Australian Politics Forum - Islamic terrorism statistics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #90 - 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:

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?

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

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

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?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2014 at 8:56pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48860 At my desk.	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #91 - 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?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #92 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #93 - 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...

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95430 Gender:	Re: Islamic terrorism statistics Reply #94 - 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #95 - 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...

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #96 - 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...

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #97 - 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...

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #98 - 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.

Back to top

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

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #99 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:45pm

polite_gandalf wrote 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #100 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56pm

polite_gandalf wrote 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #101 - 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?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #102 - 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.

Back to top

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

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95430
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #103 - 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:

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.

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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Islamic terrorism statistics
Reply #104 - 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:

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.

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.

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?

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

Back to top

IP Logged