Norway Attack

[StrangeSox]

The second link is completely f-ed up. They count a murder of a single deli clerk as a 'terrorist attack/plot'? There are reports daily of Jews being attacked by Muslims (and others) that I don't see listed under the 'anti-Jewish' plots. It only lists one against Cantor. They are cherry picking data like most people do to prove a point.

 

Oh, daily reports of terrorist attacks against Jews? Do share!

 

Anyway, the FBI's list, compiled through 2005, is available through the links. It's their definition and categorization. Unless the FBI is also cherry-picking to prove some political point, your criticism doesn't work.

[EvilMonkey]

The guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building in TX last year?

AirLINE. Not airplane. Did he go thru a TSA grope before he got on his plane?

[EvilMonkey]

Oh, daily reports of terrorist attacks against Jews? Do share!

 

Anyway, the FBI's list, compiled through 2005, is available through the links. It's their definition and categorization. Unless the FBI is also cherry-picking to prove some political point, your criticism doesn't work.

If you are counting hate crimes as terrorist attacks, like the deli worker case, then yes.

[StrangeSox]

AirLINE. Not airplane. Did he go thru a TSA grope before he got on his plane?

 

But this is just an intentional narrowing of the scope of what terrorism is so it conforms to your "mostly muslim" assumption. What is the point of this?

[StrangeSox]

If you are counting hate crimes as terrorist attacks, like the deli worker case, then yes.

Please share data. I'd like to know of these daily terrorist attacks against jews by muslims.

[EvilMonkey]

Please share data. I'd like to know of these daily terrorist attacks against jews by muslims.

 

 

 

FBI hate crime stats are not up to date on theirweb page, with 2009 being the newest available. That 'report' listed a hate crime against a deli ckerk as a terrorist attack. If that is a terrorist attack, so are the 931 anti jewish ones listed below. 931 equals more than 1 per day.

 

incidents offenses victims known offenders

Religion: 1,303 1,376 1,575 586

Anti-Jewish 931 964 1,132 353

Anti-Catholic 51 55 59 25

Anti-Protestant 38 40 42 17

Anti-Islamic 107 128 132 95

 

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html

 

 

[StrangeSox]

But why must an anti-jewish hate crime be carried out by a Muslim? I think you need to check your premises.

 

Actually, if you look at the exec. summary of that report, they state that they 1) don't include eco-terrorism since it's usually against property and 2) include world-wide data for muslim extremists and only US data for other groups. Both factors tip the balance in favor of over-representing Muslim terrorist acts.

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Anyway the report from the FBI from 1980-2005 still completely refutes the idea, you still have to deal with that.

[EvilMonkey]

But why must an anti-jewish hate crime be carried out by a Muslim? I think you need to check your premises.

It doesn't. But your report listed ONE attack by a white guy against a muslim deli worker as a TERRORIST ATTACK. Then in the next line said there was only one anti-jewish TERRORIST attack/plot against Eric Cantor. I say that the attack on the deli worker would fall under a hate crime instead of terrorist attack. IF the deli worker is a terrorist attack, then at least SOME of the 1300+ anti jewish attacks should be classified as the same. WHat it shows is that the stats used in that story are cherry picked to suit the needs of the Muslim group that reported it.

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't. But your report listed ONE attack by a white guy against a muslim deli worker as a TERRORIST ATTACK. Then in the next line said there was only one anti-jewish TERRORIST attack/plot against Eric Cantor. I say that the attack on the deli worker would fall under a hate crime instead of terrorist attack. IF the deli worker is a terrorist attack, then at least SOME of the 1300+ anti jewish attacks should be classified as the same. WHat it shows is that the stats used in that story are cherry picked to suit the needs of the Muslim group that reported it.

 

And the FBI's list you keep ignoring? Or the Europol report?

 

What report or data are you basing your "most terrorists are muslims" on? 9/11 and the shoe-bomber?

[EvilMonkey]

And the FBI's list you keep ignoring? Or the Europol report?

 

What report or data are you basing your "most terrorists are muslims" on? 9/11 and the shoe-bomber?

I gave you a link. If you are blind, stupid or choose to ignore it, that is your problem. If you are going to classify hate crimes as terrorist incidents, be consistent then with the reporting.

[StrangeSox]

I gave you a link. If you are blind, stupid or choose to ignore it, that is your problem. If you are going to classify hate crimes as terrorist incidents, be consistent then with the reporting.

You gave a link to hate crimes, not terrorist attacks, and it doesn't list any information about the perpetrators. That makes it useless in defending your claims about those who commit the acts. And, perhaps, is there some good reason to differentiate some hate crimes as terrorist attacks and others as something else?

 

Hey, how about the FBI or Europol reports you haven't even commented on? You've objected to one report because it was done by Muslims, but what about these other two?

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Also, if you look through the actual report instead of the brief summary, you'll see dozens of White Supremacist/KKK plots. Those groups are pretty consistently anti-Jewish.

[StrangeSox]

Extremism in Muslim Communities on the decline

 

This is why people have problems with King's hearings and the fervent anti-Islamic attitudes from some. They're based on fiction and they single out a minority group unfairly for scrutiny and suspicion.

[BigSqwert]

All I know is now I'll be looking suspiciously at the Norwegian people in our neighborhood.

[EvilMonkey]

You gave a link to hate crimes, not terrorist attacks, and it doesn't list any information about the perpetrators. That makes it useless in defending your claims about those who commit the acts. And, perhaps, is there some good reason to differentiate some hate crimes as terrorist attacks and others as something else?

 

Hey, how about the FBI or Europol reports you haven't even commented on? You've objected to one report because it was done by Muslims, but what about these other two?

Well, I commented on the one I had read. And reading comprehension seems to be eluding you. I never claimed all the anti jewish attacks were done by Muslims. I said that at least some of them HAD to fall under the same category as the deli worker, who was counted as terrorism, yet that study left them all off. Bias? Laziness? Stupidity? Whatever the reason, it shows that the stats are not right.

 

OK, the Interpol one tells me that the Muslim terrorists are pretty stupid. 3 attacks and 179 arrests. the separatists seems to have been able to pull off more stuff. Probably all the inbreeding among the less educated. Also noticed it said ZERO right wing attacks or arrests. Nice. Will have to read the other one later, work to do.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I commented on the one I had read. And reading comprehension seems to be eluding you. I never claimed all the anti jewish attacks were done by Muslims. I said that at least some of them HAD to fall under the same category as the deli worker, who was counted as terrorism, yet that study left them all off. Bias? Laziness? Stupidity? Whatever the reason, it shows that the stats are not right.

 

No, it doesn't, because there could be good reason for including some hate crimes but not others, since they are separate but not mutually exclusive things. And you appear to have read the website summarizing the report and not the report itself, since it'd be hard to know how many of those listed in the report were also labeled hate crimes without checking every one.

 

OK, the Interpol one tells me that the Muslim terrorists are pretty stupid. 3 attacks and 179 arrests.

 

Or it could be similar to the FBI, hatching a bunch of their own plots and convincing people to join them, only to "stop" them just in time.

 

the separatists seems to have been able to pull off more stuff. Probably all the inbreeding among the less educated.

 

Wow. So muslims are a bunch of inbred morons now?

 

Also noticed it said ZERO right wing attacks or arrests. Nice. Will have to read the other one later, work to do.

 

Europe has a lot less right-wing politics in general, though they can up that count to "1" now.

 

Regardless, it pretty thoroughly demolishes the idea that most terrorists are muslims.

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Europe has a lot less right-wing politics in general, though they can up that count to "1" now.

 

Regardless, it pretty thoroughly demolishes the idea that most terrorists are muslims.

 

That's not true. There are a lot of anti-immigration right wing nationalist groups that have gotten powerful in europe over the past decade.

[StrangeSox]

That's not true. There are a lot of anti-immigration right wing nationalist groups that have gotten powerful in europe over the past decade.

I stand corrected. Apparently they're just less violent.

[BigSqwert]

Sullivan dissects Bill O'Reilley's argument that Breivik couldn't be a Christian.

 

This is just a snippet:

 

And here is O'Reilly's definition of Christianity in the same segment, a definition so close to Breivik's it could almost be the same person writing:

The

s

econd rea

s

on the liberal media i

s

pu

s

hing the Chri

s

tian angle i

s

they don't li

k

e Chri

s

tian

s

very much becau

s

e we are too judgmental. Many Chri

s

tian

s

oppo

s

e abortion. Gay marriage and legalized narcotic

s

,

s

ecular left cau

s

e

s

. The media under

s

tand

s

the oppo

s

ition i

s

often ba

s

ed on religion.

S

o they want to dimini

s

h Chri

s

tianity and highlighting

s

o-called Chri

s

tian-ba

s

ed terror i

s

a way to do that.

Notice that O'Reilly defines Christianity in entirely political terms related to the control of other people's lives and bodies. i.e. being judgmental in passing laws to restrict the freedoms of others for the greater good. It is straight out of the school of thought I described at length in "The Conservative Soul." In other words, O'Reilly's definition of Christianity is very close to Breivik's. Both are best understood as Christianists, who see Christianity primarily as a way to change or mold civil society and the lives of others for what they see as the greater good, but O'Reilly is a non-violent one who deplores violence, while Breivik takes his own rhetoric so seriously he felt obliged to destroy Norway's civil order in order to save it.

 

The difference is not in ideology, but in the move to violence. That move is, of course, a central, profound and vital one, and O'Reilly's views of the world are in no way responsible for what just happened in Norway. But it is hard to see where O'Reilly would disagree with vast tracts of Breivik's ideology - except the resort to violence. Ideologically, there is scarcely any difference at all.

Edited July 26, 2011 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

The second link is completely f-ed up. They count a murder of a single deli clerk as a 'terrorist attack/plot'? There are reports daily of Jews being attacked by Muslims (and others) that I don't see listed under the 'anti-Jewish' plots. It only lists one against Cantor. They are cherry picking data like most people do to prove a point.

The one against Cantor was being awfully generous... I remember that bullshiggity about him trying to claim someone shot at his nondescript campaign office outside of his district that broke the window and not the blinds because it was actually a bullet that randomly fell and hit the window. lol. f***ing liar. Cantor is scum

[lostfan]

When you look at the data, Muslim terrorists tend to come from middle-class/professional families, their parents are doctors, engineers, bankers, etc.

 

"Poor" is really not a very good data point.

Edited July 26, 2011 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

Sullivan dissects Bill O'Reilley's argument that Breivik couldn't be a Christian.

 

This is just a snippet:

 

I don't really agree with much of what this loon is saying about O'Reilly, like him or not. I also don't agree with O'Reilly whenever he invokes his religion, either...but yet and still, to claim they're not very different is just f***ing stupid.

 

In specific: "But it is hard to see where O'Reilly would disagree with vast tracts of Breivik's ideology - except the resort to violence. Ideologically, there is scarcely any difference at all."

 

IMO, based on the various sources I've read, Breivik was not a christian, he was many pieces of many idealism's all smashed together in a very nutty way, so pointing to one small part of that insanity and saying, "that's what he was!", is misrepresentation of the facts. I also read he was somewhat outspoken against most of what Christianity represented...so painting him as a Christian is disingenuous at best. I know a few Muslims myself, very peaceful people, and when people place them in the violent 'you are all terrorists' camp, it's equally stupid.

 

I'm sick and tired of crazy people doing crazy s*** and people blaming religion or allowing these nuts to blame religion.

 

I know a few religious people that I actually consider religious, that aren't just religious via family designation or because it sounds good, but actually attend church, etc...all are VERY peaceful people, regardless of which religion it is.

 

Crazy is f***ing crazy, whether the person is an athiest, a muslim or a f***ing christian.

 

And for the record, I'm pretty anti-deist...although I try to keep such rants to myself.

 

That's why when BigSqwert tried to get me to attend his born again cult church I told him I'd rather be a vegan.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[The Sir]

You libs will hate this, but I really don't care. If Norman Leboon saying crazy things about Cantor is terrorism, then all of these acts certainly count. Enjoy.

[StrangeSox]

Will Wilkinson on the American outrage over Norway's justice system

 

Nothing can be done to bring Mr Breivik's victims back to life. The most compelling, non-mystical case for vengeance is that it offers some consolation to those wracked by desolation and fury at the murder of their loved one. But the point of a criminal justice system in a civilised society is not the mental peace of those collaterally wounded by crime. All evidence supports that proposition that Norway's criminal justice system is both practically and morally superior to America's.

 

If America's abominably cruel and unjust system delivered results even remotely comparable to Norway's enviable level of civil peace and order, then there might be some reason to take seriously American animadversions against Norway's short sentences and humane prison. But we don't. We're not even close. So Americans should just shut up and watch. It could do us some good to see how a civilised society handles such a horrifying crime.