94% of US and 98% of European terror attacks done by non-Muslims Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 years ago
#61
They manage this by being very liberal with the facts, they take the statistics looking well before Islamic terror became a major thing (they look back decades when Islamic terror has only really been prevalent this century, particularly the last few years), I imagine they're also fairly liberal with what counts as a terrorist attack.

Further they don't look at casualties, Islamic terror is very different to other sources. The priority for Islamic terror is casualties, doesn't matter whether they live or die they just want high casualty figures, other forms of terror are more interested in the fear side; for instance the IRA weren't so interested in killing or wounding people, assassinations aside, they were more interested in instilling the fear of a potential attack in the population.

Also you can tell they're very liberal with "terrorism" because the number of Islamic based terrorism and the percentages given lead to a need for very high total terrorist attack figures. For is tan, with the 98% Europe figure if we just look at the attacks in the last few years we need HUNDREDS in total over the study period to be able to get to Islam only being 2% (given I can think of 4 off the top of my head drunk we need 200 minimum) which then comes back to the study period. I mean we could go back to 1987BC, but that's not particularly relevant.

Once again the Islamist apologieats are being, at best liberal with the truth, and far more likely outright lying.The fact 9/11 killed more than pretty !much every other terrorist incident in the US combojed kinda proves the point.
2
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 years ago
#62
(Original post by PenPineapple)
This

Posted from TSR Mobile
Also agree. Their usage of stats is twisted to make it look the way they presented.

Their definition of a terrorist is laughable.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
cbreef
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 years ago
#63
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
No, they did it in retaliation to airstrikes on IS by France.

No airstrikes, no attack. Perhaps the symbolism of their choice of 'venue' was to do with Islam vs Western culture, but the attack was due to a political cause, and not a handful of Muslims suddenly deciding to help their religion.
This is partially true, but do you really think IS would never attack the west if we weren't bombing them?
0
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 years ago
#64
(Original post by Josb)
Let's balance OP's ridiculous post with this:

Attachment 605434

The trend is showing us something.
Have some more.

2
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 years ago
#65
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Once again the Islamist apologieats are being, at best liberal with the truth, and far more likely outright lying.The fact 9/11 killed more than pretty !much every other terrorist incident in the US combojed kinda proves the point.
Muhammad himself could confess he created the religion as hateful and violent on purpose and you'd still get cucks telling him that 'there are 1.6bn Muslims', 'you are not a true Muslim' and 'but look at the crusades' .

Deluded.
0
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 years ago
#66
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
No, they did it in retaliation to airstrikes on IS by France.

No airstrikes, no attack. Perhaps the symbolism of their choice of 'venue' was to do with Islam vs Western culture, but the attack was due to a political cause, and not a handful of Muslims suddenly deciding to help their religion.
Really? Even though they have specifically said that it's Islam that motivates them.Why shouldn't we accept them at their word? Terror attacks have been going on for years.If you remember the whole reason the USA went into Iraq in the first place was in response to a terror attack. And more generally religious violence had been going on long before that.Ever hear of the crusaders? Isis certainly have.Apparently we are crusaders according to them.Or perhaps the inquisition.People have been comitting violence in the name of religion for centuries.Its just Islam now not Christianity.No other explanation is needed especially when they tell us why they are attacking us.
0
89cruefan
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 years ago
#67
Very poor article by someone with a biased agenda.

(Before anyone moans I am actually muslim myself) These figures are outdated between 1980 and 2005... Considering the majority of attacks have happened in recent years.

If this association is too change then Islam as a whole needs to help tackle this and stop this image.

Extreme islamists are conducting most of the terror attacks in this modern day. Hence why this association is made.

Go back in time 25-30 years + and if you asked someone to define a terrorist then they would likely describe someone who is Irish and Catholic.
1
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 years ago
#68
The source for that for that was an old Europol report on terrorism situation and trends (TE-SAT) you can look at the latest (2016) version online if you like.

Interestingly they've renamed the religious category 'Jihadist' presumably because they noticed they could subtract all the non jihadist religious terrorism taking place in Europe over recent years from the stats and still come out with the same answer.

as others have stated the Europol terrorism stats includes all sorts of politically motivated property crime and low level intimidation that's not intended to hurt or kill anyone...

Driving a truck through a christmas market killing 12 = 1 terrorist attack
Liberating a mink from a fur farm = 1 terrorist attack

This chap has statistically committed more acts of terrorism than Anis Amri
3
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 years ago
#69
(Original post by Supermonkey92)
what portion of muslims are extreme?
This is the crux of the matter. The number of terrorist attacks needs to be taken in context with the total proportion of the country which Muslims constitute.
0
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 years ago
#70
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
No, they did it in retaliation to airstrikes on IS by France.

No airstrikes, no attack. Perhaps the symbolism of their choice of 'venue' was to do with Islam vs Western culture, but the attack was due to a political cause, and not a handful of Muslims suddenly deciding to help their religion.
Nonsense. That may be part of it, but they also attack Westerners for all the reasons Robby stated. They hate our way of life and in their own magazine called Dabiq, ISIS explain why they would continue bombing the West even if we left the Middle East alone, and all of their reasons were religious:

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...azine-1522.pdf

Skip to page 30. I think it's telling enough that the very first sentence on that page is "Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite..."
1
Trinculo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 years ago
#71
(Original post by 89cruefan)
Very poor article by someone with a biased agenda.

(Before anyone moans I am actually muslim myself) These figures are outdated between 1980 and 2005... Considering the majority of attacks have happened in recent years.

If this association is too change then Islam as a whole needs to help tackle this and stop this image.

Extreme islamists are conducting most of the terror attacks in this modern day. Hence why this association is made.

Go back in time 25-30 years + and if you asked someone to define a terrorist then they would likely describe someone who is Irish and Catholic.
Not really. PIRA were just very good at it, and the most prolific, but they were already on the decrease and moving toward political solutions by the early 90s. The 80s were the heyday of Middle Eastern terrorism, let's not forget. Lockerbie and Iranian embassy were arguably the defining moments in terrorism for us at the time. Add to that the 70s and early 80s were when airline hijacking by Iranian or Arab radicals was at its height.
0
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 years ago
#72
(Original post by Trinculo)
Not really. PIRA were just very good at it, and the most prolific, but they were already on the decrease and moving toward political solutions by the early 90s. The 80s were the heyday of Middle Eastern terrorism, let's not forget. Lockerbie and Iranian embassy were arguably the defining moments in terrorism for us at the time. Add to that the 70s and early 80s were when airline hijacking by Iranian or Arab radicals was at its height.
These attacks were generally not committed in the name of Islam.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 years ago
#73
(Original post by Trinculo)
Not really. PIRA were just very good at it, and the most prolific, but they were already on the decrease and moving toward political solutions by the early 90s. The 80s were the heyday of Middle Eastern terrorism, let's not forget. Lockerbie and Iranian embassy were arguably the defining moments in terrorism for us at the time. Add to that the 70s and early 80s were when airline hijacking by Iranian or Arab radicals was at its height.
PIRA also went for terror in a very different way, as did terrorism fairly generally. The strategy was heavily to induce terror, to make people aware of what they could do; canary wharf only killed 2 because of the pre warning, Manchester killed none despite being the biggest post war bomb detonation in the UK. The plane hijacking by various groups were for leverage.

But all the modern jihadist don't want leverage, they just want to kill or injure as many as possible. The bomb is to be left in the market, the hijacked plane is to be flown into a building, single attacks kill more than dozens of old fashioned attacks. 9/11 claims more lives than the next dozen biggest attacks combined, the deaths of police and firemen alone would make it number 1.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 years ago
#74
(Original post by Robby2312)
Really? Even though they have specifically said that it's Islam that motivates them.Why shouldn't we accept them at their word? Terror attacks have been going on for years.If you remember the whole reason the USA went into Iraq in the first place was in response to a terror attack. And more generally religious violence had been going on long before that.Ever hear of the crusaders? Isis certainly have.Apparently we are crusaders according to them.Or perhaps the inquisition.People have been comitting violence in the name of religion for centuries.Its just Islam now not Christianity.No other explanation is needed especially when they tell us why they are attacking us.
There has never been an Islamic terrorist attack without an Islamist extremist group behind it.

Muslims don't just snap and decide to kill for their religion, there's always a political cause behind it. The Bataclan attackers never vocalised that Islam was their motive, they just talked about revenge for France's airstrikes in Syria. The same applies for Omar Mateen, in the phone call to the police, he stated clearly that its revenge for US airstrikes on Syria.

Virtually every single Islamist attack in history has had a political motivation behind it. It's not a simple case of normal Muslims snapping and deciding to murder innocent people. They are usually angry, deprived people, who are attracted by the radical nature of extremist groups like IS or like Al-Qaeda, and this politicises their anger into action.
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 years ago
#75
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Nonsense. That may be part of it, but they also attack Westerners for all the reasons Robby stated. They hate our way of life and in their own magazine called Dabiq, ISIS explain why they would continue bombing the West even if we left the Middle East alone, and all of their reasons were religious:

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...azine-1522.pdf

Skip to page 30. I think it's telling enough that the very first sentence on that page is "Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite..."
You realise that the Bataclan attackers specifically were part of western community? They were French/Belgian citizens, integrated within our society. They shared our values, its just that some events in their life made them susceptible to radicalisation. There have been close to no terrorist attacks in history without some kind of political cause. It's not a simple case of random Muslims snapping and killing.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 years ago
#76
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
You realise that the Bataclan attackers specifically were part of western community? They were French/Belgian citizens, integrated within our society. They shared our values, its just that some events in their life made them susceptible to radicalisation. There have been close to no terrorist attacks in history without some kind of political cause. It's not a simple case of random Muslims snapping and killing.
You do realise they pledged their allegiance to ISIS, not France/Belgium? That they were motivated by their Islamism, not by their western upbringing? And they do have a political cause: it's called radical Islam.

Repeat after me "Radical Islam is a threat to society"

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 years ago
#77
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You do realise they pledged their allegiance to ISIS, not France/Belgium? That they were motivated by their Islamism, not by their western upbringing? And they do have a political cause: it's called radical Islam.

Repeat after me "Radical Islam is a threat to society"

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, the specific political cause they were motivated by was retaliation for airstrikes in Syria. No airstrikes and this attack would not have happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the French for bombing ISIS, but I am saying its a lot more complicated than just spouting "ZOMG!!1 its RADICAL ISLAM".
0
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 years ago
#78
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
You realise that the Bataclan attackers specifically were part of western community? They were French/Belgian citizens, integrated within our society. They shared our values, its just that some events in their life made them susceptible to radicalisation. There have been close to no terrorist attacks in history without some kind of political cause. It's not a simple case of random Muslims snapping and killing.
What?! They were loyal to ISIS and attacked the Bataclan because there was music and alcohol there, both of which are prohibited in Islam. You're going to absurd lengths to try and deny that many of these attacks were inspired directly by literalist interpretations of Islam.
0
Crassy
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 years ago
#79
I don't even have to look at the source to know that it either covers a large amount of time before Europe had a large Muslim population, or that it includes kicking over bins and saying mean things to people as "terror attacks"
1
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 years ago
#80
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
What?! They were loyal to ISIS and attacked the Bataclan because there was music and alcohol there, both of which are prohibited in Islam. You're going to absurd lengths to try and deny that many of these attacks were inspired directly by literalist interpretations of Islam.
As I said before, the choice of targets for the Paris attacks were definitely anti-Western culture. But the reasons behind the attack were political; they were intended as revenge for France's airstrikes in Syria, the attackers said it themselves.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (314)
37.74%
No - but I will (64)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.45%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (392)
47.12%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise