Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

I read these figures somewhere was it the FBI files. I'm too lazy to find these today. I Understand the Jewish Defence League committed more attacks than Jihadis (7% vs 6%.

The extent of the damage may give a different view but these figures are not in dispute.

Of course they're in dispute -- any number of people have pointed out errors and omissions in the FBI database. But the more serious problem is that the FBI uses asinine criteria to decide what is and isn't "terrorism". They're counting bank robberies and vandalism as terrorist attacks, for chrissakes! If we count only the attacks from 1980 to 2005 that killed somebody, Islamists were responsible for not 6% but 24%. And if we're counting murders and not just attacks, Islamists murdered about 3,000 people in America during that period; the Jewish Defense League murdered 3.

The widely circulated claim that Islamic extremists are responsible for 6% and Jewish extremists for 7% is a textbook case of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". It seems to trace to a propaganda site called "loonwatch". The only reason anyone would believe their misdirection is because they're telling him what he already wants to believe.

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers? For all it's bad reputation, the American government, internationally, is very good at being transparent and being honest about the data. As their various leaks prove.

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course they're in dispute -- any number of people have pointed out errors and omissions in the FBI database. But the more serious problem is that the FBI uses asinine criteria to decide what is and isn't "terrorism". They're counting bank robberies and vandalism as terrorist attacks, for chrissakes! If we count only the attacks from 1980 to 2005 that killed somebody, Islamists were responsible for not 6% but 24%. And if we're counting murders and not just attacks, Islamists murdered about 3,000 people in America during that period; the Jewish Defense League murdered 3.

The widely circulated claim that Islamic extremists are responsible for 6% and Jewish extremists for 7% is a textbook case of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". It seems to trace to a propaganda site called "loonwatch". The only reason anyone would believe their misdirection is because they're telling him what he already wants to believe.

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers? For all it's bad reputation, the American government, internationally, is very good at being transparent and being honest about the data. As their various leaks prove.

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

I would tend to agree that the research data as to the number and percentage of incidents to be correct. However another statistic was not incorporated to reflect the average number of deaths per incident and overall figure, that relates to a particular grouping.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers? For all it's bad reputation, the American government, internationally, is very good at being transparent and being honest about the data. As their various leaks prove.

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

I would tend to agree that the research data as to the number and percentage of incidents to be correct. However another statistic was not incorporated to reflect the average number of deaths per incident and overall figure, that relates to a particular grouping.

But not even there do Islamic terrorists come out on top. It's just a red herring. Racists are trying their best to twist the data to show that Islamic terrorism is especially bad, when in fact, they're just like all the rest of the various trouble-makers out there. Comparable to, Christian terrorists, for example.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would tend to agree that the research data as to the number and percentage of incidents to be correct. However another statistic was not incorporated to reflect the average number of deaths per incident and overall figure, that relates to a particular grouping.

But not even there do Islamic terrorists come out on top. It's just a red herring. Racists are trying their best to twist the data to show that Islamic terrorism is especially bad, when in fact, they're just like all the rest of the various trouble-makers out there. Comparable to, Christian terrorists, for example.

It would be good to see the calculations but also, various drug cartels may come out on top after terrorising the neighbourhoods with assassinations and gangland killings. It's not a red herring.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course they're in dispute -- any number of people have pointed out errors and omissions in the FBI database. But the more serious problem is that the FBI uses asinine criteria to decide what is and isn't "terrorism". They're counting bank robberies and vandalism as terrorist attacks, for chrissakes! If we count only the attacks from 1980 to 2005 that killed somebody, Islamists were responsible for not 6% but 24%. And if we're counting murders and not just attacks, Islamists murdered about 3,000 people in America during that period; the Jewish Defense League murdered 3.

The widely circulated claim that Islamic extremists are responsible for 6% and Jewish extremists for 7% is a textbook case of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". It seems to trace to a propaganda site called "loonwatch". The only reason anyone would believe their misdirection is because they're telling him what he already wants to believe.

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers?

Dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. In the first place, where the hell did I say the FBI was trying to mislead or gained by publishing false numbers? It was loonwatch that was trying to mislead; it's a pro-Islam propaganda site; you bought it hook line and sinker. In the second place, what the hell bearing does whether the FBI gained by publishing false numbers have on the fact that they did? And in the third place, exactly which part of "asinine criteria" don't you understand? The problem isn't that they miscounted something a little bit; the problem is that they were counting the wrong things. What, you think if the FBI didn't have a reason to deliberately mislead people, that this proves that they did their job well? What the hell is wrong with your critical thinking faculties? You can look at their data as easily as I can! The FBI's list of attacks is already linked upthread!

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
...
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front

The FBI list includes columns for killed and wounded. The absence of numbers in those columns means "zero".

People are more focused on a few acts of terrorism than on the masses of other crimes for a reason: it's because getting killed is something we take very seriously. Normal people have that in mind when we hear statistics about terrorism. Now, the FBI "is very good at being transparent and being honest about" the fact that by "terrorism", they are including crimes against property, even if you do have to read to the end of their whole dissertation to notice. But Loonwatch wasn't up-front about that discrepancy in definitions when they claimed the FBI says Jews commit more "terrorism" than Muslims, and when they got dozens of other media outlets to repeat their meme. It was rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers?

Dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. In the first place, where the hell did I say the FBI was trying to mislead or gained by publishing false numbers? It was loonwatch that was trying to mislead; it's a pro-Islam propaganda site; you bought it hook line and sinker. In the second place, what the hell bearing does whether the FBI gained by publishing false numbers have on the fact that they did? And in the third place, exactly which part of "asinine criteria" don't you understand? The problem isn't that they miscounted something a little bit; the problem is that they were counting the wrong things. What, you think if the FBI didn't have a reason to deliberately mislead people, that this proves that they did their job well? What the hell is wrong with your critical thinking faculties? You can look at their data as easily as I can! The FBI's list of attacks is already linked upthread!

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
...
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front

The FBI list includes columns for killed and wounded. The absence of numbers in those columns means "zero".

People are more focused on a few acts of terrorism than on the masses of other crimes for a reason: it's because getting killed is something we take very seriously. Normal people have that in mind when we hear statistics about terrorism. Now, the FBI "is very good at being transparent and being honest about" the fact that by "terrorism", they are including crimes against property, even if you do have to read to the end of their whole dissertation to notice. But Loonwatch wasn't up-front about that discrepancy in definitions when they claimed the FBI says Jews commit more "terrorism" than Muslims, and when they got dozens of other media outlets to repeat their meme. It was rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Europe has similar low numbers for Islamic terrorism. Here's the official EU numbers for 2015. In 2015 there was a sharp increase of Islamic terrorism. Even lower than the American number.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/p_europol_tsat15_09jun15_low-rev.pdf

This report shows a sharp increase. In statistics, what can sharp increase signify? It can signify variance. It can also mean there's a spill over from the war in Syria. That can explain the entire variance. When that war ends, the attacks that relate to that war will also end. Which incidentally, isn't primarily a religious war. At this point it's still just geopolitics. If there's a sharp increase of anything, it means that it's an anomaly. Sorry, but Islam has been around for 1400 years. If there's a sharp increase you've got to find some other cause.

I'm not saying Islam is the religion of peace. I'm just saying that Islamic extremists are like any groups extremists. Neither better nor worse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why would the FBI mislead? What could they (or the American government) possibly have to gain by publishing false numbers?

Dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. In the first place, where the hell did I say the FBI was trying to mislead or gained by publishing false numbers? It was loonwatch that was trying to mislead; it's a pro-Islam propaganda site; you bought it hook line and sinker. In the second place, what the hell bearing does whether the FBI gained by publishing false numbers have on the fact that they did? And in the third place, exactly which part of "asinine criteria" don't you understand? The problem isn't that they miscounted something a little bit; the problem is that they were counting the wrong things. What, you think if the FBI didn't have a reason to deliberately mislead people, that this proves that they did their job well? What the hell is wrong with your critical thinking faculties? You can look at their data as easily as I can! The FBI's list of attacks is already linked upthread!

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
...
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front

The FBI list includes columns for killed and wounded. The absence of numbers in those columns means "zero".

People are more focused on a few acts of terrorism than on the masses of other crimes for a reason: it's because getting killed is something we take very seriously. Normal people have that in mind when we hear statistics about terrorism. Now, the FBI "is very good at being transparent and being honest about" the fact that by "terrorism", they are including crimes against property, even if you do have to read to the end of their whole dissertation to notice. But Loonwatch wasn't up-front about that discrepancy in definitions when they claimed the FBI says Jews commit more "terrorism" than Muslims, and when they got dozens of other media outlets to repeat their meme. It was rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

The last one on the list, the Earth Liberation Front spends its time committing vandalism in protest to the deforestation of the environment. I'm not sure how that would be terrorist.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. In the first place, where the hell did I say the FBI was trying to mislead or gained by publishing false numbers? It was loonwatch that was trying to mislead; it's a pro-Islam propaganda site; you bought it hook line and sinker. In the second place, what the hell bearing does whether the FBI gained by publishing false numbers have on the fact that they did? And in the third place, exactly which part of "asinine criteria" don't you understand? The problem isn't that they miscounted something a little bit; the problem is that they were counting the wrong things. What, you think if the FBI didn't have a reason to deliberately mislead people, that this proves that they did their job well? What the hell is wrong with your critical thinking faculties? You can look at their data as easily as I can! The FBI's list of attacks is already linked upthread!

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
...
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front

The FBI list includes columns for killed and wounded. The absence of numbers in those columns means "zero".

People are more focused on a few acts of terrorism than on the masses of other crimes for a reason: it's because getting killed is something we take very seriously. Normal people have that in mind when we hear statistics about terrorism. Now, the FBI "is very good at being transparent and being honest about" the fact that by "terrorism", they are including crimes against property, even if you do have to read to the end of their whole dissertation to notice. But Loonwatch wasn't up-front about that discrepancy in definitions when they claimed the FBI says Jews commit more "terrorism" than Muslims, and when they got dozens of other media outlets to repeat their meme. It was rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Europe has similar low numbers for Islamic terrorism. Here's the official EU numbers for 2015. In 2015 there was a sharp increase of Islamic terrorism. Even lower than the American number.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/p_europol_tsat15_09jun15_low-rev.pdf

This report shows a sharp increase. In statistics, what can sharp increase signify? It can signify variance. It can also mean there's a spill over from the war in Syria. That can explain the entire variance. When that war ends, the attacks that relate to that war will also end. Which incidentally, isn't primarily a religious war. At this point it's still just geopolitics. If there's a sharp increase of anything, it means that it's an anomaly. Sorry, but Islam has been around for 1400 years. If there's a sharp increase you've got to find some other cause.

I'm not saying Islam is the religion of peace. I'm just saying that Islamic extremists are like any groups extremists. Neither better nor worse.

All violent extremists re of the same ilk. I think the war in Syria and previous regime change wars such as Libya and Iraq have created a war zone so more of these incidents are likely.

 

[angelo]

Not all moslems are terrorists, but practically all terrorists are moslems!

I did a quick check just in case... yup... you're nuts. In USA about 6% of all terrorist attacks the last 30 years have been Islamic. The same number for Europe is 2%. It's not even more serious in numbers of dead. There's just no way to twist those numbers around to make them work for you.

We just pay more attention to Islamic terrorism. The reality is that militant Islam is just yet another group in the pile of militant groups causing trouble. They are not the most serious or most dangerous. We also know, due to the large numbers of Muslims, living in the west that most Muslims are not militant.

So I'm not sure where you get your numbers from? Is it Jihadwatch possibly? Ie, all they print is lies.

Why do I have this feeling of Dejavu? There have been more than 25000 Islamic terrorists attacks on this planet since 9/11!

 

[DrZoidberg]

I did a quick check just in case... yup... you're nuts. In USA about 6% of all terrorist attacks the last 30 years have been Islamic. The same number for Europe is 2%. It's not even more serious in numbers of dead. There's just no way to twist those numbers around to make them work for you.

We just pay more attention to Islamic terrorism. The reality is that militant Islam is just yet another group in the pile of militant groups causing trouble. They are not the most serious or most dangerous. We also know, due to the large numbers of Muslims, living in the west that most Muslims are not militant.

So I'm not sure where you get your numbers from? Is it Jihadwatch possibly? Ie, all they print is lies.

Why do I have this feeling of Dejavu? There have been more than 25000 Islamic terrorists attacks on this planet since 9/11!

Source? Also I'm missing the comparison number to non-Islamic attacks

 

[angelo]

This is something we should have learnt in 9.11. While difficult to control better road barriers and security are necessary. As a security rule, expect the unexpected.
Security in Europe can be very lax. They hardly look at the passports and in some cases just look at the cover and not always the person. They are clearing crowds fast. I bet if someone entered the French border from Belgium and often from Britain, and stuck his pecker out when he is supposed to show his ID, he would be let through. I must admit I haven't tried that one yet.

All studies show that passport controls and border checks are worthless. This are security theater. They only exist to make you feel safer when boarding planes. Also to make you feel that your government is doing something.

The reality is that anybody can easily commit any terrorist attack. There's just no stopping it.

The police is completely and utterly dependent on defectors and informers within the militant Islamic community to foil plots. Without these guys the cops wouldn't be able to stop a single one.

How about investigate all African and Middle Eastern looking people? It's not politically correct, but human lives are at stake here!

 

[DrZoidberg]

All studies show that passport controls and border checks are worthless. This are security theater. They only exist to make you feel safer when boarding planes. Also to make you feel that your government is doing something.

The reality is that anybody can easily commit any terrorist attack. There's just no stopping it.

The police is completely and utterly dependent on defectors and informers within the militant Islamic community to foil plots. Without these guys the cops wouldn't be able to stop a single one.

How about investigate all African and Middle Eastern looking people? It's not politically correct, but human lives are at stake here!

Ha ha. Didn't know you had humour in you. Thanks for that one

 

[Warpoet]

Ha ha. Didn't know you had humour in you. Thanks for that one

I do wonder sometimes if angelo is actually the work of some meticulous, God-level troll who's just here for the lulz. It would certainly be a more comforting explanation than knowing that we have members of society who are genuinely that dumb.

 

[angelo]

Dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. In the first place, where the hell did I say the FBI was trying to mislead or gained by publishing false numbers? It was loonwatch that was trying to mislead; it's a pro-Islam propaganda site; you bought it hook line and sinker. In the second place, what the hell bearing does whether the FBI gained by publishing false numbers have on the fact that they did? And in the third place, exactly which part of "asinine criteria" don't you understand? The problem isn't that they miscounted something a little bit; the problem is that they were counting the wrong things. What, you think if the FBI didn't have a reason to deliberately mislead people, that this proves that they did their job well? What the hell is wrong with your critical thinking faculties? You can look at their data as easily as I can! The FBI's list of attacks is already linked upthread!

Btw, a bank robbery carried out with the intent to fund a terrorist attack should be considered terrorism. So I'm not sure that is a valid critique. I'm wondering if those kinds of bank robberies are used in the statistic?

4/1/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
7/12/1996 Spokane, WA Pipe Bombing/Bank Robbery Spokane Bank Robbers
...
8/28-29/99 Orange, CA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
10/24/1999 Bellingham, WA Malicious Destruction and Theft Animal Liberation Front
11/20/1999 Puyallup, WA Malicious Destruction Animal Liberation Front
12/25/1999 Monmouth, OR Arson Earth Liberation Front
12/31/1999 East Lansing, MI Arson Earth Liberation Front
1/3/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/15/2000 Petaluma, CA Incendiary Attack Animal Liberation Front
1/22/2000 Bloomington, IN Arson Earth Liberation Front
5/7/2000 Olympia, WA Arson Revenge of the Trees
7/2/2000 North Vernon, IN Arson Animal Liberation Front
7/20/2000 Rhinelander, WI Vandalism Earth Liberation Front

The FBI list includes columns for killed and wounded. The absence of numbers in those columns means "zero".

People are more focused on a few acts of terrorism than on the masses of other crimes for a reason: it's because getting killed is something we take very seriously. Normal people have that in mind when we hear statistics about terrorism. Now, the FBI "is very good at being transparent and being honest about" the fact that by "terrorism", they are including crimes against property, even if you do have to read to the end of their whole dissertation to notice. But Loonwatch wasn't up-front about that discrepancy in definitions when they claimed the FBI says Jews commit more "terrorism" than Muslims, and when they got dozens of other media outlets to repeat their meme. It was rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Europe has similar low numbers for Islamic terrorism. Here's the official EU numbers for 2015. In 2015 there was a sharp increase of Islamic terrorism. Even lower than the American number.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/p_europol_tsat15_09jun15_low-rev.pdf

This report shows a sharp increase. In statistics, what can sharp increase signify? It can signify variance. It can also mean there's a spill over from the war in Syria. That can explain the entire variance. When that war ends, the attacks that relate to that war will also end. Which incidentally, isn't primarily a religious war. At this point it's still just geopolitics. If there's a sharp increase of anything, it means that it's an anomaly. Sorry, but Islam has been around for 1400 years. If there's a sharp increase you've got to find some other cause.

I'm not saying Islam is the religion of peace. I'm just saying that Islamic extremists are like any groups extremists. Neither better nor worse.

Those damn Mormons, Catholic, and all other xtians are responsible for ISIS barbarism! Here I was blaming Moslems for the more than 25.000 terrorists attacks World wide just since 9/11!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Those damn Mormons, Catholic, and all other xtians are responsible for ISIS barbarism! Here I was blaming Moslems for the more than 25.000 terrorists attacks World wide just since 9/11!

The problem is that Mormons, Catholics and the other Christians commit just as much terrorism as Muslims. There's no statistically significant difference. It's like Rule 34 of the Internet, but for terrorism. If it exists, there is somebody committing terrorist acts for its cause.

I just backed up my statement with two different sources. Where are your sources? Let me guess, is it Jihadwatch?

 

[angelo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

You also need to find a list of the non-Islamic attacks for comparison

 

[angelo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

You also need to find a list of the non-Islamic attacks for comparison

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/loonwatch-94-percent.aspx

 

[DrZoidberg]

You also need to find a list of the non-Islamic attacks for comparison

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/loonwatch-94-percent.aspx

Lol. About as reliable source as Jihadwatch.

Hot tip: Stop finding your data on Islamophobic/racist sites. They're just lying.

 

[angelo]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/loonwatch-94-percent.aspx

Lol. About as reliable source as Jihadwatch.

Hot tip: Stop finding your data on Islamophobic/racist sites. They're just lying.

Yes your right. Must make a note, just read leftard and politically correct sources, oh, and buy a set of blinkers.