:32pm

Quote:

However, a terrorist act that involves graffiti is (quite obviously) in no way as serious as one that involves the loss of life.

I see you are suddenly keen to use examples. Let's get back to the bigger picture for a moment.

Quote:

Moreover, nobody has ever suggested that it is.

That's a big call to make. Instead of suddenly deciding to speak on behalf of the rest of humanity, how about you speak for yourself? Usually when people present statistics, it is because they feel the statistics capture something meaningful. What do you think? Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem? If you have already given a straight answer and I somehow missed it, feel free to quote yourself.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:39pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:32pm:

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

The statistics I posted provided evidence that not all terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims.

Moreover, the examples I provided proved my point beyond all doubt.

As I said: if you think you're not going to like the answer, you really shouldn't ask the question.

Chalk this one up as a lesson well learned.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:52pm

Are you trying to say 'no' Greg?

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 8:02pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

So that's a yes?

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the terrorism problem?

Sorry, FD, did you just say statistics?

Greggery lost the ability to cut and paste. He couldn’t possibly have provided statistics.

Read your posts above, please. Greggery is guilty of evasion.

DENIED.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 8:02pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:52pm:

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

Either he did or he didn’t. You’ll need to explain this, thanks.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:25pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

You’re right.

FD, could you quote Greggery’s statistics, please?

We’ll have a little look-see.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

Have you ever given a straight answer to this question Greg? Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:36pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

Have you ever given a straight answer to this question Greg?

Have you ever given a straight answer ... FD?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:39pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

Have you ever given a straight answer to this question Greg?

I asked you about this above, FD.

Have you answered yet?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

I think I am going to like the answer Greg, when you eventually give it.

Do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

FD, are you now saying Greggery provided statistics?

You’ll need to explain this, thanks. Either he did or he didn’t.

How could I possibly do that, if I've lost the ability to cut & paste?

Have you ever given a straight answer to this question Greg?

Have you ever given a straight answer ... FD?

Better answer this one, FD. Greggery seems to be inferring you’re evading.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 1:12pm

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

It took a lot of prompting to get you to post the examples

when actually, you prompted precisely once, and got what you requested 3 minutes later.

He copied and pasted the statistics. I asked him to copy and paste an example of non-Muslim terrorism, multiple times.

Which he did - precisely 3 minutes after you requested. I even gave you two of his posts. Whats funny is you even acknowledged and thanked him for it.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:17pm

Greg do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Quote:

Which he did - precisely 3 minutes after you requested.

For the tenth time.

Keep going Gandalf. You will get there eventually, when find yourself conceding there is nothing wrong with what I posted.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:44pm

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Greg do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Quote:

Which he did - precisely 3 minutes after you requested.

For the tenth time.

Keep going Gandalf. You will get there eventually, when find yourself conceding there is nothing wrong with what I posted.

That’s right, G. You concede FD was right all along and Greggery did no such thing.

Hurry up, we haven’t got all day.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:07am

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Greg do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Quote:

Which he did - precisely 3 minutes after you requested.

For the tenth time.

Keep going Gandalf. You will get there eventually, when find yourself conceding there is nothing wrong with what I posted.

You didn't ask him to post examples of non-muslim terrorism "multiple times" before he posted any. You asked him once, and he responded 3 minutes later with a whole pile of examples. Which particular part of that fact is contentious to you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 12:49pm

Quote:

You didn't ask him to post examples of non-muslim terrorism "multiple times" before he posted any.

Yes I did. It's all there in the link Gandalf. I see you have now managed to read two of the posts. Keep going. You'll get there eventually.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:05pm

You asked for examples and he posted a direct link to examples, and told you there were examples in the link. And you want to nitpick because he didn't redundantly copy and paste them into a post.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:08pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

You asked for examples and he posted a direct link to examples, and told you there were examples in the link. And you want to nitpick because he didn't redundantly copy and paste them into a post.

Exactly. This sort of thing is appalling. Greggery should be ashamed of himself.

I blame Islam.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:22pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

You asked for examples and he posted a direct link to examples, and told you there were examples in the link. And you want to nitpick because he didn't redundantly copy and paste them into a post.

It is not nitpicking. This is the same guy who still cannot bring himself to say whether the statistics he copied and pasted reflect the terrorism problem. This is consistent with his willingness to copy and paste the statistics and his reluctance to paste any examples that might reflect what the statistics are capturing. It is the same guy who carried on with the "don't mention Islam" bullshit for months then attempted to disown it.

If you are not interested Gandalf, there is no need for you to respond, but it is good that you are gradually reading more and more of the thread.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:48pm

Who says I'm not interested FD? I find your pedantry quite amusing. As is your newly acquired obsession with greg.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm

Approximately 17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, and of those deaths 82% occurred in just 5 nations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria.

Of the 162 surveyed nations, Iraq holds the deplorable top spot with approximately 2,492 terrorist attacks in 2013, which killed 6,362 people.

Combined, these nations accounted for nearly 15,000 fatalities. Since 2000 only 5% of these crimes were suicide attacks.

The four terrorist groups responsible for the most destructive acts are Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. The report notes that radical variants of Islam was “the key commonality for all four groups.” However, the study does not take into account the recent attacks from ISIS since the research tapers off at the end of 2013.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-state-of-terrorism-in-the-world-today-2014-11

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Who says I'm not interested FD? I find your pedantry quite amusing. As is your newly acquired obsession with greg.

Do you think Greg's statistics reflect the relative magnitude of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:47pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Who says I'm not interested FD? I find your pedantry quite amusing. As is your newly acquired obsession with greg.

Do you think Greg's statistics reflect the relative magnitude of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism?

You asked for an example of non-Muslim terrorism.

I provided you with a link to several examples.

You then lied, and said that there were no examples there.

I then copied & pasted several of the examples.

To cover up your lie (and embarrassment), you then tried to move the goal posts.

When I wouldn't play your pathetic game, you carried on like a school child.

Since then, many people have pointed out the error in your ways.

You, however, have continued throwing your juvenile tantrum.

In summary: you asked me for something, and I gave it to you.

Basically, you can't handle the truth.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:49pm

Greg do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem? Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Quote:

You then lied, and said that there were no examples there.

Quote me.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:54pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Quote me.

"There are no examples at that link, Greg".

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:56pm

Ah, so that's an example of me lying? What do you think Gandalf? Case closed?

Greg do you think the statistics you posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem? Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:00pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Ah, so that's an example of me lying?

Clear, and undeniable.

You asked.

I provided.

You lied.

I exposed your lie.

End of story.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:13pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Better ask him again, FD. He’s evading.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:13pm

Would you mind providing the link to where you copied and pasted that quote from?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:14pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Would you mind providing the link to where you copied and pasted that quote from?

Not at all.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 11:40pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Ah, so that's an example of me lying?

Clear, and undeniable.

You asked.

I provided.

You lied.

I exposed your lie.

End of story.

But isn’t it possible FD just made a mistake?

It happens all the time - particularly when he quotes G.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 10:54am

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Ah, so that's an example of me lying? What do you think Gandalf? Case closed?

Well lets see FD, here's what you said when greg posted the link:

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

Didn't see any example there Greg.

Given that when I clicked on the link it took me around 5 seconds or less to establish the fact that there were indeed many examples listed, your response seems to suggest one of three things:

1. you are blind or illiterate
2. you never bothered to look at the link
3. you did look at the link, and lied about what you saw

I'm pretty sure we can rule out 1, which leaves us with either you were dishonest about implying that you checked, or you flat out lied.

So yeah, I would say its pretty open-shut case of you being dishonest.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:08am

I opened the link. I did not see any examples. I saw a very long web page. I asked Greg to copy and paste one. It really is that simple Gandalf.

For someone who just finished whining about me 'nitpicking' you are going to absurd lengths to find something wrong with what I posted. Both of you have misrepresented what I said in order to do this.

BTW, do you think Greg's statistics posted reflect the relative magnitude of the Islamic terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:25am

Quote:

I opened the link. I did not see any examples.

It is literally impossible for a literate person to "not see any examples" in the link - after specifically being told there were examples in there.

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

For someone who just finished whining about me 'nitpicking' you are going to absurd lengths to find something wrong with what I posted.

Like I said, I find your newly acquired obsession with greg rather amusing. To the extent that you will use your seeming inability to open a link and actually read the contents of that link as somehow an example of him being tricky and evasive.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:39am

Quote:

It is literally impossible for a literate person to "not see any examples" in the link - after specifically being told there were examples in there.

It is actually quite simple. Would you like to take a guess at how many words there are on the page? What this boils down to is that I did not misrepresent anything. You and Greg have spent several pages misrepresenting what I said. And now you are clutching for something to fall back on.

Quote:

Like I said, I find your newly acquired obsession with greg rather amusing.

You always get jelous when I pay attention to the other apologists.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:50am

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

It is actually quite simple. Would you like to take a guess at how many words there are on the page?

Just out of curiosity, how long did you try looking for them?

I'd love to understand how a literate person could not find in one page what was specifically pointed out to them.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm

At least a few seconds.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by |dev|null on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:41pm

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

Do you really feel that was sufficient time FD? Considering how important you feel the matter of Islamic Terrorism is... ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:25pm

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

So did it take a few seconds to not find what is very clearly in the page even after it was specifically pointed out to you - or to decide to simply ignore the evidence he provided and start this pathetic game of "gweggy's being tricky and evasive"? Since the latter is second nature to you, I reckon "a few seconds" would be about right.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 3:35pm

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

And how long did it take to ask Greggery why he didn't post it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

It is not very clear. It is an enourmous page. How many words would you have to read through before coming across an example?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:38pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

It is not very clear. It is an enourmous page. How many words would you have to read through before coming across an example?

Fair enough, FD. It was too long to read. How long did it take to ask Greggery why he didn't post it?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:46pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

At least a few seconds.

It is not very clear. It is an enourmous page. How many words would you have to read through before coming across an example?

Took me literally a few seconds of scanning down the page.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

I was actually more interested in his reluctance to post examples, given that he obviously went to the trouble of finding them and he was more than happy to copy and paste the statistics. Now he is too shy to answer the most basic questions about the statistics he posted. Do you think it would be quicker for me to make up an answer on his behalf?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:52pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

Fair enough, FD. You left the reading to Greggery and G. They're the scholars here.

You're more of a questioner, no?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:54pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

But, FD, that's not possible. You said Greggery had forgotten how to cut and paste, remember?

Would you like Greggery to rewrite his examples for you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:56pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

I was actually more interested in his reluctance to post examples

No reluctance at all.

I posted several examples.

Telling the same lie over and over again won't make it come true.

You asked, and I provided.

You were shocked that I could come up with so many examples, so you quickly started to duck and weave.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 1:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

I was actually more interested in his reluctance to post examples

Greggery, that's just unfair. FD's point now is that you posted too many examples. How could he possibly have the time to read them?

It's much quicker to tell you to post more examples, you know.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:27pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

I was actually more interested in his reluctance to post examples

Yes Greg, eventually you did, when the examples themselves became less embarrassing for you than your reluctance to post them. Then you invented quotes on my behalf because I never said what you attributed to me.

Do you think your statistics accurately capture the terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 2:15pm

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

A lot less time than it would have taken to read that web page.

I was actually more interested in his reluctance to post examples

How could they be embarrassing - they were exactly what you asked for?

Moreover, there was no reluctance to post them. No matter how many times you tell that lie, it won't come true.

And, I did not invent any quotes.

As I've already explained to you before: you asked, and I provided.

You were then so shocked that I could come up with so many examples, you decided to change tact.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:38pm

Quote:

Moreover, there was no reluctance to post them.

So how many times did I ask you for an example first Greg?

Quote:

How could they be embarrassing

Hmm, let's see now. Do you think your statistics accurately capture the terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:42pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

So how many times did I ask you for an example first Greg?

No idea. How many?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

Do you think your statistics accurately capture the terrorism problem?

Yes. They come straight from the FBI.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm

Was there something about the wording of the question that made you willing to answer this time?

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem? Hint: the answer has nothing to do with where the statistics come from.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:42pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.

Why do you ask, anyway?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:46pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.

Why do you ask, anyway?

And?

Do you have a point? If so, get to it before we all die.

I don't think you have one, though. I think you're still butthurt.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:49pm

You don't even realise do you Greg?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:53pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

You don't even realise do you Greg?

I realise that you have no point, and that you were very embarrassed (and surprised) when I provided the information you asked for.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same. To pretend that they have no different motivations is just wilfully stupid.

You can't have a handle on Islamic terrorism is you pretend that hey are no different to Quaker terrorism. It is completely unacceptable to ignore the Islamic roots of Islamic terrorism and to pretend that their ideology has nothing to do with what they do.

Islamic terrorism must be tackled as Islamic, not as some generic, no-name same-as-same as terrorism. Islam IS a player in terrorism, don't try to excuse it all the time.

.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:01pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same.

Correct.

Did somebody say it was, dear?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by GordyL on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Exactly. Who would deny fundy Christians have stymied stem cell research in the USA. It's not just a bunch of random activists

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Ooooh, the trump (!) card.

Racist. This is the most convenient bludgeon to shut up anyone who notices that vultures are different and cultures are pretty well overlapping with countries and races.

The more Africans and other brown people you have in a country the worse the country is. More whites, it's a better place. It works on every indicator. Non-white people simply do not improve a white country. Whites do improve a non-white country. It's just all too plain to see.

I don't think it's a coincidence. Do you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:09pm

GordyL wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Exactly. Who would deny fundy Christians have stymied stem cell research in the USA. It's not just a bunch of random activists

How is this relevant to anything?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:11pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I think Frank might be.

Let's wait and see.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:20pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I think Frank might be.

Not at all. Frank's just speaking out in support of Freeedom.

For FD, the more who do this, the better.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I can show you any number of white countries that black people are trying to get into.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:32pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I think Frank might be.

Not at all. Frank's just speaking out in support of Freeedom.

Ah.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same.

Correct.

Did somebody say it was, dear?

As I said - you are wilfully stupid.
You pretend that you can ignore the substance of my post. That just confirms that you are knowingly and wilfuly stupid.
Why do you always rush to play the stupid, ignorant, irritating clown part in every encounter?
You seem compulsive in this regard.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:50pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same.

Correct.

Did somebody say it was, dear?

You didn't answer my question.

I'm taking that as a 'no'.

Yes?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Mr Hammer on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:53pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

But they don't live with the blackies though. And holiday destinations don't count either Burqa Beauty.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:54pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Compared to the movement in the other direction?????

You don't believe your own lame-o agit-prop, do you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same.

Correct.

Did somebody say it was, dear?

You didn't answer my question.

I'm taking that as a 'no'.

Yes?

I didn't realise you had a question. You seem to be saying everything and the opposite of everything, all at the same time.

It's impossible to know what you ARE saying.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:02pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Not all terrorism is the same.

Correct.

Did somebody say it was, dear?

You didn't answer my question.

I'm taking that as a 'no'.

Yes?

I didn't realise you had a question. You seem to be saying everything and the opposite of everything, all at the same time.

It's impossible to know what you ARE saying.

Did somebody say that all terrorism is the same?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:28pm

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Compared to the movement in the other direction?????

You don't believe your own lame-o agit-prop, do you?

I don't know, Frank.

South Africa? Rhodesia? The Belgian Congo?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:30pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Compared to the movement in the other direction?????

You don't believe your own lame-o agit-prop, do you?

I don't know, Frank.

South Africa? Rhodesia? The Belgian Congo?

Frank might be a racist, but at least he's not an ignorant racist.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Karnal on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:33pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

And holiday destinations don't count either Burqa Beauty.

I don't see why not, Homo. But what about tax havens? You do realise the owners of world's major companies move there, don't you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 8:19am

This is what Greg is saying, and it is his final word on the matter, except to point out that he is being entirely consistent with himself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.

Why do you ask, anyway?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 8:38am

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 8:19am:

This is what Greg is saying, and it is his final word on the matter, except to point out that he is being entirely consistent with himself.

Correct.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

FD, are you a racist?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, no. Wanting to ban blacks isn't racist. Sub-human negroids aren't a race.

What do you think, FD?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Show me a black country that has a queue of white people trying to get into.

I don't know, Frank - Mauritius? Fiji? The Cayman Islands?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Compared to the movement in the other direction?????

You don't believe your own lame-o agit-prop, do you?

I don't know, Frank.

South Africa? Rhodesia? The Belgian Congo?

Really? White people are trying to get into South Africa, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo??

That's news to everyone, I am sure.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Secret Wars on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 8:19am:

This is what Greg is saying, and it is his final word on the matter, except to point out that he is being entirely consistent with himself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.

Why do you ask, anyway?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine its ability to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

The FBI statistic is compiled to correspond with their definition of terrorist, it also needs updating. It does not in any way speak to weightings. Greg likes it bcause he can point at it and with his considerable reserves of stamina point out repeatedly that Islamic inspired terrorism is a minority.

Greg cites the statistics only to diminish and mitigate from the deadly problem of Islamic inspired atrocities.

That is the entirety of his point. It is apologism and an attempt at deflection.

Luckily the FBI is not as binary as greggs thinking and they allocate more funding and resources to defeating and denying Islamic inspired terrorism because they understand a difference in severity between a graffiti and death.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Frank on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:26am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

It's just that Islamic terrorism is more deadly and and more widespread than any other. It's simply a much, much more serious problem than chalk signs on the pavement. Why pretend otherwise?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.?" GP

You look quite the fool now.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:29am

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

It's just that Islamic terrorism is more deadly and and more widespread than any other. It's simply a much, much more serious problem than chalk signs on the pavement. Why pretend otherwise?

Again: is English not your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely." GP

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:30am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine the ability of these statistics to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:32am

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

All terrorism is a problem.

I've told you this before.

It's just that Islamic terrorism is more deadly and and more widespread than any other. It's simply a much, much more serious problem than chalk signs on the pavement. Why pretend otherwise?

Who's pretending otherwise?

FD asked for an example of non-Muslim terrorism.

I provided him with many examples.

Which part don't you understand?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely."

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:33am

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

Do you think that consistently equating graffiti attacks with attacks causing multiple fatalities might undermine the ability of these statistics to accurately capture the terrorism problem?

No.

All terrorism is a problem.

I've explained this to you before.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Secret Wars on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.?" GP

You look quite the fool now.

It is inherent in your diminishing of the severity of Islamic inspired atrocities to graffiti in your bald statement that "all terrorism is a problem", implying the problem is likewise equal, or even that Islamic causes being lesser because in a simplistic count the number is lessor.

With no regard to weightings it implies a relativism.

I am not sure if you are truely limited in your thinking or a rabid apologist. Or most probably both.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:41am

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.?" GP

You look quite the fool now.

All terrorism is a problem.

Attacks that cause death are much worse than graffiti attacks.

Moreover, nobody is saying (or suggesting) anything to the contrary.

Why do you struggle to understand this?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Secret Wars on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.?" GP

You look quite the fool now.

In gregs world is a problem equally problematic to all other problems?

Or can I take it that you agree that terrorism that causes death is a worse problem even if the number is less, than graffiti and the FBI is right in allocating greater resources to defeat Islamic inspired atrocities, it being the greater threat, than it does to graffiti.

You like simple yes and no's, a simple yes or no to both will suffice. 8-)

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Lord Herbert on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:53am

I would like to see an Islamic terrorism statistic that relates to Muslims living in the West who are found to have been making statements of support for violent action against the Jews.

Just one of a great many Muslim rats-in-the-silo who enjoy Western hospitality while supporting the genocide of our allies

Hopefully, a new party of the future will catch up with her and her ilk and forcibly expel them from Britain and other Western nations where these parasitic vermin are now comfortably ensconced within the midst of their secular hosts.

Only when the West has de-feminised its political class, its law-making, its criminal courts, it schools system, its police forces, its university staff - only then will the epic problem of the massive Muslim 5th Column that is living amongst us be addressed in a way that is all-encompassing, politically fearless, utterly decisive, and not given to cherry-picking and band-aid solutions.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:57am

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

No.

Yes.

Why are you still struggling to understand this?

I repeat:

All terrorism is a problem.

Attacks that cause death are much worse than graffiti attacks.

Moreover, nobody is saying (or suggesting) anything to the contrary.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Secret Wars on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:00am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

No.

Yes.

Excellent work Gregg. We have made real progress together.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:04am

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

No.

Yes.

Excellent work Gregg. We have made real progress together.

Are you sure you've got it now?

I don't have to draw you pictures, just to make sure?

In future, perhaps you should actually read what's being said instead of making assumptions based on your own prejudice and ignorance.

It'll make you look less foolish (well, it'll help anyway).

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Secret Wars on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:10am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:04am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

No.

Yes.

Excellent work Gregg. We have made real progress together.

You like pictures, post away. Doesn't worry me, it is internet graffiti.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:14am

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:04am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

No.

Yes.

Excellent work Gregg. We have made real progress together.

You like pictures, post away. Doesn't worry me, it is internet graffiti.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Equating a terrorist event that includes death as equal a problem as one that involves spray painted slogan on a wall is relativist apologism taken to an idiotic extreme.

And nobody has done that.

Is English your first language?

"Is an attack that causes death worse than a graffiti attack, or an incinerated car? Absolutely.?" GP

You look quite the fool now.

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem, should the Saudis be free to execute these atheists ?

Quote:

Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists.

independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/Saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

You said all terrorism is a problem little pecca, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

13 countries with Islam as the state religion have the death penalty for atheists why single out Saudi Arabia for this little pecca?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:20pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

You said all terrorism is a problem little pecca, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

I don't.

What about you?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:23pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

13 countries with Islam as the state religion have the death penalty for atheists why single out Saudi Arabia for this little pecca?

I didn't: you did.

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

Keep trying.

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:24pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

You said all terrorism is a problem little pecca, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

I don't.

So you disagree with a definition of terrorist is that what you are saying?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:28pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

You said all terrorism is a problem little pecca, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

I don't.

So you disagree with a definition of terrorist is that what you are saying?

I disagree with many things in Saudi Arabia (the new topic you introduced).

What about you?

Cat got your tongue?

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by Baronvonrort on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:35pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

What about this little pecca ,is this a terrorist problem ?

"Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists."

It's certainly a problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Don't you think?

You said all terrorism is a problem little pecca, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

I don't.

So you disagree with a definition of terrorist is that what you are saying?

I disagree with many things in Saudi Arabia (the new topic you introduced).

You're the one who said all terrorism is a problem, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists, I am just introducing evidence to expose your idiocy.

The Quran which the Saudis use for their constitution has Allah saying atheists are the worst living creatures right here- quran.com/8/55

Title: Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Post by greggerypeccary on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:37pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

You're the one who said all terrorism is a problem, the Saudis consider atheists to be terrorists.

In which case, that would be a massive problem for atheists living in Saudi Arabia.

Do you agree?

(I've asked you two times now - it looks like you're evading)