Well, if you can't produce the data, STFU.
I can produce it quite easily. That doesn't mean I have to be your gopher. If you can't put in some research to actually make an informed opinion then maybe you should take your own advice?
I gave you to phrase to Google. Are you so lazy that you can't even do that for yourself? How on earth do you actually come up with your viewpoints?
Perhaps. But trying to counter DarrinS on his facts means he tends to just evade anyways. I'm willing to say, "Ok, if X is true, why is that so?" I'm curious to see if DarrinS will ever answer.
Good question actually. Can "war" be one-sided? I think, in this case, it can.
For instance, if US soldiers attacked a bunch of innocent Muslims, but didn't wear their uniform and did so not for strategic purposes (ie. manufacturing, communication etc), I wouldn't be surprised to call it terrorism.
Terrorism has come to mean an action performed by "rogue" agents, ie. non-state actors. So you could classify attacks against servicemen as "terrorist" attacks, I guess, unless the culprit was a known group we were at war with.
It does all get a bit messy, especially when you try to determine if US can go to "war" against an individual group and not a country. What we did in Iraq, once Saddam was gone, was more of an occupation and less of a "war" in the truest sense.
Since there are over a billion Muslims, I will admit that it is a small fraction comitting terrorists acts. If a large fraction decided to become jihadists, the world would be ed. Luckily, we have some geography on our side. By the way, I don't consider Muslim a race.
They will use whatever they have at their disposal. That's why we need to keep a close eye on Pakistan. I can't think that a failed state with nukes is a good thing.
@LNG
Dude, all you've done in this thread is move goalposts regarding what makes terrorism and you wonder why I say the term is meaningless and is just used for propoganda purposes?
First there has to be a war, then the US has to accept that there is a war, and then war only exists for the US?
Wow.
Here's a database from the National Counterterrorism
Center.
Better than FBI's website and better than Google.
https://wits.nctc.gov/FederalDiscoverWITS/index.do?N=0
Here's a report generated by that database.
https://wits.nctc.gov/FederalDiscove...Q+20101231&N=0
Incidents grouped by perpetrator characteristic (1/01/2010 to 12/31/2010)
Group Type Attacks Dead Wounded Hostage Victims
Christian Extremist 338 3,358 661 2,551 6,570 Environmental/Anti-Globalization 14 0 4 0 4
Hindu Extremist 18 13 117 1 131
Islamic Extremist (Shia) 520 1,241 3,987 390 5,618
Islamic Extremist (Sunni) 19,058 40,920 89,901 12,762 143,583
Islamic Extremist (Unknown) 301 836 3,950 68 4,854 Jewish Extremist 52 6 71 0 77
Neonazi/Fascists/White Supremacists 6 4 8 0 12
Other Religious Extremist 7 7 73 2 82
Secular/Political/Anarchist 17,041 16,376 29,456 59,581 105,413 Tribal/Clan/Ethnic 587 1,975 1,638 1,284 4,897
Unknown 36,757 44,301 98,430 5,234 147,965
Total 74,699 109,037 228,296 81,873 419,206
At least the secular anarchists are a close second.
So by your link less than 20,000 of the 75,000 or so attacks were made by Islamists. You analyze data so well, Darrin!
Also, lol @ half of the database being "Unknown".
Fair enough.
I think the bolded part is important. If they had even a quarter of the resources that modern countries had, do you think they'd still be using terrorist tactics, or would they switch over to more modern forms of warfare?
I agree that Pakistan has the potential to turn into a big storm.
Same data, but just in the last year.
Group Type Attacks Dead Wounded Hostage Victims
Christian Extremist 21 809 21 649 1,479
Hindu Extremist 2 3 17 0 20
Islamic Extremist (Shia) 52 223 716 16 955
Islamic Extremist (Sunni) 291 3,388 8,917 113 12,418
Islamic Extremist (Unknown) 16 136 407 0 543
Jewish Extremist 2 0 3 0 3
Neonazi/Fascists/White Supremacists 1 0 0 0 0
Other Religious Extremist 1 0 0 0 0
Secular/Political/Anarchist 90 324 1,359 0 1,683
Tribal/Clan/Ethnic 4 38 16 0 54
Unknown 583 1,898 5,572 50 7,520
Total 1,063 6,819 17,028 828 24,675
At least I provided some.
I asked you how many Muslims in the world are terrorists.
"manny won't give me a link and the FBI's records are soooooooooooo hard to find"
Only Darrin would consider a dataset where half of the data is missing reliable.
I'll tell you what, If I provided a temperature record where half the weather stations recorded "unknown" Darrin would shooting fire out of his ass and ears.
I don't know. Do you know?
That's a good point. I will agree that terrorism is poorly defined. The working definition (acts of violence carried out in the name of a political/ideological goal) is rather weak.
I don't think you can just throw the term out though, unless you want to refer to actions as "lawful/unlawful". That might be a better designator.
In essense, yes, although the way you stated it is somewhat strange.
Would you disagree that the US has to recognize something as a war before it actually is? (Ie. it's not just a "war" because some random group declared war on us?)
And while the "war" isn't really one-sided, it is in the sense that one side is playing by the rules and one isn't. That's why you could have terrorist actions from one side, and non-terrorist actions from the other side. (Though as I said above, perhaps lawful/unlawful would be a better distinction.)
But yes, 20,000 out of 75,000 sure does seem like a majority to me anyway.
You certainly talk like you do.
It's good to know you can't back up what you say.
I guess some terrorists that use IED's don't leave behind their business cards.
Step one, Invade a Muslim Country. Check
Step two, When Muslims fight back call them terrorists. Check.
Step three, point out how Muslims are committing terrorist attacks!!! Check.
Step one, go to public library. Check.
Step two, check out a history book. Check.
Step three, learn that numerous terrorist attacks occurred before any "invasion". Check.
Depends on what one considers an invasion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
