Do Guardian readings think they are reading the truth?

... Does that year look like 2018 to you?

95% of terrorism today in 2018 is from ISIS, Boko Haram and Taliban according to Wikipedia article called “terrorism”...

And, pray tell, what date was on that chart? 2018? Don't think so...

Also that's not a chart of all terrorism, it's just the main groups in that year.

If you total the number of deaths caused by those groups it's 16,475. Whereas in total there were 28,328 deaths by terrorism worldwide. So even from your groups it's 58% of global terrorism, not 95%.

Source: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

And how many of them were in the West, as opposed to local terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Nigeria?

... Does that year look like 2018 to you?

Even with a generous assumption about what ideology is behind the remaining terrorism whence you say if not in that figure, we still have a very clear leader and it would not be surprising at all if the remainder followed the same pattern.

By 2018 I meant today as opposed to 1970 - 2018 which spoils my narrative.

So do you have statistics to show that in 2018 (across the globe presumably) 95% of terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Muslims? And which specific Guardian article are you taking issue with?

Do you know what year it is yet?

Leader? Is this a race? If so, they have a lot of catching up to do in terms of causing deaths.



2nd from the bottom...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-deaths-by-cause-2016

I don’t disputes that - the question I am asking is why Guardian readers want to read something that denies empirical facts.

Which brings us back to @Axiomasher's challenge to you... which Guardian article denies these "empirical facts"? Linky?

Preferably to one in the right year for a change...

Yes I do, look at the Wikipedia list of terrorists incidents in 2018 and see the “perpetrator” column.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2018

Um, that list for January 2018 identifies itself as 'some of' - i.e. it's not a complete list. Which Guardian article are you taking issue with?

This one....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/should-blame-islam-terrorism

“Many people chose to ‘privilege’ (puke) the KATIE Hopkinsins of this world rather than really find out.....”. And if we change the timeframe for the last 50 years, voila we get a different result.....


We really find out rather than listen to the Guardian.

argue for the sake of arguing even when they are wrong.

In real maths you can estimate a population based on a sample. That’s a good enough sample.

In liberal left terms maths is racist (I kid you not)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-not-just-a-joke-anymore-theyre-actually-claiming-math-is-racist

And the Guardian article is linked above.

Ok, so you cannot actually produce as an empirical fact that 95% of terrorist attacks in 2018 were perpetrated by Muslims. The Guardian article you've referenced challenges the idea that terrorism perpetrated by Muslims is down to Islam itself (i.e.there's a context to be found in the same way IRA terrorism wasn't just about being Roman Catholic as such). The author, reasonably enough, notes that the history of Islamic terrorism is very new in relation to terrorism more generally (though Islam has been around for over a thousand years), hence the scepticism that it's just about Islam as some commentators would have it. As I read the article there's no obvious denial that Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by actual Muslims.

Ok, so you cannot actually produce as an empirical fact that 95% of terrorist attacks in 2018 were perpetrated by Muslims. The Guardian article you've referenced challenges the idea that terrorism perpetrated by Muslims is down to Islam itself (i.e.there's a context to be found in the same way IRA terrorism wasn't just about being Roman Catholic as such). The author, reasonably enough, notes that the history of Islamic terrorism is very new in relation to terrorism more generally (though Islam has been around for over a thousand years), hence the scepticism that it's just about Islam as some commentators would have it. As I read the article there's no obvious denial that Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by actual Muslims.

Sure I can prove my point. I take as my source the Department of Homeland Security/ University of Maryland Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, figures for 2014:

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_GTD_OverviewofTerrorism2014_Aug2015.pdf

Please see the perpetrators table on page 4.

I added up all the groups that are Islamic (and this excludes a few ow impact groups like FARC and Communist Party of India). I left out the groups I was not sure about.

This leaves:

25,985 fatalities (Clearly Islamic terrorism)
27,824 total fatalities
======
93.4% (Minimum percentage of fatalities from Islamic terrorism)



Raw data:

Total Fatalities
2013‐2014
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) / AQI 1263 9596 179% 411%
Taliban 1038 4194 34% 53%
Al‐Shabaab 865 1783 170% 141%
Boko Haram 493 7112 111% 311%
Donetsk People's Republic 325 1005 ‐ ‐
New People's Army (NPA) 291 190 36% 22%
Al‐Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) 285 889 99% 140%
Communist Party of India ‐ Maoist / Maoists 324 204 52% ‐1%
Tehrik‐i‐Taliban Pakistan (TTP) 179 974 13% 30%
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 163 88 54% ‐19%
Huthis 134 234 538% 284%
Luhansk People's Republic 110 173 ‐ ‐
Baloch Republican Army (BRA) 103 52 312% 79%
Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement (BIFM) 88 98 31% 72%
Al‐Nusrah Front 82 838 82% 19%
Communist Party of India ‐ Maoist (CPI‐Maoist) 70 88 49% 1%
Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) 66 71 6500% 3450%
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) 61 21 190% 50%
National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN) 60 57 200% 50%
Ansar Bayt al‐Maqdis (Ansar Jerusalem) 60 157 329% 214%