ok so I posted my comment at 5.30, logged off and went to pray etc kid was on internet on another computer and I basically clicked on not606 and this thread and I was listed as a current user have come back to this laptop and saw it again, but had to log in to comment Is this normal? and maybe why idiots like ST get all excited when someone says they have logged off?
Yes, 94% of deaths. The page that I linked to tells you every single death due to terrorism in that time. You didn't just look at the pretty picture, did you? Just going by the figure that they use for the 9/11 attacks (2,977) and using that as a percentage of the entire number of deaths during that time (3,178) gets you 93.6%. How does it? I hope that you noted the following graph, too: please log in to view this image The FBI counts assault, vandalism or robbery as terrorist actions, in some cases. So your 1 to 1 comparison would include the 9/11 attacks which killed 3,000-odd people as one and three animal liberation loons going on a graffiti rampage in 2003 as one. Which should the FBI focus more of their resources on?
so not 94% then. I think you confused the 94% figure from the initial report you cited The 94% was in relation to non muslim attacks carried out in the USA. Its easily done as you were quick to point out the error with the 99.6% being for europe. Interestingly the whole of europe has sided with the USA in the fight against Islamic terrorism, when clearly 99.6% of attacks are non muslim. The casualties will be interesting here too and what percentage of it are Jewish? maybe you can provide an insight? As for point 2, your argument is basically that the ones killed most are the ones who should be the focus, not those who do the most attacks? As 9/11 shows all it took was 1 attack for mass casualties by a group that isnt/wasnt the biggest threat, imagine what those who try more often might achieve?
PNP Why do you bother? The bloke's as thick as horse ****. [video=youtube;vh5kZ4uIUC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0&feature=related[/video]
It's funny watching him prove it, though. "Why do the Americans focus on the group that killed 3,000 people, rather than those pesky hippies with the spray cans?! It's not fair and they're racialist Jewbags! "
No, you've failed to comprehend simple sentences again, Fan. The 9/11 attacks were responsible for 93.6% of the terrorist deaths in the US during that time period, but they weren't the only ones that resulted from Islamic terrorism, unfortunately. Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat shot two people on Independence Day 2002, for example. Again, this is probably down to the large number of deaths, rather than incidents. Islamic terrorism is responsible for the vast majority of deaths due to terrorism in Western Europe over the last decade. The Madrid train bombings killed 191 people, for example. How many deaths resulted from Jewish terrorism in Western Europe during that time? You still haven't told me what a Jewish sympathiser is, by the way. So the US shouldn't focus on the actual threat, but on a possible one, instead? Ok, you go and convince them of that. I don't rate your chances. Virtually all of the terrorist related deaths during that time were down to theistic motivations and I can't see them waging war on their own Bible Belt, can you?
These are ridiculous questions, even for you. I dont care and didnt imply america would or should anything. The stats speak for themselves. Islamic terrorism as a percentage is not the biggest threat to the USA. Or in fact europe as a whole. Whetehr they choose to ignore this or not is up to them, yet they also ignored the warnings before 9/11 and look what happened there My argument from start to finish is about hypocricy, and your second question answers that
What the **** are you on about? Why does 9/11 somehow invalidate the fact that the vast majority of deaths in the US due to terrorism are due to Islamists? What does that have to do with Europeans being killed by Muslims and backing the US because of that? Yeah, you're right, there were no Taliban in Iraq before the war. There was an Islamic tyrant committing genocide upon the Kurds and butchering anyone he felt like, instead. Better? The Taliban in Afghanistan were another tyrannical group murdering whoever offended them, too. Why was that preferable? The only person convicted for actually carrying out the attacks so far is Jamal Zougam, a Moroccan born Muslim, currently serving up to 50,000 years in jail. Apparently he's an old mate of Abu Qatada. Don't think that it was an Islamic terrorist attack, then? You may have noticed that the British Army intervened in that situation, too. There was this little thing often referred to as The Troubles. I can understand how that passed you by, though... Your comprehension skills have let you down again, Fan. That's who you think is a Jewish sympathiser, not what a Jewish sympathiser is. Would you like to try again? Yes, the stats do speak for themselves, don't they? They tell us that Islamic terrorism is responsible for virtually all of the terrorist related deaths in the US and Europe. Your argument from start to finish is about your own obvious and ludicrous bias and your response to my second question just highlights how ridiculous you're being. The US should go to war with itself, should it?
They also tell us that its only a small percentage of the threat. 99.6% non muslim. 9/11 may have made the figures look favourable in terms of numbers of deaths. In europe not so. second question. there is no questions in that last bit you have responded to. so dont know what you are on about. as for the last bit I think the rests with you. No one suggested going to war with itself, simply that all it takes is one attack to make the figures look different Of course if what you are really saying is that although the number of attacks by muslims is smallest in number but they are better at it then thats a valid point, going by the 9/11 figures
It's gibberish. Rewrite it. Which would suggest that it's a problem in other places that shouldn't be allowed to develop further, wouldn't it? Having dictatorial murderers in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of which went to war all the bloody time and the other oppressed virtually everyone and that was better? Both didn't do less damage, at all. Hussein committed genocide, for ****'s sake. Are you going to ignore that one, too? Perhaps you're just a genocide denier. They don't know? Then what's that bloke doing in jail for 50,000 years, then? You want to ignore it, more like. There was no war in Ireland? That'll go down well on here! I'll assume that you don't really know what you're talking about on this one and invite you to look it up. Comprehension's not your greatest skill, is it Fan? Define what a Jewish sympathiser is, please. Why are you continuing with this clearly ludicrous stance? Assaults and spray painting don't compare with killing a load of people. Don't be ridiculous. Not that the other groups aren't actually trying to kill thousands of people indiscriminately, then? There are rare exceptions to this, but most of the stats are for minor crimes and most of the remainder are non-lethal. I think that the Puerto Rican terrorists and Timothy McVeigh made up virtually all of the rest.
So you ARE basing your argument on people killed successfully. I think you will find that a failed attack with no casualties doesnt mean the intent wasnt to kill indiscriminately. The shootings in schools dont have lesser casualties because the intent wasnt there, neither do the right wing attacks. Breivik is a recent example of someone who was hell bent on indiscriminate killing. Most would agree that this type of threat is actually bigger in percentage terms of attacks than islamic terrorism. Numbers killed eskews that but dosnt make it less also worth noting that between 2005 -2011 the number of US deaths due to ''Islamic terrorism'' is down as 17 in 2011 and 15 before that, what is not clarified is that these causalties occurred in war zones. What doesnt get written down is the soldier who ent on a rampage and killed 16 afghanis in 1 incident in 2011, is this not terrorism?
I responded to what it seemed to mean, but it clearly didn't and it doesn't make much sense. Rewrite it and please stop pretending that you were a teacher. That's just stupid, on two different levels. Firstly, they didn't seem to have a problem with an Islamic dictator murdering a load of people and secondly they only tend to get involved with Western concerns. Too scared of Saddam or only motivated after the Kafir stopped him? Either way, it says more about the motivations of that organisation than anything. Defending the genocidal again, Fan? How did you come to an accurate death toll for the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to 2001? If it's proven that it wasn't a case of Islamic terrorism, then the numbers will change. Doesn't look likely though, does it? You clearly don't understand the situation. Too scared to explain your accusation? Fair enough. You're actually destroying your own point. The deaths don't figure in the stats, which is why they're not relevant. As I've repeatedly pointed out, killing 3,000 people ≠ vandalism. Not sure why you're struggling with that, to be honest. I think that you'll find that there were quite a few examples of Islamic terrorists prevented from completing exactly the kind of act that you're talking about. Richard Reid, for example. Friend of a friend? Breivik was reacting to Islamic terrorism, so you'd class him in the same bracket as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, presumably. According to you, his actions would be the fault of those he was reacting to. Should we chalk up his kills in the Islamic terrorism column? Another nutty theist with delusions of martyrdom, for me. Down from the 2001 high of 3,000-odd? Seems to be working!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20007532 More nutters, (Guess what religion?) surely the league tables need updating?
or it was never as big a problem as indicated by the 99.6% of acts carried out by non mulsims figure even with the incidence in 2001 also see next post
