And the year before, 2014, there were just 2 jihadist attacks out of 201, or 0.99%.
Go on, what does this show?
[EDIT: And your "specified source" thing is deliberately misleading nonsense intended to inflate the number you're using for your calculation. There were 211 attacks in 2015, 17 of which (or 8.05%) were jihadist.]
Once you consider four times the norm to be a result good enough to mention, you've lost the argument.
With those years included, for 2006 through 2015, there were 3092 failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks in the EU, with 38 of them (or 1.22% of them) being Islamist or religiously-inspired. 2243 of them (or 72.5%) were separatist attacks (Northern Irish, Basque, etc.).
It's almost as if Islamists kicked into a higher gear at the end of the observed period. Care to guess why? I'll give you a hint, it probably has to do with the establishment of the Caliphate.
You pick one year with a higher jihadist total out of all the years of data, and declare that because the percentage of attacks that were carried out by Muslims in that one specific year is higher than than the percentage of the Muslim population, Muslims are a bigger terror threat than their population percentage would indicate, despite the fact that just the year before, the percentage of jihadist attacks was far, far lower than the percentage of the Muslim population (to say nothing of all the previous years).
No, where did you get that ridiculous idea from anyway? Muslims are a higher threat from the general population for a host of reasons, one of which is that they are associated with a general increase with the number of terrorist attacks.
Other reasons include, but are not limited to:
- following holy texts that justify terrorist attacks as well as religious supremacism
- committing terrorist attacks with the purpose to kill people, not to accomplish a specific goal (unlike separatists)
- committing far bloodier terrorist attacks than any other group (often even all other groups combined)
- organizing into state-like groups whose specific intent is to wage terror
- receiving state aid from Muslim states specifically to conduct terror
Being associated with more terror attacks, even in the West is just the cherry on the cake. It removes the usual excuses of poverty, oppression and the vague "foreign interference" as being the causes, which is why I find it useful to work with. Overall though it's just another brick in the wall, not the sole piece of evidence as you fraudulently claimed. You even acknowledged some of the other bits in this very thread, and now you pretend they weren't there. I find your approach disingenuous and dishonest.
Or arrests aren't correlated with attacks, whether successful or foiled, since the number of arrests for separatist attacks was far higher back when the number of separatist attacks was also far higher than it is now, and despite jihadists arrests being the largest proportion of arrests now, the largest proportion of attacks are still separatist attacks.
In addition to the stuff above, since no Muslim group in the West could reasonably be called separatists, adding separatists to the mix is not justified. You see, we can state with absolute certainty no Muslim group in the West could reasonably call itself separatist, they're either immigrants, be it first, second or third generation - but rarely more than that, or converts who follow Islam but live in their county of birth and have no separatist cause to back. Clearly separatism can inspire terrorism, but it doesn't inspire Muslims in Europe to commit terrorism.
In light of that the actual background reading for terror threat for Muslims is not all non-Islamic terrorist attacks, but all non-Islamic, non-separatist terrorist attacks. As we see above, Muslims stand out somewhat even if we conflate the data with separatists, but a more honest approach yields results that are, well:
For 2006 through 2015, there were 849 failed, foiled, or successful non-separatist terrorist attacks in the EU, with 38 of them (or 4.4 % of them) being Islamist or religiously-inspired.
Notably worse. This is called adjusting for a known confider. It's even quantifiable in this case. How many of the 3000-something attacks had no specified cause? We should remove those as well, since we can't just assume none of them are Jihadi. They move the Jihadis up a notch to about 5%.
Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact some 15-20% of all terror convictions every year are Jihadis. The good police work confounds the number of attack further, since police is evidently much better at preventing Jihadi violence than it is separatist violence. This is in part due to Jihadis being more predictable (smaller demographic to focus on), but in no small part because police focuses on them more. Before you cry racism or Islamophobia or some similar nonsense consider the fact the relatively low number of Jihadi attacks, despite up to ten times greater police effort,
still manage to at approximately match all other sources of terrorism
combined in terms of overall death toll. It's only natural to focus on the greatest threat. Preventing a single Nice-style attack is obviously preferable to preventing ten night-time bombings that injure or kill no one and are otherwise indistinguishable from vandalism.
The only way you present Muslims as being no worse than the average is if you lump them up with terrorism from all causes, including the most prominent causes that we
know don't apply to them, ignore the severity of attacks and focus solely on the number of attacks, focus solely on the West, ignore the fact in many years Muslims still fared far, far worse, ignore the fact Jihadis are disproportionally represented in number of convictions and ignore other highly relevant factors in assessing the terror threat.
And then when you're called out for the numerous fallacies you're committing, cry about cherry picking. Unbelievable.
What you think the Islamic scriptures say matters not at all compared to what Muslims think those scriptures say.
The events of the past 20 or so years in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, France, UK, Spain, USA, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Israel, Yemen, Lebanon, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, Philippines, Bangladesh, Libya and many other places lead me to believe a great many Muslims think those scriptures say pretty much what they appear to say.
Why do
you think this doesn't matter is beyond me. Care to answer?
"Change your religion or die" is a threat whether it comes from jihadists or from anyone else.
In my case it's exactly as much a threat as "
stop using fossil fuels or go extinct" is a threat. The fact the two threats are different in nature in no way changes that. I'm warning you of a disaster that will approach you, that you can avoid, but I can't stop it. It's exactly the same as with climate change. This was pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
Well, it's your life. Just don't say this wasn't predicted.
A campaign of genocide carried out by racists is not comparable to climate change for the rather basic reason that climate change has no agency and is merely the result of macroscale physical processes, while a campaign of genocide carried out by racists is the result of individual human beings with full agency making the conscious decision to carry out said campaign.
And I'm doing my very best to try to prevent it. The problem is that stopping it requires changing your religion to something other than what it is today. You can still call it Islam and pray to an meteorite like a devout astrogeologist (? - what's the correct term for someone who studies space rocks?) and whatever. Just cut out the crap that kills people. If you think it's a fabrication that really shouldn't be a problem.
There is even precedents - Abu Bakr did precisely that. The first one, not this al-Baghdadi guy. If he could do it, so can you.
So yeah, telling me that I'm going to be put in a gas chamber unless I change my ways is more of a threat than saying climate change is an approaching disaster. Trying to pass off the threat of me being put in a gas chamber because of my beliefs (whatever they happen to be) as "being for my own good" just makes it even more disgusting.
I believe I already stated why you could get put in a gas chamber, it's in the post you quoted. Yeah, it's radically different from "your beliefs". You changed it to "your beliefs" in order to set up a straw man, which is what is really quite disingenuous. Do you think I manage to forget my argument in between replies or something?
McHrozni
