How do you defend yourself against people who will blow themselves up to kill you?

[ok doser]

Most terrorism is done at the hands of Muslims.

I doubt it.

'
of course you doubt it - it conflicts with your pollyannaish retarded liberal viewpoint

and so, you'll look for any justification for denying reality

 

[Town Heretic]

of course you doubt it

I doubt any assertion without hard data to back it. If he wants to make the claim he'll have to sustain it, something he's demonstrated a reluctance to do when challenged on any particular in the past.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Sometimes the media concentration can feed a popular perception. For instance, the University of Georgia looked at the coverage and actuals from 2011 through 2015 utilizing the global terrorism database and addressing terrorist acts and coverage in our country:

For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually​

targeted Muslims in America). The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent. Based on these findings, it is no wonder that Americans are so fearful of radical Islamic terrorism. ​

Did that study look at terrorism conducted in western nations? Probably not. Terrorism done for reasons other than hatred of the prosperous west is not the issue and to quote it as evidence of your point is dishonest.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I doubt any assertion without hard data to back it. If he wants to make the claim he'll have to sustain it, something he's demonstrated a reluctance to do when challenged on any particular in the past.

Your hard data does not address the issue under discussion.

 

[ok doser]

I doubt any assertion ....

... that conflicts with your liberal viewpoint, pollyanna

 

[ClimateSanity]

Come back with hard data on terrorism conducted in America or Europe or in popular tourism destinations. That would be honest.

 

[Town Heretic]

Come back with hard data on terrorism conducted in America or Europe or in popular tourism destinations. That would be honest.

My data was on the U.S. and compiled by the University of Georgia. lain: The Global Terrorism Database they used is archived at the University of Maryland. It holds incidents from 1970 through the latest compilation, which was 2015, 2016 being available later this summer.

 

[Yorzhik]

It seems a little explanation of my stance on these subjects is in order. It is a bit complex, and I don't think labeling me as "liberal" or my thinking as "wishful thinking" works.

I live in Israel. We have been dealing with Islamic terror here for many years. Buses blown up, missiles from Lebanon, rockets from Gaza, stabbings- you name it. I've been to the funerals and made condolence calls. Nearly blown up myself. I've been in the army here. I have two sons who do reserve duty.

When there is war in Gaza or Lebanon, I don't have any qualms. I know that civilians will get killed. That is the unfortunate nature of war, and if those "militants" (as the press likes to call them) want hell- they'll get it. And I am very aware that my family and home are at risk.

When some Arab decides to stab people, and gets shot dead by a policeman or soldier, I do not shed any tears.

But there is another side to the story. And the other side is that around 20% of the country is Arab- mostly Muslim. And the vast majority of them are not terrorists. I live in a city known for peaceful coexistence, and the fact remains that it is possible to have decent relations with your Muslim neighbor, even if other Muslims are terrorists or having a fun war where they kill each other by the hundreds of thousands.

The only thing that can work is a carrot and stick approach. Tough on terrorists, and encourage peaceful Muslims to fit into society. You need both.

When I see Muslim nurses in the hospital (you can tell by the Hijab), I feel good. I am glad to see Muslim families on the beach or in the shopping mall, or to meet them at weddings or my accountant's office. I have no problem hiring a Muslim (I had an Alawi PhD scientist working for me a few years ago. If you don't know what an "Alawi" is- time to get educated).

Lumping all Muslims into the same category is classic bigotry, but worse than that- it is simply stupid. The only real chance to win is by encouraging the moderates while at the same time attacking the extremists. It isn't easy, and will take a long time. But that is where we are.

Those who have served in the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever: You have likely spent much more time in uniform than I have. I respect that. But your view of the Middle East is narrow. You have seen it only as a soldier in combat.

The problem is that the holy books of islam, and their greatest example of how to live, are violent against unbelievers and apostates. It would be great of they would admit their sacred texts had mistakes in them and revise or remove those violent commands, but the vast majority of muslims would rather not. Although there are a few that do.

So even the "peaceful" muslims are only that way because it is better, pragmatically, for them (I know that makes them sound like weak muslims, but, hey, most Christians are weak, too). But if they actually acted according to their scriptures, it wouldn't be that way. That's why when muslims hit roughly the 20% mark of the population, you have to deal with terrorism.

Sure, statistically having terrorism isn't so bad compared to the worst parts of US cities, but that doesn't justify it. One should deal with both forms of violence. The crime ridden parts of US can be handled in the obvious way to reduce crime; likewise the most obvious response to islamic terrorism should be implemented as well without being unjust.

The reasonable response is to ban muslims from entering the country as much as possible. Allow the culture to suspect muslims of having less than good intentions and have the freedom to act accordingly. That would be the start. And if the islamic terrorism doesn't slow or stop when that happens - up the response to root out the terrorists tactically, and make it clear as a nation that because the muslim faith includes violence as part of its core teachings, that people are free to suspect them and report them without being told they are racist or bigoted.

 

[Town Heretic]

Did that study look at terrorism conducted in western nations? Probably not.

It helps if you read a thing before you cobble a response to it. Or my response to your last response. All of them mention both the area of study and the source material. America, University of Georgia, University of Maryland, 2011-2015, it's all in there.

Terrorism done for reasons other than hatred of the prosperous west is not the issue and to quote it as evidence of your point is dishonest.

Wait...:rotfl:...sorry, but you literally just insisted that it was dishonest not to jury rig the consideration by insisting on a focus that definitionally would require the outcome in line with your bias instead of exposing it utilizing empirical data.

You're a very funny fellow.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It helps if you read a thing before you cobble a response to it. Or my response to your last response. All of them mention both the area of study and the source material. America, University of Georgia, University of Maryland, 2011-2015, it's all in there.


Wait...:rotfl:...sorry, but you literally just insisted that it was dishonest not to jury rig the consideration by insisting on a focus that definitionally would require the outcome in line with your bias instead of exposing it utilizing empirical data.

You're a very funny fellow.

So, I take it the study is just as I surmised. Very dishonest of you.

 

[musterion]

The problem is that the holy books of islam, and their greatest example of how to live, are violent against unbelievers and apostates. It would be great of they would admit their sacred texts had mistakes in them and revise or remove those violent commands, but the vast majority of muslims would rather not. Although there are a few that do.

So even the "peaceful" muslims are only that way because it is better, pragmatically, for them (I know that makes them sound like weak muslims, but, hey, most Christians are weak, too). But if they actually acted according to their scriptures, it wouldn't be that way. That's why when muslims hit roughly the 20% mark of the population, you have to deal with terrorism.

Sure, statistically having terrorism isn't so bad compared to the worst parts of US cities, but that doesn't justify it. One should deal with both forms of violence. The crime ridden parts of US can be handled in the obvious way to reduce crime; likewise the most obvious response to islamic terrorism should be implemented as well without being unjust.

The reasonable response is to ban muslims from entering the country as much as possible. Allow the culture to suspect muslims of having less than good intentions and have the freedom to act accordingly. That would be the start. And if the islamic terrorism doesn't slow or stop when that happens - up the response to root out the terrorists tactically, and make it clear as a nation that because the muslim faith includes violence as part of its core teachings, that people are free to suspect them and report them without being told they are racist or bigoted.

Good post.

First step would be for everyone to acknowledge the fact that the real extremist Muslims are the ones called moderates, who are not going around obeying the violent directives of Muhammad.

The truly consistent Muslims - the truest representatives of Islam as found in the Quran and Hadith - are the obedient, conquering, violent ones.

In short, what must happen is a universal acknowledgement that Islam itself...as Muhammad taught and lived it...is the problem.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It helps if you read a thing before you cobble a response to it. Or my response to your last response. All of them mention both the area of study and the source material. America, University of Georgia, University of Maryland, 2011-2015, it's all in there.


Wait...:rotfl:...sorry, but you literally just insisted that it was dishonest not to jury rig the consideration by insisting on a focus that definitionally would require the outcome in line with your bias instead of exposing it utilizing empirical data.

You're a very funny fellow.

I have no idea what you just said. Nevertheless, the issue is terrorism conducted against western nations. That's what is of concern to sane individuals in America. That's what we want to stop. Who is responsible for that narrow area of terrorism?????

Muslims.

 

[ok doser]

and so, to refute the obvious assertion that global terrorism is mostly associated with islam and thus, mooslims should be banned from america, town finds a study that says that america, comprising 0.9% mooslims, doesn't have a mooslim terrorism problem


is town being dishonest or retarded?


you make the call!

 

[musterion]

Is there a third option?

 

[ok doser]

For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks

so 0.9% of the population accounted for 12.4% of all terrorist incidents?


and you don't see a problem with that, pollyanna? :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

So, I take it the study is just as I surmised. Very dishonest of you.

it's his defining characteristic

 

[ok doser]

Is there a third option?

bacon!

 

[Town Heretic]

I have no idea what you just said.

Like that's new.

Nevertheless, the issue is terrorism conducted against western nations.

That wasn't even your topic until my research had you moving the goalposts to justify an assertion you still haven't produced empirical proof to support.

Anyway, Must started the thread with this topic: How do you defend yourself against people who will blow themselves up to kill you?


I don't believe he'd discount people willing to die to kill you by other means, say with airplanes, ect. Now in this country there's a perception that owes some of its fervor to media exposure, which I noted. Some, like the reprobate Sod, will, jump up and down about disparity in relation to population percentages, but limit their considerations to the aim of their bias.

11 by that sliver of the population? Well, 18 against that sliver. But that's not the statistic that serves his irrationality.

Anyway, the fact remains that most terrorist acts within our borders weren't committed by Muslims. In the five year study period more acts were perpetrated against Muslims than by Muslims.

That's what is of concern to sane individuals in America.

Sane individuals should want the actual odds and the full story, not the campfire tale used to political effect by the irresponsible.

That's what we want to stop. Who is responsible for that narrow area of terrorism?????

Muslims.

Like suggesting what Americans want to know is which Japanese cars are unsafe. No, they want to know which cars are unsafe.

So who kills them for whatever reason is less important than who is more likely to. Muslims isn't that answer here. The data is pretty clear.

Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of​

dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114.​

 

[ok doser]

So who kills them for whatever reason is less important than who is more likely to.

mooslims are disproportionately represented by a factor of 13.8, pollyanna


find another demographic that's similar and I'll agree they should also be targeted

Muslims isn't that answer here.

or, continue to be a retard :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

mooslims are disproportionately represented by a factor of 13.8, pollyanna

I think it's cute that you've found a new endearment. I'll just stick with the old tried and true: you missed it.

Sod is still trying to muddy waters. If Muslims are responsible for 11 out of 89, then the person who is most likely to end your life by terrorist attack isn't a Muslim. It's someone from the the 78 other terrorism acts.