2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

What constitutes a "terrorist attack"?


Again, what are they defining as a terrorist attack?

And throw in a few links while you are at it.

But I'll name a few high profile ones off the top of my head.

9/11
London 2005
Charlie H 2015
Beach attack in Tunisia 2015
Paris 2015
Belgium today.

All brought to you by Muslims in the name of Mohammed or whatever he is called.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

What constitutes a "terrorist attack"?


Again, what are they defining as a terrorist attack?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Have they got a list of all the attacks? Fatalities totals? Can't say I remember the 42% of "terrorist attacks" carried out by Latinos.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's true, Brevik is white, so was McVeigh.

But let's look at the profiles of the folks that have carried out the majority of terrorist attacks in the west.

Muslim males.

People really need to get off the PC high horses and start to admit that the biggest thread to western security and society comes from Muslim males and no one else.

That is certainly not the case in the US. More people have been murdered by white terrorists in the United States since 9/11 then have been by muslim terrorists.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And throw in a few links while you are at it.

But I'll name a few high profile ones off the top of my head.

9/11
London 2005
Charlie H 2015
Beach attack in Tunisia 2015
Paris 2015
Belgium today.

All brought to you by Muslims in the name of Mohammed or whatever he is called.

You're struggling to respond to being asked for evidence to back up your statement about Muslim males being responsible for the majority of terrorism in the west.

The FBI says 6% US 1980-2005, Interpol says 1% EU 2011-2014, surely you've got something of similar credibility to back you up?

B_Wayne

eire4 wrote: »

That is certainly not the case in the US. More people have been murdered by white terrorists in the United States since 9/11 then have been by muslim terrorists.

All those Muslims and their spree shootings in the US... Oh wait!

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

You're struggling to respond to being asked for evidence to back up your statement about Muslim males being responsible for the majority of terrorism in the west.

The FBI says 6% US 1980-2005, Interpol says 1% EU 2011-2014, surely you've got something of similar credibility to back you up?

The figures don't ring true at all. Sorry but I would like to know what kind of attacks (specific examples) constitute terrorism. From the woolly definition above it would include gang stuff.

oscarBravo

Come on, guys. Everyone knows only Muslims are terrorists. If the FBI and Interpol say otherwise, then obviously the FBI and Interpol are wrong. They're clearly using logic and reason, which are no match for instinctive islamophobia.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Come on, guys. Everyone knows only Muslims are terrorists. If the FBI and Interpol say otherwise, then obviously the FBI and Interpol are wrong. They're clearly using logic and reason, which are no match for instinctive islamophobia.

So when the attack happened today you had no suspicion whatsoever as to who might claim responsibility?

Fr Tod Umptious

B_Wayne wrote: »

All those Muslims and their spree shootings in the US... Oh wait!

We are gone way off the topic of the election here.

Single shooter US white guys in a school or work place may be terrorist attacks as per the definition, but there is no deiying that they are different to the mass murder that we have seen from islamists in Europe and the US.

And where we have seen a single shooter type attack, San Bernardino, carried out by Muslims people are for some reason slow to link it to radical Islam.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just splitting hairs, but we have already seen that here.

On the election, today's events play right into Trumps hands.
People are worried about Islamic terrorists.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Have they got a list of all the attacks? Fatalities totals? Can't say I remember the 42% of "terrorist attacks" carried out by Latinos.

That's because it's not usually labelled as terrorism by the media (read: not the law) when it's not Muslim.

The EU data showed 8 of 738 from 2011 - 2014: http://www.vocativ.com/news/251821/muslims-terrorist-attacks/
https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_publications/37

The FBI data is here for you: https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

The figures don't ring true at all. Sorry but I would like to know what kind of attacks (specific examples) constitute terrorism. From the woolly definition above it would include gang stuff.

Yeah, the FBI and Oxford dictionaries definitions of terrorist is "wooly" while your own made up one is ironclad. :rolleyes:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Oxford: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

The reality of the situation isn't to your liking. But it is still the reality of the situation.

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

That's because it's not usually labelled as terrorism by the media (read: not the law) when it's not Muslim.

The EU data showed 8 of 738 from 2011 - 2014: http://www.vocativ.com/news/251821/muslims-terrorist-attacks/
https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_publications/37

The FBI data is here for you: https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Who do you continue with this hair splitting and the semantics when its plain as day that radical Islam is responsible for the most grotesque mass murder in the US and Europe all in the name of their religion.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Who do you continue with this hair splitting and the semantics when its plain as day that radical Islam is responsible for the most grotesque mass murder in the US and Europe all in the name of their religion.

This is not my "hair splitting" and these are not my "semantics". If you have an issue with the FBI's or Oxford's definition of terrorism, you can kindly take it up with them. If you have an issue with their statistical findings, you can again take it up with them.

Now, back to the top if your claim that over 50% of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslim males. Care to back that up with some statistical evidence? This is the third time I have asked you.

AbusesToilets

Perhaps a separate thread might be in order for this topic. There is no solution to radical Islam, beyond Islam as a whole changing. From the West's perspective, a two-fold strategy is needed. Aggressive, focused effort to eradicate radicalised persons, coupled with positive community engagement to mitigate the factors that lead to disenfranchisement and susceptibility to radicalisation.

Talking about coalitions of Muslim countries to fight ISIS et al ignores the fact that the various terror groups are proxies supported largely by Saudi Arabia and Iran, in their continued conflict with each other. Attacking these groups in the Middle East is a lot more effective than waiting for them to appear in Western countries.

B_Wayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

We are gone way off the topic of the election here.

Single shooter US white guys in a school or work place may be terrorist attacks as per the definition, but there is no deiying that they are different to the mass murder that we have seen from islamists in Europe and the US.

And where we have seen a single shooter type attack, San Bernardino, carried out by Muslims people are for some reason slow to link it to radical Islam.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just splitting hairs, but we have already seen that here.

On the election, today's events play right into Trumps hands.
People are worried about Islamic terrorists.

Your solution would further radicalise, you seem to be ignoring that point..... So not exactly a great idea.

Overheal

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

We are gone way off the topic of the election here.

Single shooter US white guys in a school or work place may be terrorist attacks as per the definition, but there is no deiying that they are different to the mass murder that we have seen from islamists in Europe and the US.

And where we have seen a single shooter type attack, San Bernardino, carried out by Muslims people are for some reason slow to link it to radical Islam.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just splitting hairs, but we have already seen that here.

On the election, today's events play right into Trumps hands.
People are worried about Islamic terrorists.

Well let's think about this. Any radical will commit terrorism for a lot of reasons but mostly because they feel affronted right? Anders Breivik was against the multiculturalization of Sweden or some such. Robert Dear was against the alleged Planned Parenthood actions.

Islam is easy to radicalize but not because it's base text is any more or less violent than other religious texts, the Bible can be misused in the wrong hands too. Whats largely different is if you live in the Middle East you're likely less educated, less connected to world events, and some radical calling himself an Imam can come around and tell you that all your problems are to blame on the West and nobody is really around to disagree with him on that.

Like, we have some radicalization that happens here, but we haven't been too radical in our responses. Like Mexico we get worked up about immigrants, then we want to build a wall etc. because someone blames Mexicans for our ailments. But to most people its a hard sell: I'm sitting here on a beautiful campus personally sipping a frozen coffee listening to Spotify. What do I have to be truly upset about? Versus say if I lived in the Middle east and my neighborhood had been hollowed out by air strikes, that would be a whole lot different sell. How would my world view differ if I was across the street from the Doctors Without Borders hospital the US Military razed (in error)?

If you look at Africa and South America you get Christian radicals by that same argument too, you get tribe warfare and such. You get Christians beheading people.

So you get these disillusioned young Arabic teens and men with little to nothing and a guy comes up with the Koran and gives you his "answers" and points at the West and our frappucinos and our Drone Strikes and says "That is the problem. Let's do something about it." Obviously I'm not going to do ISIS's argument for them, but frankly I can imagine how terribly easy it would be to convince kids in the Middle East to radicalize if I wanted to be a demagogue and blame America for all their worries, the argument practically sells itself. Hell we play right into it, because as soon as they do something we roar that we want to go in guns blazing carpet bombing the place, collateral damage be damned, hell let's kill the families etc.

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

This is not my "hair splitting" and these are not my "semantics". If you have an issue with the FBI's or Oxford's definition of terrorism, you can kindly take it up with them. If you have an issue with their statistical findings, you can again take it up with them.

Now, back to the top if your claim that over 50% of terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslim males. Care to back that up with some statistical evidence? This is the third time I have asked you.

The attacks I listed earlier, all deadly, all grotesque, all carried out to kill and mame and disrupt as much as possible, all carried out on western society.

All carried out by Muslim males.

Sure enough some guy losing it and shooting up his work place is also a terrorist attack, but its different from what I mentioned above.

You semm to be afraid to admit that, you hide behind statistics

What is your problem with admitting that radical Islamic groups ate a threat to western society ?

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

Well let's think about this. Any radical will commit terrorism for a lot of reasons but mostly because they feel affronted right? Anders Breivik was against the multiculturalization of Sweden or some such. Robert Dear was against the alleged Planned Parenthood actions.

Islam is easy to radicalize but not because it's base text is any more or less violent than other religious texts, the Bible can be misused in the wrong hands too. Whats largely different is if you live in the Middle East you're likely less educated, less connected to world events, and some radical calling himself and Imam can come around and tell you that all your problems are to blame on the West and nobody is really around to disagree with him on that.

Like, we have some radicalization that happens here, but we haven't been too radical in our responses. Like Mexico we get worked up about immigrants, then we want to build a wall etc. because someone blames Mexicans for our ailments. But to most people its a hard sell: I'm sitting here on a beautiful campus personally sipping a frozen coffee listening to Spotify. What do I have to be truly upset about? Versus say if I lived in the Middle east and my neighborhood had been hollowed out by air strikes, that would be a whole lot different sell. How would my world view differ if I was across the street from the Doctors Without Borders hospital the US Military razed (in error)?

If you look at Africa and South America you get Christian radicals by that same argument too, you get tribe warfare and such. You get Christians beheading people.

So you get these disillusioned young Arabic teens and men with little to nothing and a guy comes up with the Koran and gives you his "answers" and points at the West and our frappucinos and our Drone Strikes and says "That is the problem. Let's do something about it." Obviously I'm not going to do ISIS's argument for them, but frankly I can imagine how terribly easy it would be to convince kids in the Middle East to radicalize if I wanted to be a demagogue and blame America for all their worries, the argument practically sells itself.

I had a thought earlier today, concerning Uganda's infamous "Kill The Gays" bill, which was influenced by the US pastor Scott Lively. On a fundamental (pun intended) level, Lively's involvement in that bill is no different to Saudi Arabia exporting Wahhabi Sunni Islam.

Overheal

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The attacks I listed earlier, all deadly, all grotesque, all carried out to kill and mame and disrupt as much as possible, all carried out on western society.

All carried out by Muslim males.

Sure enough some guy losing it and shooting up his work place is also a terrorist attack, but its different from what I mentioned above.

You semm to be afraid to admit that, you hide behind statistics

What is your problem with admitting that radical Islamic groups ate a threat to western society ?

The problem is largely the disproportionate response that plays into what they want. As I just said look at what we do when theres an attack, we ramp up the bombings, innocent people end up dying, which just gives them more political ammo.

And at the same time, they know it works because of our other responses: the shoe bomber killed zero people, but he ratcheted up the paranoia a little bit more, that anyone with a pair of boots could blow up a plane, so we have spent billions of dollars screening peoples shoes. That attack barely cost them anything. That's a huge victory for them.

AbusesToilets

Arguing about the statistics behind terrorism numbers is irrelevant. If you recognise a demographic that has shown a propensity to generate violent attackers, you should pay closer attention to them. It works the same for school shootings as it does for terrorism. If a large portion of those committing shootings in schools are young males, who feel alienated socially and suffered from bullying etc, then I might look to pay more attention to those who fall into such a category.

So why the dissembling when it comes to Islamic terrorism? By all means, lets try to improve the social mechanisms that give rise to radicalisation, but simultaneously, there clearly is a need for increased surveillance and scrutiny of those communities.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

By all means, lets try to improve the social mechanisms that give rise to radicalisation.

What is a "social mechanism" that gives rise to radicalisation?

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The attacks I listed earlier, all deadly, all grotesque, all carried out to kill and mame and disrupt as much as possible, all carried out on western society.

All carried out by Muslim males.

That's 6 attacks. There were 768 in the EU report alone. You won't see someone trying to claim Daniel Sturridge (4 goals) is the Premier League's top goalscorer by pointing to his four goals and saying "all Sturridge"... because there's the minor matter that a lot of people have scored a lot more goals than him.

So where is your evidence to show over 50% were committed by Muslims? You don't have any. You made it up. That much is clear, and you know it too.

Sure enough some guy losing it and shooting up his work place is also a terrorist attack, but its different from what I mentioned above.

You made an incorrect comment based off your own prejudices, that's all there is to it. I've shown you that 6% (US, 1980-2005) and 1% (EU, 2011-14) are the FBI and Interpol's numbers, and you have nothing to counter that.

Going by your statement here I get the feeling you didn't click on the data at all, and you seem to have self-edited the FBI definition of terrorism again by the way, so here it is once more: “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

You semm to be afraid to admit that, you hide behind statistics

Silliest sentence in the whole thread! :pac:

Come back to me with something credible please. Something to match the FBI and Interpol's data.

What is your problem with admitting that radical Islamic groups ate a threat to western society ?

You lied or made a wildly incorrect statement by saying over 50% of all terrorist attacks in the west are committed by Muslim males. You refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect on this in the face of strong evidence from stone wall sources, and instead just seem to have reverted to "but there's the baddies, why do you refuse to hate the baddies with me!?"

Fact is, you were very, very wrong about the majority of terrorist attacks in the west being committed by Muslim males. As in wrong by about 750% in terms of the US (1980-2005), and wrong by about 5,000% in terms of the EU (2011-14).

Amazingfun

This is almost eerie, Belgian man posted this a week ago:

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Arguing about the statistics behind terrorism numbers is irrelevant. If you recognise a demographic that has shown a propensity to generate violent attackers, you should pay closer attention to them. It works the same for school shootings as it does for terrorism. If a large portion of those committing shootings in schools are young males, who feel alienated socially and suffered from bullying etc, then I might look to pay more attention to those who fall into such a category.

So why the dissembling when it comes to Islamic terrorism? By all means, lets try to improve the social mechanisms that give rise to radicalisation, but simultaneously, there clearly is a need for increased surveillance and scrutiny of those communities.

The breakdown came about because someone wanted to claim that Muslim males were responsible for over 50% of terrorist attacks in the west. Something which is stunningly untrue.

I do agree in terms of some closer surveillance, though I reckon that's been the case for a long time already. Clinton had an interesting interview a good few years back with Fox about how closely Al-Qaeda was being watched during his presidency, even early on, for example.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What is a "social mechanism" that gives rise to radicalisation?

Lack of educational opportunities, which would dovetail into decreased employment and income. I've experienced societies where people aren't even sufficiently educated to understand that their lives could exist outside of their village and the teachings of the local mullah etc. People with schooling are more likely to question the teachings of religion.

Increased income would go a long way to defeating radical Islam, and promote a more secularised societies as a whole, which can only be a good thing imo.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Lack of educational opportunities, which would dovetail into decreased employment and income.

And do you know this to be the case in Paris or Brussels?

I had a check and both spend in & around the highest on the planet on both social supports and education.

So.... again, when a nation leads the entire planet on social supports, that country can't really improve being the best!
Therefore, perhaps blaming the welfare state & education systems of wealthy european states is innaccurate and they have nothing to do with radicalisation?

Perhaps, that responsibility lies with the individual?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, the FBI and Oxford dictionaries definitions of terrorist is "wooly" while your own made up one is ironclad. :rolleyes:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Oxford: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

The reality of the situation isn't to your liking. But it is still the reality of the situation.

Any kind of violence is terrorism according to that definition so yes, it is somewhat woolly.

But hey, if you want to stand over it then it's still 6% while the population make up 1% of the US population.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And do you know this to be the case in Paris or Brussels?

I had a check and both spend in & around the highest on the planet on both social supports and education.

So.... again, when a nation leads the entire planet on social supports, that country can't really improve being the best!
Therefore, perhaps blaming the welfare state & education systems of wealthy european states is innaccurate and they have nothing to do with radicalisation?

Perhaps, that responsibility lies with the individual?

I'm not trying to shift the blame away individuals by any means, However, while there certainly is plenty of money being spent, perhaps the penetration into these demographics groups is less successful. More engagement to encourage young people to remain in school could pay dividends.

There is also the possible intellectual failings, where the radical viewpoints are not being challenged, re: safe spaces etc. The prevalence of religious institutions that serve as recruitment centers masquerading as schools is certainly one avenue that is in need of redress.

As to the effects of a welfare state on facilitating the rise of these groups, I think there is certainly some truth to that. The increase in immigration from African and middle eastern countries would give some credence to that.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Any kind of violence is terrorism according to that definition so yes, it is somewhat woolly.

Except it completely doesn't. OK. Let's try this again. Try to read the words in bold.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

But hey, if you want to stand over it then it's still 6% while the population make up 1% of the US population.

Funny you didn't mention that while Muslims make up 6% of Europe, they were only responsible for 1% of terrorism.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts, though. The conversation is whether or not Muslim males commit over 50% of all terrorist attacks on the west. The person more than happy to make that statement and to attempt to defend it over and over has yet to back this up with anything.