Chuck Finster wrote:
you're so boring now Rob.
shut up pussy
How Come It's Not Terrorism When a White Guy from the South Does It?
-
shut up pussy -
Chuck Finster wrote:
The definition of a Terror Attack as defined by the free dictionary "a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims". Soooooo a mass shooting that is politically motivated would be considered a terror attack... I fail to see how it couldn't be seen as a terror attack. What would it be considered if not a "real terror attack". What is the difference between a real terror attack and a fake terror attack? :confused:
Also, who made you the one who gets to decide what is considered a terror attack or not? Stop defining the argument with bull shit claims like "it's not considered a real terror attack". I mean wasn't the definition of terrorism kind of what this entire thread was about in the first place? So you telling me what the "true definition" of terrorism is is what is truly irrelevant in the situation.
Most of mass shootings, at least in the US, are not politically motivated. Was the Aurora shooting politically motivated? Most of the incident are more like it and less like the Boston Bombings. So when that source you quoted didn't seperate the politically motivated mass shootings from the rest, it became irrelevant to our topic.
Chuck Finster wrote:
It's impossible to prove anything he said wrong because you are forced to assume at the beginning that he's right and that he's telling the whole truth. The best way to go about figuring out if a writer can be trusted is checking the accuracy of the details he posts. He claims he went through 4000+ incidents and looked up every single organization that carried out every single terror attack in Western Europe and in the United States... yet when you go to use the database he used there aren't even 2,500 incidents in those regions in the timeframe he mentioned, nevermind 2,500 incidents that resulted in death in the timeframe he mentioned. He also says "when RAND does not provide information on likely or confirmed perpetrators and we have no strong suspicions, I assume they were non-Muslim". Key word "when". (RAND doesn't provide that kind of information about any of the terrorist groups...) Key phrase "no strong suspicions" implying that they often guessed... He also talks about state department data claiming there have been 10,000 politically motivated deaths yearly caused my islamic extremists in the last decade in other parts of the world (which could be totally accurate)... but then doesn't link to it.
So I don't know, there are way too many things working against this post factually for me to automatically trust him just because you do. The research I've been presenting to you is peer-reviewed and fact checked. This blog isn't...
He was a little vague about how he exactly did the search but i got close to 4,000 (that what he said, not 4000+) incidents when i searched terror incidents from 2000 to 2010 in North America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe. So maybe he wasn't very clear but not in a way a little out-of-the-box thinking can't solve. That's about the incidents number.
RAND says who the perpetrator is if it knows and a quick google search (and many time just the name of the group is enough) can tell you in a minute if the perpetrators were Muslims or not. If he doesn't know who did it he classfied it as non-Muslim, so i honestly do not see any problem with his way of thinking.
Your sources aren't "peer reviewed and fact-checked" because they're not scientific researches. They just presented in a certain way some statistics about terrorism from a big, undisputed source (the exact thing the blogger did). The only question now is how you choose to analyze and present that data and what are your conclusions from it. As i already pointed out, there were some serious flaws in both the analysis and the conclusions in your sources.
Chuck Finster wrote:
False, in the end I don't think you're COMPLETELY wrong. That doesn't mean I agree, there is a difference. :wink: Just because they're the biggest threat doesn't mean they're entirely viable or that we should be spending trillions in our efforts to thwart them. Billions, maybe, but certainly not trillions. I think that's kind of what they want us to do don't you think?
That wasn't the question though, the question was if Muslim are being discriminated and wrong labeled as "terrorists" when they're not even the most dangerous terrorists. Since you're agreeing with me that they are (i.e. Islamic terror groups are the most dangerous), i'm fine and made my point. How to deal with Islamic terrorism is an interesting question indeed, but not our topic. -
RDCF wrote:
Most of mass shootings, at least in the US, are not politically motivated. Was the Aurora shooting politically motivated? Most of the incident are more like it and less like the Boston Bombings. So when that source you quoted didn't seperate the politically motivated mass shootings from the rest, it became irrelevant to our topic.
But it didn't include every single mass shooting... seeing as there have been about 2500 gun deaths since Newtown I highly doubt it includes every single mass shooting in the US. Like huh? Where are you even getting that information from?
He was a little vague about how he exactly did the search but i got close to 4,000 (that what he said, not 4000+) incidents when i searched terror incidents from 2000 to 2010 in North America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe. So maybe he wasn't very clear but not in a way a little out-of-the-box thinking can't solve. That's about the incidents number.
RAND says who the perpetrator is if it knows and a quick google search (and many time just the name of the group is enough) can tell you in a minute if the perpetrators were Muslims or not. If he doesn't know who did it he classfied it as non-Muslim, so i honestly do not see any problem with his way of thinking.
So because the details of how he came to his conclusions are so vague how am I supposed to trust the guy? The only way to prove him wrong or right would to be to go through and do every single incident myself. If this were a study based on the RAND database done by a research group or a university I would have been able to trust the source but random blogs? Come on.
Your sources aren't "peer reviewed and fact-checked" because they're not scientific researches. They just presented in a certain way some statistics about terrorism from a big, undisputed source (the exact thing the blogger did). The only question now is how you choose to analyze and present that data and what are your conclusions from it. As i already pointed out, there were some serious flaws in both the analysis and the conclusions in your sources.
Something's telling me that you aren't actually looking at the sources I provide. Every single source that I've provided links to a peer-reviewed study (and in one case a government database): I'll provide those all here since you seem to have completely overlooked them.
tcths.sanford.duke.edu/documen…n_Terrorism_final2013.pdf
(a good synopsis of that one:
"Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team." which is where you may have gotten the "every mass shooting" mix-up...)
FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…ublications/tesat2007.pdf
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…ublications/tesat2008.pdf
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…lications/tesat2009_0.pdf
The data speaks for itself.
That wasn't the question though, the question was if Muslim are being discriminated and wrong labeled as "terrorists" when they're not even the most dangerous terrorists. Since you're agreeing with me that they are (i.e. Islamic terror groups are the most dangerous), i'm fine and made my point. How to deal with Islamic terrorism is an interesting question indeed, but not our topic.
Uhm? That wasn't the question either though sir...? I believe the original question was "How Come It's Not Terrorism When a White Guy From The South Does It?" I guess that can be broken down into "Why is it that Terrorism in the United States is only acknowledged in the media when it's perpetrated by a muslim?" I thought that was clear from the beginning. I mean it's right in the title of the thread. :drool:
You're the one that brought it into a whole different tangent about who is the most dangerous terrorist. That's not what this discussion was about at all... It's about the media mislabeling terrorism only when there is nothing sensationalist or typical about the story. So if the point you were trying to make is "Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous" okay, it's been made... but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion originally intended for this thread. -
Chuck Finster wrote:
But it didn't include every single mass shooting... seeing as there have been about 2500 gun deaths since Newtown I highly doubt it includes every single mass shooting in the US. Like huh? Where are you even getting that information from?
I'm sorry, i mistakenly thought it talks about mass shooting in general. However, my point still stands, Islamic terror is still the most fatal.
Chuck Finster wrote:
So because the details of how he came to his conclusions are so vague how am I supposed to trust the guy? The only way to prove him wrong or right would to be to go through and do every single incident myself. If this were a study based on the RAND database done by a research group or a university I would have been able to trust the source but random blogs? Come on.
I didn't say "so vague", i said "a little vague" and it took me no more than 5 minutes to solve the little misunderstanding. And if you're too lazy to check his findings yourself that doesn't mean he's wrong.
Chuck Finster wrote:
Something's telling me that you aren't actually looking at the sources I provide. Every single source that I've provided links to a peer-reviewed study (and in one case a government database): I'll provide those all here since you seem to have completely overlooked them.
tcths.sanford.duke.edu/documen…n_Terrorism_final2013.pdf
(a good synopsis of that one:
"Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team." which is where you may have gotten the "every mass shooting" mix-up...)
FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…ublications/tesat2007.pdf
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…ublications/tesat2008.pdf
europol.europa.eu/sites/defaul…lications/tesat2009_0.pdf
The data speaks for itself.
Definitely not. These are only statistics, the question is how you present them and i already showed you how you can show data in wrong context and ignore details that aren't comfortable with your agenda when needed. Statistics only, for instance, doesn't tell you that Islamic terror is the only one that its goal is to cause the most casualties among civilans while other organization have certain political goals and almost always attack government buildings and law enforcement presonnel only.
It also doesn't tell you that it's the main threat that concern whole Europe and not only particular countries. The main thing those reports show is that law enforcement forces in Europe are currently quite effective at stopping the Islamic terror threat, but it doesn't say anything about the seriousness of the threat (and doesn't claim to).
Chuck Finster wrote:
Uhm? That wasn't the question either though sir...? I believe the original question was "How Come It's Not Terrorism When a White Guy From The South Does It?" I guess that can be broken down into "Why is it that Terrorism in the United States is only acknowledged in the media when it's perpetrated by a muslim?" I thought that was clear from the beginning. I mean it's right in the title of the thread. :drool:
You're the one that brought it into a whole different tangent about who is the most dangerous terrorist. That's not what this discussion was about at all... It's about the media mislabeling terrorism only when there is nothing sensationalist or typical about the story. So if the point you were trying to make is "Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous" okay, it's been made... but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion originally intended for this thread.
Let me quote my original response:
RDCF wrote:
I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered terrorism as well, but to present it like there's some unjust bias against Muslims is pretty retarded considering the fact that they're the ones who commit the vast majority of [fatal] terror attacks in the US and in the world in general.
You agree with that? if you do then I'm done here. -
RDCF wrote:
I'm sorry, i mistakenly thought it talks about mass shooting in general. However, my point still stands, Islamic terror is still the most fatal.
Yes, however your point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which, as previously stated, is religious bias in the media, not who kills more people.
I didn't say "so vague", i said "a little vague" and it took me no more than 5 minutes to solve the little misunderstanding. And if you're too lazy to check his findings yourself that doesn't mean he's wrong.
You don't think it's "so vague", but it is. Sorry but "if there wasn't enough info we just guessed" isn't just "a little vague". He literally said "if we have no strong suspicions"... meaning that they did occasionally just guess. Making the findings inaccurate. There could be more deaths attributed to Islamic Terrorism, there could be less. The point is his findings definitely aren't accurate, and therefore he is not a valid source.
Also: Did you check his findings yourself? If you're too lazy to check his findings how can you automatically assume he's right? I didn't say he was wrong. Just that it's impossible to trust him, which means that I'm not going to. I also have a life and a job and no time to check his findings (as I assume you do as well, but perhaps not), so I wouldn't call that "laziness". *shrug*
Let me quote my original response:
You agree with that? if you do then I'm done here.
No, I don't agree with that. To completely ignore a potentially fatal attempted act of terror (like the original example) just because the person isn't Muslim is blatant religious bias and completely transcends the supposed "danger" of the situations. Had it been a Muslim trying to kill the Mayor of New York City or The President of The United States it would have been acknowledged as terrorism. That is the issue I was attempting to bring forth with this thread, not who racked up the biggest body count between 2000-2010 -
shut up pussy
-
Chuck Finster wrote:
Yes, however your point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which, as previously stated, is religious bias in the media, not who kills more people.
Well, if you quick to blame Muslims in terror attacks or focus on Islamic terror when Islamic terror is indeed the most fatal type of terror, it's not an unjustified bias anymore but a pretty rational reaction, isn't it? That's the point i was trying to make.
Chuck Finster wrote:
You don't think it's "so vague", but it is. Sorry but "if there wasn't enough info we just guessed" isn't just "a little vague". He literally said "if we have no strong suspicions"... meaning that they did occasionally just guess. Making the findings inaccurate. There could be more deaths attributed to Islamic Terrorism, there could be less. The point is his findings definitely aren't accurate, and therefore he is not a valid source.
Do you have a habit of reading only the part of the sentence you like?
He explicitly said:
When RAND does not provide information on likely or confirmed perpetrators and we have no strong suspicions, I assume they were non-Muslim, to err on the side of caution.
So if anything, the only possibility is that there are more deaths from Islamic terror than he said, it's ridiculous to said that it's weakening his case.
Also, you can't really demand from him to know about any case who exactly did it when i'm almost sure that in many cases even the police doesn't really know.
If the things he said makes sense, and i don't see any flaws in his methodology, i don't see any reason not to trust him, unless i'm proven otherwise of course.
Chuck Finster wrote:
No, I don't agree with that. To completely ignore a potentially fatal attempted act of terror (like the original example) just because the person isn't Muslim is blatant religious bias and completely transcends the supposed "danger" of the situations. Had it been a Muslim trying to kill the Mayor of New York City or The President of The United States it would have been acknowledged as terrorism. That is the issue I was attempting to bring forth with this thread, not who racked up the biggest body count between 2000-2010
I don't remember justifying the decision not to acknowledge it as a terror attack, i said the opposite actually. All i'm saying is that even though there is a large focus on Islamic terror it's for a good reason, not Islamophobia.
Also, there are also opposite cases, when Islamic terror is being ignored when it shouldn't, the Benghazi incident for instance. -
RDCF wrote:
Well, if you quick to blame Muslims in terror attacks or focus on Islamic terror when Islamic terror is indeed the most fatal type of terror, it's not an unjustified bias anymore but a pretty rational reaction, isn't it? That's the point i was trying to make.
But this point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: which is why is that when it's not a Muslim the word terrorism is nowhere near the situation. This is about non-muslim terrorists.
Do you have a habit of reading only the part of the sentence you like?
He explicitly said:
So if anything, the only possibility is that there are more deaths from Islamic terror than he said, it's ridiculous to said that it's weakening his case.
Did you miss the part where I explicitly said:
There could be more deaths attributed to Islamic Terrorism, there could be less. The point is his findings definitely aren't accurate, and therefore he is not a valid source.
Also, you can't really demand from him to know about any case who exactly did it when i'm almost sure that in many cases even the police doesn't really know.
If the things he said makes sense, and i don't see any flaws in his methodology, i don't see any reason not to trust him, unless i'm proven otherwise of course.
I don't see any reason not to trust him, except for the fact that his numbers are most likely wrong... even if those wrong numbers would possibly point to more deaths. They're still wrong. I recall agreeing that islamic terrorism is the most dangerous in terms of death count though, so why we're still talking about this baffles me.
I don't remember justifying the decision not to acknowledge it as a terror attack, i said the opposite actually.
I don't recall saying that you said that. I do recall attempting to restate what the entire point of the discussion originally was. Which is exactly what I was trying to do when I said that. I wasn't saying that you specifically do that, I was saying that it is done by the media. Which, for the umpteenth time, is what this thread is about.
All i'm saying is that even though there is a large focus on Islamic terror it's for a good reason, not Islamophobia.
I agree. However, once again, this isn't what the thread was about. I'm sitting here casually wondering why terrorism is completely ignored when it's a white person (which is what happened in this specific case that I was attempting to start a discussion about) and you're sitting here talking about Islamic terrorism.
Also, there are also opposite cases, when Islamic terror is being ignored when it shouldn't, the Benghazi incident for instance.
The Benghazi incident wasn't ignored, only a right wing conservative with a scandal-mongering agenda would tell you that. The whole story: We received faulty information after the people were already dead, we then relayed that faulty information to the American Public, we found out that information was completely off and then proceeded to explain to the American Public that we were the victim of a Terrorist attack howeverScandal-mongering Right-Wing conservatives were too busy screaming about how the Obama admin lied about everything to give the media time to acknowledge this. -
Chuck Finster wrote:
But this point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: which is why is that when it's not a Muslim the word terrorism is nowhere near the situation. This is about non-muslim terrorists.
Well, maybe. However, i wasn't talking about that. All i talked about was the alleged unjustified over-focusing on Islamic terror by the media. I know this is only a side point in your post but it was the only one that i didn't agree with.
Chuck Finster wrote:
I don't see any reason not to trust him, except for the fact that his numbers are most likely wrong... even if those wrong numbers would possibly point to more deaths. They're still wrong. I recall agreeing that islamic terrorism is the most dangerous in terms of death count though, so why we're still talking about this baffles me.
You know what? Fine. He wasn't accruate. He underestimated the fatality of Islamic terror. Fine by me. If anything, it's only strengthening my point.
Chuck Finster wrote:
I agree. However, once again, this isn't what the thread was about. I'm sitting here casually wondering why terrorism is completely ignored when it's a white person (which is what happened in this specific case that I was attempting to start a discussion about) and you're sitting here talking about Islamic terrorism.
one case is not enough to prove the white terror is systematically ignored by the media.
-
Share