Manhattan explosion

[Skeptic Ginger]

Deaths due to terrorist attacks on US soil from 9/12/01 to 12/31/15, IIRC.



Terrorism is defined as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This is different from workplace violence, personal grievances, economic goals (e.g. robbery) and so on, and receives different attention - it's considered more important. True, people still die, but some reasons for that should be considered worse and receive more attention than others.

You're free to disagree with the logic, but then you'll have to explain to me why are mass shootings important at all. There are about 30 thousand deaths from vehicle accidents in the US every year, some twenty times more than in mass shootings. More people die from car crashes than from murder by all means combined. People killed in car crashes are just as dead as those who are shot and killed in a shooting rampage or murdered with a gun, and many injuries are actually worse than those sustained in mass shootings. If you think we shouldn't differ from the manner of deaths we should obviously ban cars before even considering banning guns.



It's valid, but I think your logic needs improvement.

McHrozni

So you add in "political aims" thereby ruling out the vast majority of mass killings and include people who may very well have multifactorial basis for adopting a religious/political motive but who are not very different from other mass murderers.

It sounds like a definition specifically tailored to paint Muslims with your brush.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see your point, but that's not the case....

McHrozni

You see quad's point but you are ignoring it?

Are you channeling Hitchens by any means?

 

[McHrozni]

So you add in "political aims" thereby ruling out the vast majority of mass killings and include people who may very well have multifactorial basis for adopting a religious/political motive but who are not very different from other mass murderers.

It sounds like a definition specifically tailored to paint Muslims with your brush.

I didn't come up with the definition.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

The important part:

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;

The definition I operate with is just a simplification of that the FBI uses. "Political aims" is easier and quicker to type out (and memorize) than detailing a few lines of of possible motives. Sue me

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I agree that panic and discrimination against Muslims is wrong,wrong,wrong,but an Ostrich approach to the problem of Jihadism is just as stupid.

True. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that the approach we've tried for several decades now - little retaliation, no challenge to Muslims who pretend Jihadism is not connected to Islam and so on - is simply not working.

I've said this many times over, but it can never be said too many times - do you guys know what happens when sufficient anger is accumulated and it boils over? Suppose an equivalent of Beslan siege happened in, say, Paris and hundreds of children died. How do you think the French would react when the Islamic leaders would yet again meekly claim this had "nothing to do with Islam"?
Random pogroms aren't even the main concern. Electing leaders who will make it an official policy is.

Do you guys want that? Because that's quite possibly the future. Donald Trump isn't the problem, he is the symptom of a problem that went essentially unaddressed for some forty years. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the decades and centuries of humanist progress so a devout follower of a 7^th century warlord isn't offended. Because that's what's at stake here, honestly. Their feelings versus our civilization.

McHrozni

 

[quadraginta]

True. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that the approach we've tried for several decades now - little retaliation, no challenge to Muslims who pretend Jihadism is not connected to Islam and so on - is simply not working.

I've said this many times over, but it can never be said too many times - do you guys know what happens when sufficient anger is accumulated and it boils over? Suppose an equivalent of Beslan siege happened in, say, Paris and hundreds of children died. How do you think the French would react when the Islamic leaders would yet again meekly claim this had "nothing to do with Islam"?
Random pogroms aren't even the main concern. Electing leaders who will make it an official policy is.

Do you guys want that? Because that's quite possibly the future. Donald Trump isn't the problem, he is the symptom of a problem that went essentially unaddressed for some forty years. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the decades and centuries of humanist progress so a devout follower of a 7^th century warlord isn't offended. Because that's what's at stake here, honestly. Their feelings versus our civilization.

McHrozni

It is impressive that you can write at all with so much straw clogging up your thought processes.

 

[theprestige]

The "who causes the most fatalities" tally can even change based on a single attack whose death toll is entirely random (up until Orlando, non-Muslim terrorists had killed twice as many people in the US as Muslim terrorists in the fifteen years since 9/11).

Over how many attacks? Compared to how many Islamic terrorist attacks?

If Star-Bellied Sneetches attack ten times and kill ten people, and Blue-Bellied Sneetches attack a hundred times and kill ten people, who's the real problem?

 

[marplots]

Over how many attacks? Compared to how many Islamic terrorist attacks?

If Star-Bellied Sneetches attack ten times and kill ten people, and Blue-Bellied Sneetches attack a hundred times and kill ten people, who's the real problem?

Killing. Killing is the real problem.

 

[Pterodactyl]

True. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that the approach we've tried for several decades now - little retaliation, no challenge to Muslims who pretend Jihadism is not connected to Islam and so on - is simply not working.

I've said this many times over, but it can never be said too many times - do you guys know what happens when sufficient anger is accumulated and it boils over? Suppose an equivalent of Beslan siege happened in, say, Paris and hundreds of children died. How do you think the French would react when the Islamic leaders would yet again meekly claim this had "nothing to do with Islam"?
Random pogroms aren't even the main concern. Electing leaders who will make it an official policy is.

Do you guys want that? Because that's quite possibly the future. Donald Trump isn't the problem, he is the symptom of a problem that went essentially unaddressed for some forty years. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the decades and centuries of humanist progress so a devout follower of a 7^th century warlord isn't offended. Because that's what's at stake here, honestly. Their feelings versus our civilization.

McHrozni

If Pope Francis issued a mandate requiring the amish to adopt modern ways, would they abide? Is there a muslim pope somewhere that all muslims have to listen to?
What real influence do "Islamic leaders" have over the muslims of the variety who carry out these kind of attacks?

I dont disagree with the notion that we can't tolerance jihadists out of existence, I just question the idea that holding uninvolved muslims accountable for the actions of zealots would be somehow helpful.

 

[Giz]

If Pope Francis issued a mandate requiring the amish to adopt modern ways, would they abide? Is there a muslim pope somewhere that all muslims have to listen to?
What real influence do "Islamic leaders" have over the muslims of the variety who carry out these kind of attacks?

I dont disagree with the notion that we can't tolerance jihadists out of existence, I just question the idea that holding uninvolved muslims accountable for the actions of zealots would be somehow helpful.

The problem is that you can't begin to adress an issue correctly, far less cure it, unless you understand it. Or leaders saying things like "islam is peace", "ISIS is not Islamic" are just wrong. If they really believe that, then they will be unable to formulate a long term strategy and will only be able to apply short term tactical band aids to the problem via done strikes and the like.

There is a battle of ideologies. And so far we aren't even fighting it. ..

 

[cullennz]

Do you expect christians in the UK to be responsible and able to change the actions of christians on the other side of the world

 

[Pterodactyl]

The problem is that you can't begin to adress an issue correctly, far less cure it, unless you understand it. Or leaders saying things like "islam is peace", "ISIS is not Islamic" are just wrong. If they really believe that, then they will be unable to formulate a long term strategy and will only be able to apply short term tactical band aids to the problem via done strikes and the like.

There is a battle of ideologies. And so far we aren't even fighting it. ..

If certain sects of Islam feel that "Islam is peace" and that "ISIS is not Islamic" then I fail to see how they are contributing to or condoning ISIS's actions since they clearly do not support them. What type of rebuke do people want to hear or think would be more effective?

 

[Giz]

Do you expect christians in the UK to be responsible and able to change the actions of christians on the other side of the world

Talking about going to the "far side of the world". Do you realize that three times as as many british muslims (1500+) have joined ISIS as joined the British army (600)?

http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865

That's a shocking statistic. And it shows a link. It's not unconnected "nothing to do with us" communities.

 

[cullennz]

Talking about going to the "far side of the world". Do you realize that three times as as many british muslims (1500+) have joined ISIS as joined the British army (600)?

http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865

That's a shocking statistic. And it shows a link. It's not unconnected "nothing to do with us" communities.

Except it reads like utter bollocks tabloid

 

[Giz]

Except it reads like utter bollocks tabloid

It's supported. It's been raised in Parliament. Here's a source from a broadsheet:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-2000-Britons-fighting-for-Islamic-State.html

Sorry, you don't get to hand wave all the inconvenient facts away.

 

[cullennz]

The figures seem to be a bit varied.

Official says 500

All it really shows is most Muslims aren't into a career in the british armed forces

 

[A'isha]

Talking about going to the "far side of the world". Do you realize that three times as as many british muslims (1500+) have joined ISIS as joined the British army (600)?

http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865

That's a shocking statistic. And it shows a link. It's not unconnected "nothing to do with us" communities.

Jihadists target their recruiting efforts on those who know the least about their religion, because the more devout they are the more resistant they are to the Jihadists' message.

 

[Jules Galen]

True. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that the approach we've tried for several decades now - little retaliation, no challenge to Muslims who pretend Jihadism is not connected to Islam and so on - is simply not working.

I've said this many times over, but it can never be said too many times - do you guys know what happens when sufficient anger is accumulated and it boils over? Suppose an equivalent of Beslan siege happened in, say, Paris and hundreds of children died. How do you think the French would react when the Islamic leaders would yet again meekly claim this had "nothing to do with Islam"?
Random pogroms aren't even the main concern. Electing leaders who will make it an official policy is.

Do you guys want that? Because that's quite possibly the future. Donald Trump isn't the problem, he is the symptom of a problem that went essentially unaddressed for some forty years. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the decades and centuries of humanist progress so a devout follower of a 7^th century warlord isn't offended. Because that's what's at stake here, honestly. Their feelings versus our civilization.
McHrozni

This is just a bit too hysterical. In what follows, I'm going to use the phrase "No one", and by that I mean no one of importance or influence in Western society, Now...No one is suggesting that anyone bow to the crazy dictates of ISIS or Al Qaeda. No one is suggesting that we give up Western values. Even most Muslims seem to believe similarly. For them (most Muslims), their days are no different than those of the Jews and Christians: get up, got to work, provide for the family, mow the lawn, try for some peace and tranquility, remember to feed the cat, yada yada.

Really...we aren't all that damned different as many of us would like to believe.

 

[marplots]

This is just a bit too hysterical. In what follows, I'm going to use the phrase "No one", and by that I mean no one of importance or influence in Western society, Now...No one is suggesting that anyone bow to the crazy dictates of ISIS or Al Qaeda. No one is suggesting that we give up Western values. Even most Muslims seem to believe similarly. For them (most Muslims), their days are no different than those of the Jews and Christians: get up, got to work, provide for the family, mow the lawn, try for some peace and tranquility, remember to feed the cat, yada yada.

Really...we aren't all that damned different as many of us would like to believe.

We should adopt those portions of their culture we admire and reject the rest. You know, like always.

 

[quadraginta]

If certain sects of Islam feel that "Islam is peace" and that "ISIS is not Islamic" then I fail to see how they are contributing to or condoning ISIS's actions since they clearly do not support them. What type of rebuke do people want to hear or think would be more effective?

There is none that some people would be willing to accept. It would be anathema to their prejudice.

 

[quadraginta]

Talking about going to the "far side of the world". Do you realize that three times as as many british muslims (1500+) have joined ISIS as joined the British army (600)?

http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865

That's a shocking statistic. And it shows a link. It's not unconnected "nothing to do with us" communities.

I expect the British army's admission requirements are a bit more stringent than ISIS.

And your usage of "three times as many" is rather over-inclusive, isn't it?