I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
i dont get how he is wrong though. u can not say white nationalism is rising because of increased immigration and then be shocked when mayos do white nationalist shit like mass murder.
once again conservatives just are autistic on when to make that statement
Because he is saying the cause in white nationalism is justified. Basically, he thinks the shooter was correct, but probably shouldn't have expressed that by killing people.
Although tbh I wouldn't be really surprised if it turns out he was celebrating it
Because he is saying the cause in white nationalism is justified. Basically, he thinks the shooter was correct, but probably shouldn't have expressed that by killing people.
it is pretty clear he is blaming politicians for allowing it and not muslims. the argument is muslims do not assimilate and these politicians allowed too many to immigrate causing unrest
why does any country who has refugees/immigration from muslim countries have issues with them? not even mayo majority countries. do not bother replying.
One nation senators might be the absolute worst at having any hope of their party getting elected, it's like they are hardwired to always say something completely retarded, that makes absolutely nobody like them, at least once a year
But initially elected on the PHON line and a long time member of the party. Only reason he ended up sitting as an independent is because Hanson told him to hide his power level and he said no.
it's like they are hardwired to always say something completely retarded
It's because they are fucking retarded. Imagine releasing a statement criticizing the dead because they happened to be Muslims thinking it will get you followers, after a mass shooting was carried out at a Mosque.
🙋🏼♂️👍🏻 👁👁 🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️👎🏻🙅♂️ Serious posting... get the fuck out.
The guy literally didn't get elected. The person who had his seat before got deported cause they found out he hadn't given up his british citizenship so. So he pretty much got it automatically cause like 16 people voted for him.
This is one of Pauline Hanson's guys? The worst part of the American two-party system is that it tends to exclude ultraspergs from having an entertaining role in politics.
except for early fire and brimstone Christians.. yeah nah.. atleast for consistency sake Islam is a bit special. Islam only had it's hippy phase early, and no where near where the expansions were going on.
Yeah we need to make no mistake. Islam is probably the worst religion on Earth currently. But the reason it's the worst is because it is used to justify violence and terrorism. So if you commit violence and terrorism against them then you are just as bad
Australia’s had four Islamist “terror” incidents ever, not counting a failed conspiracy, and only one actually killed somebody. NZ’s never had a successful Islamist attack, only protest bombings.
On the other hand, Wikipedia claims this demonstrates that in the UK, most 21st century terrorist incidents have been Islamist, but going case-by-case shows them about even with far-right extremists (7 incidents each by my count) and actually BEHIND left-wing extremists due to all the bombs they set up between 2000 and 2008.
Trying to find stats for the other usual suspects is a clusterfuck: Germany has had dozens of terror attacks per year since the 70s and doesn’t poll by motive, so wading through that is a shitshow, but all colors of ideology are well represented. It’s a sin to ask questions in France, so they don’t publish stats.
Lol there’s a couple of problems with your link buddy. First off, it ONLY includes right wing and Islamic examples of terrorism. It does not include any other types of terrorism. Funny thing is the definition of terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims”. Now, if that study was to include the informal politics of non-white gangs (like it did with with white gangs) and other forms of terrorism, suddenly the numbers would change. Weird how It counts attacks such as “white man kills homeless man as part of gang initiation” but doesn’t include: “African American teen kills teen girl after raping her as part of a gang initiation”. Guess it’s easy to say most terrorism is “right-wing” when you don’t include the same acts committed by non-white people. Very convenient 🤔🤔https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/06/18/gruesome-killing-of-baltimore-teen-part-of-gang-initiation/amp/
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find any statistics for Australia that were specifically separated out by religion or race but looking at the U.S. it most likely would be similar. I was certainly able to find more than a couple of Islamic attacks from recent years though.
I personally don’t count Wikipedia as a credible source because it is too easy to edit and has had past credibility issues in regards to editing.
Also, go ahead and see what percent of Muslims who follow Islamic practices in the United States and look at that chart again. (1.1% of the population making up more than half the fatalities overall for that set of years? And that’s not even considering the population has grown since most of those attacks🤔🤔🤔🤔). For comparison, whites make up about 65% of the overall US population. Imagine if the Muslim population was bigger. Proportionality wise kinds of proves this guys point; although it was really obtuse of him to bring it up right after a bunch of innocent people lost their lives.
Lastly, if you are trying to point out the violence problem, these terrorist attacks reported in your first link are a drop in the bucket compared to the “terrorist acts it didn’t count. Interpretation is just as important as important as the statistics themselves.
First off, it ONLY includes right wing and Islamic examples of terrorism. It does not include any other types of terrorism.
Wouldn’t accounting for more types of terrorism just reduce the share occupied by Islamists?
Now, if that study was to include the informal politics of non-white gangs (like it did with with white gangs) and other forms of terrorism, suddenly the numbers would change.
In what way?
Guess it’s easy to say most terrorism is “right-wing” when you don’t include the same acts committed by non-white people.
Are you implying Columbians or Koreans can’t be right-wing?
Weird how It counts attacks such as “white man kills homeless man as part of gang initiation” but doesn’t include: “African American teen kills teen girl after raping her as part of a gang initiation”.
Neither of those sound like terrorism from the description you provided, but it’s at least plausible for the former.
I personally don’t count Wikipedia as a credible source because it is too easy to edit and has had past credibility issues in regards to editing.
I agree, which is why I’m looking specifcally at the primary sources linked on Wikipedia rather placing much stock in their interpretations of those sources.
Second, here’s USA crime statistics that shows who is committing the mass majority of murders as a whole
Who gives a fuck about that? It’s a conversation about terrorism. Most murders are performed either out of rage/fear or for financial gain.
Also, go ahead and see what percent of Muslims who follow Islamic practices in the United States and look at that chart again
I did
1.1% of the population making up more than half the fatalities overall for that set of years?
Come on lol, you know that’s entirely because of a single incident. Two if you count Miami.
It doesn’t mean they’re more likely to murder than neo-Nazis. It means they’re more likely to murder COMPETENTLY.
For comparison, whites make up about 65% of the overall US population.
Sure, if you count Arabs and... like 25% of Hispanics? Weird figure.
Imagine if the Muslim population was bigger.
Then they’d have even fewer murders per capita. What are you getting at?
Lastly, if you are trying to point out the violence problem
what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim
You are saying right here that most “western terrorism” is far right right based off that link you posted, which, I already deconstructed how your link does not illustrate this. Did you forget that you posted this?
Wouldn’t accounting for more types of terrorism just reduce the share occupied by Islamists?
Yes, it would. With that being said, proportionality wise how small the Muslim population was at the times of most of those attacks (under 1%) compared to how many attacks they conducted was still proportionally more than most other races. What counts here is that there were so little Muslims yet they were practically keeping up with right-wing “terrorism” in that link. Less than 1% of the population just behind the amount of attacks committed by 65% of the population? Are you fucking kidding me?
Now, if that study was to include the informal politics of non-white gangs (like it did with with white gangs) and other forms of terrorism, suddenly the numbers would change.
In what way?
Um oh boy, are you completely unaware of the black and Mexican gang violence problem in America? Going back to my example, if the link you provided were to include non-white gang acts like it did for white gang acts, it wouldn’t be a neat page worth of information like it was with the “right-wing” terrorist acts. Remember, the link you posted defined “gang violence” as terrorism.
For starters, 13% of African Americans commit approximately 50% of murders total (in the US). It’s even less when you take out the elderly, children, and women. The majority of those murders are gang related, and counted as “terrorism” according to your link. That same link did not include these statistics at all though, hence, why I pointed it out in my previous comment.
Are you implying Columbians or Koreans can’t be right-wing?
Sure they can, but they weren’t included in that link. Only two types of “terrorists” were included in that link.
Neither of those sound like terrorism from the description you provided, but it’s at least plausible for the former.
That isn’t my definition of terrorism, that first example is a case of “terrorism” I pulled straight off of your link. How in the fuck is it plausible for the former? Tell me why two identical acts committed for the same reason would make one a terrorist but not the other?
I agree, which is why I’m looking specifcally at the primary sources linked on Wikipedia rather placing much stock in their interpretations of those sources.
Bro, you posted a link that had over 1000+ pages talking about Iraq. I don’t know where you pulled your “sources” from or if you expected me to read the 1000+ pages to find the specific examples you posted.
Who gives a fuck about that? It’s a conversation about terrorism. Most murders are performed either out of rage/fear or for financial gain.
Apparently you do because again, your link provided examples of white gang violence under it’s examples of right-wing “terrorism”. Your very first post was saying that most instances of terrorism in the west are right-wing when your link obliviously is leaving out the same actions committed by non-white people. The crime statistics I provided show the murder rate by race. Now, right off the bat we can see that other racial gang groups vastly outnumber whites: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics#anchorregm
Gang violence committed by non-white gangs vastly outnumbers white gang violence (and all the other examples of right-wing terrorism for that matter).
What in the actual fuck? I am only showing you examples of statistics that would be counted as “terrorism” by your link. If you don’t think acts committed by gangs should count as terrorism, then you shouldn’t have used a link that quantified gang violence as terrorism and base statements off of it. If you would like to use a source that shows only acts that count as “terrorism” according to you to prove your point, then go ahead, no one is stopping you. You are arguing against the link you provided.
Come on lol, you know that’s entirely because of a single incident. Two if you count Miami.
Lol 😂 are you fucking serious? Proportionality is what I was pointing out here. Islamic incidents are barely trailing behind right-wing acts of “terrorism” in your group. Less than 1% of the population committing acts (that, remember, is including white gang violence) at a rate of 65% of the population. That’s a fucking lot. To put it into perspective, if white people were to murder at the same rate, THOUSANDS would be dead versus dozens from those “terrorist attacks”.
Actually, according to you, since gang violence doesn’t count as “terrorism” the “right-wing” terrorism in the link you provided would drop to near 0, actually putting the 1% ahead of the 65%. Holy shit
It doesn’t mean they’re more likely to murder than neo-Nazis. It means they’re more likely to murder COMPETENTLY.
YES IT FUCKING DOES. Omg, you really don’t understand what a proportion is, do you?
Sure, if you count Arabs and... like 25% of Hispanics? Weird figure.
I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Caucasians are approximately 65% of the overall U.S. population. This most be a red herring because this sentence makes no sense. Please speak English and provide sources.
Then they’d have even fewer murders per capita. What are you getting at?
Are you serious? There’s no fucking way you could be serious. Read through my previous comments explaining “proportionality”. This is either a straight up lie or willful ignorance.
Lastly, if you are trying to point out the violence problem
I’m not, so we should be good here
But you are trying to say most acts of terrorism in the west are right-wing, which, I proved is an incorrect statement in the course of this comment. FFS🤦🏼♀️
You are saying right here that most “western terrorism” is far right right based off that link you posted, which, I already deconstructed how your link does not illustrate this.
But I said that my link doesn’t illustrate that up front. It illustrates that being the case for the US specifically.
Yes, it would. With that being said, proportionality wise how small the Muslim population was at the times of most of those attacks (under 1%) compared to how many attacks they conducted was still proportionally more than most other races.
Hang on, I thought “Islam isn’t a race”
Anyway yeah, they’re disproportionately likely to be either the perpetrator or the victim of political/separatist violence, that’s how maligned groups tend to fare
What counts here is that there were so little Muslims yet they were practically keeping up with right-wing “terrorism” in that link.
No they’re not lol, they’re 1/3 as common.
Less than 1% of the population just behind the amount of attacks committed by 65% of the population?
What? All attacks are committed by less than 1% of the population lol. And significantly so.
Um oh boy, are you completely unaware of the black and Mexican gang violence problem in America?
I’m aware. Are you under the impression they perform “terrorism” more frequently than far-right groups? And if so, based on what?
The majority of those murders are gang related, and counted as “terrorism” according to your link.
Wtf are you talking about lol? Where does it claim “the majority” of murders or gang-related murders are “counted as terrorism”?
Are you just making shit up?
Sure they can, but they weren’t included in that link. Only two types of “terrorists” were included in that link.
The suggestion that only white supremacists were accounted for is blatantly false. They just happen to be responsible for the MAJORITY of far-right terrorism.
that first example is a case of “terrorism” I pulled straight off of your link.
Yes, but you didn’t include any details demonstrating that killing said homeless person was politically motivated (though that was implied), meant to intimidate a mass of people and foster notoriety. Without those details mentioned, it doesn’t sound much like terrorism, does it?
Tell me why two identical acts committed for the same reason would make one a terrorist but not the other?
Because they’re not committed for the same reason? Really not that difficult to understand.
Apparently you do because again, your link provided examples of white gang violence under it’s examples of right-wing “terrorism”.
It includes three acts of violence committed by gangs, none of which were part of the territorial/power disputes or extortion that make up the majority of gang violence, you dope.
It doesn’t just include ANY act of violence by a white gang.
Now, right off the bat we can see that other racial gang groups vastly outnumber whites
Which makes them responsible for more gang violence. Not more terrorism.
You are arguing against the link you provided.
No, you just seem to assume these three terrorist incidents constitute the entirety of white supremacist gang violence, when that obviously isn’t true.
Proportionality is what I was pointing out here. Omg, you really don’t understand what a proportion is, do you?
Again— unless there are over 10.73 million right-wing radicals in the US, they’re committing terror at a higher proportional rate.
Less than 1% of the population committing acts (that, remember, is including white gang violence) at a rate of 65% of the population
Just to reiterate, they don’t include white gang violence. White gangs just happen to commit acts of terror sometimes.
And being “white” isn’t an ideology lol, so using all white people as your pool of potential terrorists seems a bit silly lol. That “white” figure probably includes most of the Islamists, actually, Arabs are typically counted as white.
Actually, according to you, since gang violence doesn’t count as “terrorism” the “right-wing” terrorism in the link you provided would drop to near 0
seriously nigga none of that shit is “gang violence” lol, only 3 incidents even mention a gang. did you just see the word “gang” and assume that was the entire list?
Caucasians are approximately 65% of the overall U.S. population.
While I maintain this is not significant anyway, that’s not quite true. Non-Hispanic Whites, including Arabs, account for 60.7% of the population.
Hence, to get 65% you’d need to include Arabs and “like 25% of Hispanics.”
Are you serious? There’s no fucking way you could be serious. Read through my previous comments explaining “proportionality”.
Are you slow or something? I mean, you know Muslims aren’t actively driving the average up, right?
The deaths per capita of Muslims has been overwhelmingly driven by just a couple notable attacks, after which measures were taken to greatly reduce the possibility of them being recreated.
When outliers are pruned, murders performed by the Muslim population occur at a MUCH lower rate than the statistical average influenced by said outliers. This makes it overwhelmingly likely than an uptick in the concentration of Muslims
But you are trying to say most acts of terrorism in the west are right-wing
what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim
But I said that my link doesn’t illustrate that up front. It illustrates that being the case for the US specifically.
Lol dude, look at your first comment again. You said “most western terrorist attacks” and then backtracked and said “U.S. specifically”. Which is it since you can’t make up your mind?
Dude, in your first statement you even referred to the Islamic extremists as “Muslims”. You are literally backtracking and contradicting your own statements once again😂
Anyway yeah, they’re disproportionately likely to be either the perpetrator or the victim of political/separatist violence, that’s how maligned groups tend to fare
Again, please provide sources otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass.
No they’re not lol, they’re 1/3 as common.
Dude, again please learn what “proportionality” means.
Less than 1% of the population just behind the amount of attacks committed by 65% of the population?
What? All attacks are committed by less than 1% of the population lol. And significantly so.
Source or any proof whatsoever? Again, according to the one and only link you provided with such information, it defined any “right-wing” attacker as a white person who held some or all the following beliefs: belief in a need to be prepared for an attack (“preppers”), fiercely nationalistic, suspicious of centralized federal authority, anti-global, belief that one’s way of life is under attack or changing, reverent of individual liberty, etc. do you realize how vague of a definition that is? Someone would not even need all the beliefs listed to be considered “right-wing”. ** By this definition, libertarians would count as “right-wing”. **You do realize that by counting just white libertarians alone that makes up way more than 1% of the of the population, right? That doesn’t even come close to counting the percent of the population that would fall under “right-wing” according to your link. But, let me guess, you thought they would use some kind of blaring, foaming-at-mouth, neo-nazi description for “right-wing” people, right? My fucking sides
Are you going to finally admit that you’re grasping at straws trying to prove “right-wing” terrorism is the biggest western terrorist threat or actually provide at least one source? Just one, that’s all we’re asking for. Even one that is close to your point.
I’m aware. Are you under the impression they perform “terrorism” more frequently than far-right groups? And if so, based on what?
Again, I’m not sure I can dumb this down to your comprehension level dude. I’ve already explained this several times. Based off of your link you used to assert your point, it listed examples in of white gang violence under its “scopes and definition” section (page 29 and beyond) of “right-wing” terrorism. The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs and were not included. Again, based on your link, did you even bother reading through it or did you just find something with the right “buzzwords” and post blind? I don’t understand how to explain something that you used to make your own assertions.
Please, read your source that you linked or provide a source that at least comes close to resembling some kind of point.
Wtf are you talking about lol? Where does it claim “the majority” of murders or gang-related murders are “counted as terrorism”?
Are you just making shit up?
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted. There is no way you actually read your own link because this is literally in black and white on that link. You got to be playing me.
Sure they can, but they weren’t included in that link. Only two types of “terrorists” were included in that link.
The suggestion that only white supremacists were accounted for is blatantly false. They just happen to be responsible for the MAJORITY of far-right terrorism.
Lol the majority of Americans were defined as “right-wing” according to your link. Go ahead and read the definition for what counts as “right-wing” that I copied and pasted from your link. It’s actually really sad how you keep making assertions without providing any further links (or any proof, for that matter) and defending your problematic link.
that first example is a case of “terrorism” I pulled straight off of your link.
Yes, but you didn’t include any details demonstrating that killing said homeless person was politically motivated (though that was implied), meant to intimidate a mass of people and foster notoriety. Without those details mentioned, it doesn’t sound much like terrorism, does it?
Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? Jesus Christ you really aren’t able to assemble any kind of logic, are you? Where is that implied? Nobody is getting that from this source but you. Perhaps since it’s the only source you provided you keep grasping onto it hoping it will at some prove your point.
You used this link as proof to assert “what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim”. That is your links definition of terrorism, not mine. If it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
It’s quite astonishing how how you simultaneously use your link as a reference and argue the sources pulled straight from it at the same time. Amazing.
Tell me why two identical acts committed for the same reason would make one a terrorist but not the other?
Because they’re not committed for the same reason? Really not that difficult to understand.
Ok, so explain how a gang initiation is different from a hang initiation? Peak smooth brain reasoning here.
It includes three acts of violence committed by gangs, none of which were part of the territorial/power disputes or extortion that make up the majority of gang violence, you dope.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted anyone, NEVER happened. And I and everyone else pointing out how you are wrong are all dopes, right. I would say “provide a source” but it’s pretty clear that you are making stuff up.
Now, right off the bat we can see that other racial gang groups vastly outnumber whites
Which makes them responsible for more gang violence. Not more terrorism.
I literally don’t know how to dumb this down so you understand your own link. Like, I already copied and pasted statements and explained the problem with it. You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there. There’s like nothing else I could say that the source has already disproved for you. 🤦🏼♀️
No, you just seem to assume these three terrorist incidents constitute the entirety of white supremacist gang violence, when that obviously isn’t true.
You can’t make up your mind whether gang violence does or does not count according to your own statements. You keep going back and forth on this. Stick to one premise and decide whether you want to use it or not.
Again— unless there are over 10.73 million right-wing radicals in the US, they’re committing terror at a higher proportional rate.
Just to reiterate, they don’t include white gang violence. White gangs just happen to commit acts of terror sometimes.
Sure, white gangs commit acts of terror sometimes. I’m not sure who the “they” is that you’re referring to here. I already went over who are defined as “right-wing” earlier in this post according to that source.
And being “white” isn’t an ideology lol, so using all white people as your pool of potential terrorists seems a bit silly lol. That “white” figure probably includes most of the Islamists, actually, Arabs are typically counted as white.
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
seriously nigga none of that shit is “gang violence” lol, only 3 incidents even mention a gang. did you just see the word “gang” and assume that was the entire list?
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism. It’s also more than “3” that have gang references. Aryan Brotherhood is a gang btw. And, using your own logic, “there doesn’t seem to be enough information” to absolutely conclude that none of the other white supremacists in the link were part of racial gangs either.
Caucasians are approximately 65% of the overall U.S. population.
While I maintain this is not significant anyway, that’s not quite true. Non-Hispanic Whites, including Arabs, account for 60.7% of the population.
Provide a source then, because I’ve already provided several that show otherwise.
Are you serious? There’s no fucking way you could be serious. Read through my previous comments explaining “proportionality”.
Are you slow or something? I mean, you know Muslims aren’t actively driving the average up, right?
🤦🏼♀️there’s hardly any Muslims you dolt. Smdh
The deaths per capita of Muslims has been overwhelmingly driven by just a couple notable attacks, after which measures were taken to greatly reduce the possibility of them being recreated.
Proportions, if you don’t get them I’m not a math teacher.
Do you understand the concept of outliers?
Let me guess, instead of admitting you are wrong, you are going to continue to spread your lies as if they were true?
I haven’t “lied” once lol. You’ve just yet to say something even remotely convincing.
You’re not using any other links to prove your points because you don’t have any sources that proves your point.
Surely you understand that introducing more links would just complicate things? You haven’t even managed to understand the first one yet.
the dumb people will continue to think Neo-Nazis and the KKK are the biggest terrorist threat facing western countries right now
Who the fuck thinks the KKK is a major terrorist threat, much less one to countries that aren’t America? It’s a lot easier to argue with strawmen, I guess.
You wanna know a secret, though? There is no terrorist threat. At least not presently.
Oh Jesus, you literally keep changing your mind on what your point is so there is no pointing out anything for you if you don’t even have any beliefs you stand behind.
I would post a compare and contrast but I’m feeling lazy.
what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim
But I said that my link doesn’t illustrate that up front. It illustrates that being the case for the US specifically.
Lol dude, look at your first comment again. You said “most western terrorist attacks” and then backtracked and said “U.S. specifically”. Which is it since you can’t make up your mind?
Dude, in your first statement you even referred to the Islamic extremists as “Muslims”. You are literally backtracking and contradicting your own statements once again😂
Anyway yeah, they’re disproportionately likely to be either the perpetrator or the victim of political/separatist violence, that’s how maligned groups tend to fare
Again, please provide sources otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass.
No they’re not lol, they’re 1/3 as common.
Dude, again please learn what “proportionality” means.
Less than 1% of the population just behind the amount of attacks committed by 65% of the population?
What? All attacks are committed by less than 1% of the population lol. And significantly so.
Source or any proof whatsoever? Again, according to the one and only link you provided with such information, it defined any “right-wing” attacker as a white person who held some or all the following beliefs: belief in a need to be prepared for an attack (“preppers”), fiercely nationalistic, suspicious of centralized federal authority, anti-global, belief that one’s way of life is under attack or changing, reverent of individual liberty, etc. do you realize how vague of a definition that is? Someone would not even need all the beliefs listed to be considered “right-wing”. ** By this definition, libertarians would count as “right-wing”. **You do realize that by counting just white libertarians alone that makes up way more than 1% of the of the population, right? That doesn’t even come close to counting the percent of the population that would fall under “right-wing” according to your link. But, let me guess, you thought they would use some kind of blaring, foaming-at-mouth, neo-nazi description for “right-wing” people, right? My fucking sides
Are you going to finally admit that you’re grasping at straws trying to prove “right-wing” terrorism is the biggest western terrorist threat or actually provide at least one source? Just one, that’s all we’re asking for. Even one that is close to your point.
I’m aware. Are you under the impression they perform “terrorism” more frequently than far-right groups? And if so, based on what?
Again, I’m not sure I can dumb this down to your comprehension level dude. I’ve already explained this several times. Based off of your link you used to assert your point, it listed examples in of white gang violence under its “scopes and definition” section (page 29 and beyond) of “right-wing” terrorism. The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs and were not included. Again, based on your link, did you even bother reading through it or did you just find something with the right “buzzwords” and post blind? I don’t understand how to explain something that you used to make your own assertions.
Please, read your source that you linked or provide a source that at least comes close to resembling some kind of point.
Wtf are you talking about lol? Where does it claim “the majority” of murders or gang-related murders are “counted as terrorism”?
Are you just making shit up?
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted. There is no way you actually read your own link because this is literally in black and white on that link. You got to be playing me.
Sure they can, but they weren’t included in that link. Only two types of “terrorists” were included in that link.
The suggestion that only white supremacists were accounted for is blatantly false. They just happen to be responsible for the MAJORITY of far-right terrorism.
Lol the majority of Americans were defined as “right-wing” according to your link. Go ahead and read the definition for what counts as “right-wing” that I copied and pasted from your link. It’s actually really sad how you keep making assertions without providing any further links (or any proof, for that matter) and defending your problematic link.
that first example is a case of “terrorism” I pulled straight off of your link.
Yes, but you didn’t include any details demonstrating that killing said homeless person was politically motivated (though that was implied), meant to intimidate a mass of people and foster notoriety. Without those details mentioned, it doesn’t sound much like terrorism, does it?
Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? Jesus Christ you really aren’t able to assemble any kind of logic, are you? Where is that implied? Nobody is getting that from this source but you. Perhaps since it’s the only source you provided you keep grasping onto it hoping it will at some prove your point.
You used this link as proof to assert “what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim”. That is your links definition of terrorism, not mine. If it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
It’s quite astonishing how how you simultaneously use your link as a reference and argue the sources pulled straight from it at the same time. Amazing.
Tell me why two identical acts committed for the same reason would make one a terrorist but not the other?
Because they’re not committed for the same reason? Really not that difficult to understand.
Ok, so explain how a gang initiation is different from a hang initiation? Peak smooth brain reasoning here.
It includes three acts of violence committed by gangs, none of which were part of the territorial/power disputes or extortion that make up the majority of gang violence, you dope.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted anyone, NEVER happened. And I and everyone else pointing out how you are wrong are all dopes, right. I would say “provide a source” but it’s pretty clear that you are making stuff up.
Now, right off the bat we can see that other racial gang groups vastly outnumber whites
Which makes them responsible for more gang violence. Not more terrorism.
I literally don’t know how to dumb this down so you understand your own link. Like, I already copied and pasted statements and explained the problem with it. You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there. There’s like nothing else I could say that the source has already disproved for you. 🤦🏼♀️
No, you just seem to assume these three terrorist incidents constitute the entirety of white supremacist gang violence, when that obviously isn’t true.
You can’t make up your mind whether gang violence does or does not count according to your own statements. You keep going back and forth on this. Stick to one premise and decide whether you want to use it or not.
Again— unless there are over 10.73 million right-wing radicals in the US, they’re committing terror at a higher proportional rate.
Just to reiterate, they don’t include white gang violence. White gangs just happen to commit acts of terror sometimes.
Sure, white gangs commit acts of terror sometimes. I’m not sure who the “they” is that you’re referring to here. I already went over who are defined as “right-wing” earlier in this post according to that source.
And being “white” isn’t an ideology lol, so using all white people as your pool of potential terrorists seems a bit silly lol. That “white” figure probably includes most of the Islamists, actually, Arabs are typically counted as white.
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
seriously nigga none of that shit is “gang violence” lol, only 3 incidents even mention a gang. did you just see the word “gang” and assume that was the entire list?
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism. It’s also more than “3” that have gang references. Aryan Brotherhood is a gang btw. And, using your own logic, “there doesn’t seem to be enough information” to absolutely conclude that none of the other white supremacists in the link were part of racial gangs either.
Caucasians are approximately 65% of the overall U.S. population.
While I maintain this is not significant anyway, that’s not quite true. Non-Hispanic Whites, including Arabs, account for 60.7% of the population.
Provide a source then, because I’ve already provided several that show otherwise.
Are you serious? There’s no fucking way you could be serious. Read through my previous comments explaining “proportionality”.
Are you slow or something? I mean, you know Muslims aren’t actively driving the average up, right?
🤦🏼♀️there’s hardly any Muslims you dolt. Smdh
The deaths per capita of Muslims has been overwhelmingly driven by just a couple notable attacks, after which measures were taken to greatly reduce the possibility of them being recreated.
This still holds no matter what subsection of the population you look at.
By this definition, libertarians would count as “right-wing”.
“Libertarians” as they’re called in America are right-wing (though many if not most of them would not fit the definition in the document). They’re just not radicals or far-right, like all the people who are actually listed in the document.
But, let me guess, you thought they would use some kind of blaring, foaming-at-mouth, neo-nazi description for “right-wing” people, right?
No, it just so happens those are most of the terrorists. Again, look at who is ACTUALLY committing the attacks.
Again, I’m not sure I can dumb this down to your comprehension level dude.
Pretty ironic to see this coming from the guy who saw the word “gang” and immediately assumed all white gang violence was counted lol.
Who also interpreted me explaining the difference as the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.
The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs and were not included.
Now here’s my chance to ask YOU for a source, because that sounds like bullshit to me. Just how common do you think killing homeless people or attacking groups on the basis of race is in gang initiations?
I don’t understand how to explain something that you used to make your own assertions.
Well you can start by actually reading some of the attacks, instead of looking for keywords and making ridiculous assumptions based upon them.
Lol the majority of Americans were defined as “right-wing” according to your link.
The majority of Americans aren’t “prepared for an attack” or “fiercely nationalistic” lol. Do you live in Montana or something?
Again though, I don’t care about all right-wingers
Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons?
NO. That’s why MOST white supremacist gang violence is not listed as terrorism.
It it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
Because you described it in a way that specifically omits anything that makes it sound like terrorism. Christ, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?
Ok, so explain how a gang initiation is different from a hang [sic] initiation?
Killing a rival gang member is discriminate and intended to establish notoriety with that rival gang. Killing a random homeless guy is indiscriminate and is intended to establish notoriety with a DEMOGRAPHIC.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted [sic] anyone, NEVER happened.
Are you actually retarded? I specifically said those AREN’T terrorism.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted.
I did. Again, three incidents were “gang-related.”
And you’ll notice it doesn’t include any typical cases of gang violence, because AGAIN, not all white gang violence is counted in the document. Only terrorist violence.
How many times do I have to repeat this to get it into your head?
this is literally in black and white on that link
But it fucking doesn’t? You’re stretching their claims WAY past what could be considered reasonable without understanding why they made the designation.
your link obliviously is leaving out the same actions committed by non-white people.
You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there.
BAHAHAHAHA
being “white” isn’t an ideology lol
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
That’s not exactly relevant to what I’m saying, now, is it? All of these cases of terrorism, save for the Oregon incident, fit into a MUCH narrower ideological group, one that’s much more clearly connected to the incidents in question.
That group, which I’m referring to as “FAR right,” is what I’m arguing should be considered for the sake of proportionality.
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism.
While I think this is a bit too broad personally, the US defines terrorism as unlawful acts of violence that indiscriminately jeopardize human life for the sake of political or social intimidation.
It’s typically conducted for the sake of ideology and infamy.
Provide a source then, because I’ve already provided several that show otherwise.
You were responding to my second comment. There’s nothing I could’ve linked that breaks down terrorist motivations in all “western” countries.
Um no, I was responding to all of your statements. If you don’t believe that, then why’d you say it? Again with the contradictions. This was your entire point I was responding to and that you have not defended.
...you mean 100%? That’s what “Muslim” means lol. That’s not a race either.
No, it isn’t but you keep making certain assertions and then arguing against your own assertions so I used your words. You keep changing your mind on Muslims not meaning followers of Islam or not.
Not sure what you think that Pew page shows. And you know you have to get killed or sterilized to win a Darwin Award, right?
Then read it. That was a joke.
Because they are, you absolute fucking retard. How do you expect to argue about Muslims if you don’t even know what “Muslim” means?
Dude, again using your words, and I’m the retard😂
Done. Same deal in Europe, too.
Dude, those were the statistics for only hate crimes🤦🏼♀️. Not sure if you understand that that is only one type of crime. I already provided an overall crime rate for the U.S.
Again, how many white nationalists do you think there are in the US?
Not sure how many types I have to type this but that link you provided did not define “right-wing” acts of terror as acts only committed by white nationalists. That list of what defined a “right-wing” terrorist was vague enough to cover most of the white population of America.
All attacks are committed by less than 1% of the population.
Source or any proof whatsoever?
It’s common fucking sense, but alright. Here’s the data for all violent crime, including things that you probably wouldn’t consider “attacks” and repeat offenses from the same people. Notice how it never even reached half a percent.
Dude, this is the fucking link I used earlier! Are you fucking kidding me? Did you have a stroke or something? Dude, you literally paraphrased me. Copying and pasting from my earlier posts is not providing sources FFS🤦🏼♀️
”Libertarians” as they’re called in America are right-wing (though many if not most of them would not fit the definition in the document). They’re just not radicals or far-right, like all the people who are actually listed in the document.
You do realize that liberal libertarianism is a thing, right? And this is just one group that could count under that definition, not all.
No, it just so happens those are most of the terrorists. Again, look at who is ACTUALLY committing the attacks.
🤦🏼♀️ we already went over this. I’m done typing the same shit over and over.
Pretty ironic to see this coming from the guy who saw the word “gang” and immediately assumed all white gang violence was counted lol.
😂go ahead and point out where I said that dude. Omg you can’t make this shit up. You are making shit up that never happened. Go ahead and quote me🤣
Now here’s my chance to ask YOU for a source, because that sounds like bullshit to me. Just how common do you think killing homeless people or attacking groups on the basis of race is in gang initiations?
I ALREADY PROVIDED A SOURCE. Did you even bother opening any of them?
Well you can start by actually reading some of the attacks, instead of looking for keywords and making ridiculous assumptions based upon them.
This is what you have been doing the entire time, hence why I have used your own quotes several times.
The majority of Americans aren’t “prepared for an attack” or “fiercely nationalistic” lol. Do you live in Montana or something?
Again, someone would only need one of those qualities to qualify. These are 2 items on a long list of things.
Again though, I don’t care about all right-wingers
Your profile would beg to defer: u/grungebot5000
NO. That’s why MOST white supremacist gang violence is not listed as terrorism.
It it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
Because you described it in a way that specifically omits anything that makes it sound like terrorism. Christ, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?
Lol but yet, you don’t provide any links stating otherwise. Paraphrasing your own words: the link uses too vague of examples to truly define why incidents maybe listed and some are possibly not. Again, you are inserting your own ideas in here that are not explicitly stated anywhere in any of your statistics or sources. Sorry, but I’m not going to assume anything and I only care about the facts and statistics, making shit up is your forte buddy. You don’t seem to realize how I am pulling from your link, it’s not my definitions🤣
Killing a rival gang member is discriminate and intended to establish notoriety with that rival gang. Killing a random homeless guy is indiscriminate and is intended to establish notoriety with a DEMOGRAPHIC.
So, hold up, no non-white gangs have ever killed someone who is not a rival gang member? That’s fucking hilarious.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted [sic] anyone, NEVER happened.
Are you actually retarded? I specifically said those AREN’T terrorism.
Google results for terrorism:”the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
So, no non-white gang ever uses violence and intimidation for political gangs. Righttttt buddy.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted.
I did. Again, three incidents were “gang-related.”
Dude, at least 4 included references to a gang and that’s not counting the one using Aryan Brotherhood, which is a gang. And, to point out what you said earlier, there’s not enough details to tell whether the other ones were gang related/associated or not.
And you’ll notice it doesn’t include any typical cases of gang violence, because AGAIN, not all white gang violence is counted in the document. Only terrorist violence.
How many times do I have to repeat this to get it into your head?
Dude, I don’t think you’re comprehending that the link you sourced had a very vague definition on what it counted as “terrorist” violence. You even said yourself that there are not much details.
But it fucking doesn’t? You’re stretching their claims WAY past what could be considered reasonable without understanding why they made the designation.
But yet you admit that the only previously provided source from you “didn’t have much details” 🤔 so, which is it, we make up our own definitions or use your source that you admitted was flawed?
You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there.
BAHAHAHAHA
Nice, you don’t bother to counter because it’s accurate.
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
That’s not exactly relevant to what I’m saying, now, is it? All of these cases of terrorism, save for the Oregon incident, fit into a MUCH narrower ideological group, one that’s much more clearly connected to the incidents in question.
That group, which I’m referring to as “FAR right,” is what I’m arguing should be considered for the sake of proportionality.
Yes, everyone got what YOU considered “far-right”. But as I said in my previous statements, what your link used as a definition was different. I went by the descriptions of “far-right” from your link, where just by counting libertarians alone would make it more than 1% of the population. The word used for most of these examples was “white supremacist”. Now, there have been other racial supremacy groups
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism.
While I think this is a bit too broad personally, the US defines terrorism as unlawful acts of violence that indiscriminately jeopardize human life for the sake of political or social intimidation.
It’s typically conducted for the sake of ideology and infamy.
And no you haven’t lol. What sources?
Everything gangs do is for “social” intimidation . Politics defined is:the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Every gang is fighting for power and governance over terroritories. That is their entire point. In some countries gangs are more prevalent and more politically involved country governance like in Mexico:https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5324888/mexico-violence-murders.
That link is leaving out a bunch of incidents it would count as terrorist attacks by its definition.
Another problem with that link is that it only counts certain incidents and the fatalities, but doesn’t include attempts or non-fatalities, so it wouldn’t even be an accurate summary for either types of terrorism by itself. Not all terrorist attacks result in fatalities.
And when I said source I meant one relevant to your points. None of which have been.
there’s like 35 million of em in America alone, babe
No sign of proving your point that most western terrorists are right-wing unless you provide some sources that show either your definition of terrorism or a complete set of terrorism statistics.
Here’s also a video that talks about the radicalization of Muslims in a handful of countries: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg
I do believe that, but I’m basing that belief on the disproportionate amount of far-right violence coming out of the US and Germany, two of the four countries with the most notable examples of Islamic terror (the other two having much lower terrorism rates overall). But my link only discussed the US.
You keep changing your mind on Muslims not meaning followers of Islam or not.
The hell are you talking about? I’ve known what “Muslim” means just about my entire life, I wouldn’t argue it meant something else.
Then read it.
I did. It doesn’t weigh in on the number of Muslims who “follow Islam,” bc that would be fucking retarded. They’d be polling for a tautology.
Dude, again using your words
What fucking words? Because it seems to me you’re trying to cover for your lack of basic understanding with poor reading comprehension.
Dude, those were the statistics for only hate crimes🤦🏼♀️. Not sure if you understand that that is only one type of crime.
I didn’t say anything about “all crime.” I said “political/separatist violence.”
That being said, immigrant groups usually do have lower violent crime rates overall. Though there are occasional exceptions.
that link you provided did not define “right-wing” acts of terror as acts only committed by white nationalists.
They constituted the wide majority, though.
That list of what defined a “right-wing” terrorist was vague enough to cover most of the white population of America.
Again, I disagree, but it’s irrelevant anyway. It doesn’t matter who COULD have been considered right-wing. What matters is the types of right-wingers who ACTUALLY commit terrorism.
Dude, this is the fucking link I used earlier!
Then you’ve obviously read it, and understand that it supports my claim that under 1% of the population commits attacks.
Copying and pasting from my earlier posts is not providing sources FFS
Why not? If we already have the source, why bother adding redundant info?
go ahead and point out where I said that dude
Ok
“Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? ”
“Less than 1% of the population committing acts (that, remember, is including white gang violence) at a rate of 65% of the population”
“The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs”
This clearly demonstrates an inability to differentiate between normal white gang violence and terrorism committed by white gangs.
Your profile would beg to defer: u/grungebot5000
The word you’re looking for is “differ,” and you’re being deliberately dense. I think Libertarian economic policy is harmful, that doesn’t mean I think Libertarianism has anywhere near as high a radicalizing potential as white supremacism, Islamism, or Christian Identarianism.
But yet you admit that the only previously provided source from you “didn’t have much details”
I said this about your summation of it, not about the source itself.
Dude, at least 4 included references to a gang and that’s not counting the one using Aryan Brotherhood, which is a gang.
Five then. Do you still not understand that not all gang violence is terrorism?
So, hold up, no non-white gangs have ever killed someone who is not a rival gang member?
Did I fucking say that? You asked about gang initiations.
Do you think every non-gang-member victim of white gangs is considered “terrorism”? Because it’s obviously not, as the article I linked shows.
Google results for terrorism:”the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
Gangs are very rarely considered political organizations by any establishment. Yes, they’re all “political” in the broadest sense of the word “politics,” but they have no involvement or investment in the dominant political systems, which don’t consider them politically “valid” organizations.
The considerations of the state define whether something can be considered terrorism. Otherwise, our police violence and military invasions would be considered terrorism as well.
So, no non-white gang ever uses violence and intimidation for political gangs.
Non-white “political gangs”? In the US? What the fuck are you talking about lol?
I guess the Crips used to be political, but that was 50 years ago.
Nice, you don’t bother to counter because it’s accurate.
No, it’s because you’ve been doing what you accused me of the entire time, as I’d already explained. That’s why I quoted one of your misunderstandings of what gang activity is considered terrorism there.
Everything gangs do is for “social” intimidation .
Well, most of what they do, but I could have been more specific, fair enough! I said “social” to refer to sociopolitical areas beyond the government. Matters of religion, demography, social acceptability, etc.
In some countries gangs are more prevalent and more politically involved country governance like in Mexico
Yeah, but that doesn’t exactly factor into the Islamist vs. far-right race, now, does it? Much less the American statistics.
Do you need glasses?
Yeah, I meant 3.5 million. I’m jetlagged, sue me.
No sign of proving your point that most western terrorists are right-wing unless you provide some sources that show either your definition of terrorism or a complete set of terrorism statistics.
I’ve demonstrated that they’re leading in the US and Germany and are neck-and-neck in the UK. Should I go through each and every “western” country? Do we count Central America, or just the first world? Is Australia “the west”?
And I’m going by each nation’s definition of “terrorism,”, though my personal definition is rather close to the US DoD’s, just with an added qualifier for motivation (seeking some sort of notoriety) and choice of target (essentially indiscriminate, with symbolic value).
They’re more likely than most groups, but probably not more likely than political extremists- of course, we’d need an actual total number of white right radicals to determine how likely they are per capita to commit acts of terror.
But consider than there are only a few hundred radical right and white supremacist groups in the US, while there are well over 2,000 mosques.
well based on who’s committing the terror, we could go by just open white nationalists, vocal white supremacists, anti-muslim organizations, and as a bonus, members of revolutionary libertarian groups.
is that gonna be over 10.73 million they’d need to be less dangerous than US Muslims per capita? honestly I think they’d clock in at under a million or two. you could add all 5 million NRA members, including Michael Moore and Matt Groening, to em and still not reach your quota.
When rightoids set out to kill a bunch of people, they usually fail to kill more than a couple. Say what you will about Islamists, when they set out to commit horrifying acts of destuction of innocent life, they know how to rack up a K/D.
Have you not seen France?
I couldn’t find French stats.
Sweden?
What about Sweden?
What about Norway? They’ve got the biggest discrepency in Europe.
The UK?
The UK’s got a pretty good trade between the far-right and islamoids, with the biggest attack beloging to the latter iirc. The funny thing is, by the UK’s definition of “terrorism,” most terror attacks this century have actually been LEFToid.
I couldn’t find French stats. They had a lotta Muhammeltdowns that one year, but now they got nazbols so I get the sense the balance has shifted recently
How many people in France have died to right-wing terror attacks compared to muslim?
What about Norway? They’ve got the biggest discrepency in Europe.
Norway has an islam problem too, tbh.
The UK’s got a pretty good trade between the far-right and islamoids, with the biggest attack beloging to the latter iirc. The funny thing is, by the UK’s definition of “terrorism,” most British terror attacks this century have actually been LEFToid.
Again, you're confusing random acts of political violence with actual domestic terror attacks. Muslims are carrying out very serious attacks at a much higher rate than the general population.
How many rightoids are flying over to fight in Syria?
How many people in France have died to right-wing terror attacks compared to muslim?
Again, I can’t find French stats, but Muslims probably have the edge again because a small number of their attacks claim an extremely disproportionate number of deaths.
Again, this doesn’t mean they’re more likely to attack people. It means if one sets out attack people, they’ll be able to kill more people on average. A statistic that’s due almost entirely to just a couple incidents.
I heard about it. If one attack is enough to demonstrate a country has a problem, then what about Canada? Or New Zealand?
Norway has an islam problem too, tbh.
Who’s killed more people in Norway? Islamists, or White Nationalists? The answer may surprise you, it’s not even close.
The latter claim a higher numbe of attacks AND a much higher number of deaths per attack. Remember, the most deadly mass shooting of all time was an Islamophobic attack by a Norwegian White Nationalist.
Not that deaths per attack is a valid way to measure the radicalizing potential of an ideology, that’s kind of my broader point. But if it were, there’d still be plenty of Western countries where rightoids had the edge.
Again, you're confusing random acts of political violence with actual domestic terror attacks.
I’m not. I was simply deferring to the UK’s legal definition. The US’s is different in that it puts more of a focus on the danger to human life, but that would only disqualify many of the Irish Nationalist attacks (primarily the “left-wing” ones), which often only succeeded in property destruction.
Unlike in the other nations, per capita, British Muslims actually are more likely to be terrorists (at least based on publicly listed incidents), as British culture is far too passive to produce homegrown radicals who aren’t all talk.
To get a bit off topic though, they’re not more likely to commit (and are FAR more likely to be the recipient of) hate crimes, which kill a lot more people than terrorism in Britain and most places.
How many rightoids are flying over to fight in Syria?
Why would they? They have drones.
And the Syrian Civil War doesn’t exactly easily lend itself to far-right recruitment lol.
And Muslims in Western countries don't exist in a vacuum and neither do members of other faiths.
Btw, why are you talking about this subject even though you have no education in it? Isn't that a big nono for you? 🤔
Islam's holy book is literally a holy object descended from heaven, and as such, it's much, much harder to reform. There will never be a New Testament Quran.
Again, Islam believes the Quran to literally exist in other planes of being, that it is a celestial object, already written, that Muhammed directly transcribed it, not that he wrote a book after talking about some cool shit with god.
The Qu’ran was written by Muhammad under similar circumstances.
Islam believes the Quran to literally exist in other planes of being, that it is a celestial object, already written, that Muhammed directly transcribed it
From the Talmud, describing the narrative and instructions of the Torah: “God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears.”
Whereas Moses can be seen to be a fallible product of his time
According to any reasonable reading, but not according to the Bible or Talmud.
The Qur'an itself is relatively chill in comparison to the hadith. I know people will pull out this verse and that verse to say it is evil but honestly it's not a very nice book if you wilfully ignore the verses that say "lol, nah bro don't actually do all the nasty shit, it doesn't actually mean what you think it means and it's only written in there like that so God can find out which one of you bitches is fucking crazy. Be fucking chill and don't spread corruption on the earth you dip.".
The hadith however represent an irredeemable problem. They will never be chill and need to be abandoned .
Yeah imagine going to war against an entire country of people living there to reclaim the land bc your religious leader said your dusty book said God wants you to.
Islam tends to take it to the next level, across many different regions.
This is because of history and politics. The current state of islamist extremism (AQ and IS shit) did not exist before the 1970s and most political scientists say it's the result of 3 things: moneyed Saudis getting rich and spreading Wahhabism, Islamic revolution in Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There easily can be an alternate universe where none of this shit happens because the British gave Arabis to the more moderate Hejaz (as they promised) instead of the Wahhabi Sauds.
Except it does, you just don't live in the middle east, it's a shithole religion and is 1000 years behind the world. China is smart, they're reeducating the savages
you’re right, so why would I worry about the ME statist brands of Islam? that desert shit ain’t what Islam is in my county, or that of anyone else in this thread
213 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-03-15
I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 BasicallyADoctor 2019-03-15
Fellas, is this centrism? Condemning both the victims and perpetrator of terrorism at once?
1 shaneoffline 2019-03-15
The bible is the centrist holy book. Just ahead of the jewbook just behind whatever the muslims read.
1 leva549 2019-03-15
Really though, Baha'i is the most centrist religion.
1 shaneoffline 2019-03-15
I have no idea what that is lol
1 leva549 2019-03-15
It's basically 'all religions are true'.
1 shaneoffline 2019-03-15
Great insurance when you meet the true god and he's a gamer
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-03-15
Send me to hell then
1 shaneoffline 2019-03-15
It's gamers the whole way down
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Islam II: Universalist Boogaloo
1 allendrio 2019-03-15
his take was basically
thats so far from the center hes approaching the event horizon of simultaneously being stalin and hitler.
1 dazivostri 2019-03-15
Jokes. What are it?
1 allendrio 2019-03-15
well considering his entire ideaology can be summed up as
Jokes are Terrorism
1 dazivostri 2019-03-15
I'm talking about the joke you responded to. The person that posted here in drama that made a joke.
/u/BasicallyADoctor is not the Australian senator.
1 shaneoffline 2019-03-15
Jokes are Terrorism and you need to get right with that
1 -Steve_French- 2019-03-15
Source? Do you have a source for this statement?
1 ProtectYourNecks 2019-03-15
We literally don't know this and honestly it v wouldn't be much of a surprise if he was
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2019-03-15
What joke?
1 manbra 2019-03-15
Wait if memes cause terrorism, are there a bunch of dank Arab memes we're missing out on??
1 WholesomeDrama 2019-03-15
المتأنق مايو الإبادة الجماعية
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-15
In that case your entire account is terrorism.
1 sevgee 2019-03-15
Gottem
1 allendrio 2019-03-15
Well in that case your entire life is terrorism.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-15
LMAO literally "no u". Great comeback. Go hide under your desk before a meme kills you.
1 allendrio 2019-03-15
LMAO no u
1 LikesUno 2019-03-15
⣰⣾⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣆ ⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠄⡀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠋⣉⣉⣉⡉⠙⠻⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣇⠔⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⢉⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠹ ⣿⣿⠃⠄⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠋⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠁⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⠄⠄⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟ ⣿⡿⠁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠄⠄⠄⣠⣄⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃ ⡿⠁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⢀⡴⠚⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⢠ ⠃⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⠴⠋⠄⠄⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢀⣾ ⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠈⠁⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢀⣾⣿ ⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⢶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⢀⣾⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠋⣠⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⢁⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⠄⠄⣿⣿ ⣆⠈⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⣉⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠠⠺⣷⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣦⣄⣈⣉⣉⣉⣡⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⠁⣀⣼⣿⣿⣿ ⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⡿⠟
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-15
i dont get how he is wrong though. u can not say white nationalism is rising because of increased immigration and then be shocked when mayos do white nationalist shit like mass murder.
once again conservatives just are autistic on when to make that statement
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-03-15
Because he is saying the cause in white nationalism is justified. Basically, he thinks the shooter was correct, but probably shouldn't have expressed that by killing people.
Although tbh I wouldn't be really surprised if it turns out he was celebrating it
1 LN2482 2019-03-15
so he's right then
1 Pinejelly 2019-03-15
Blame and cause are not the same thing.
It’s a fact that the cause of the attack is immigration. That is the thing which caused the guy to attack.
But blame is a moral judgement, and this senator clearly blames Muslims for being morally wrong.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-15
it is pretty clear he is blaming politicians for allowing it and not muslims. the argument is muslims do not assimilate and these politicians allowed too many to immigrate causing unrest
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Really well put!
1 urllib 2019-03-15
because you are retarded
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-15
please, elaborate
1 urllib 2019-03-15
no
1 ___Moufasa___ 2019-03-15
The rise in white nationalism happened in germany and the US decades ago when there wasnt lots of immigration from third world countries.
You are blaming brown people for doing NOTHING illegal or morally wrong, when we should instead blame the mayos seething at their race """dying"""
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-15
why does any country who has refugees/immigration from muslim countries have issues with them? not even mayo majority countries. do not bother replying.
1 ___Moufasa___ 2019-03-15
Why does r/drama have so many pussies now? OUT OUT OUT
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-15
u have low t. u are the pussy.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2019-03-15
He's properly tagged and is up to date on all his shots
1 forward_dawn 2019-03-15
Double fishhook.
1 TransSexualWiener 2019-03-15
what are you gonna name the baby?
1 [deleted] 2019-03-15
[removed]
1 Jabbam 2019-03-15
Needs someone to balance AOC's fucking retarded statement not to pray for people shot in a church
1 SlightSafety 2019-03-15
We aren't ready for this
1 orangetato 2019-03-15
One nation senators might be the absolute worst at having any hope of their party getting elected, it's like they are hardwired to always say something completely retarded, that makes absolutely nobody like them, at least once a year
1 sangbum60090 2019-03-15
He's independent
1 captainktainer 2019-03-15
But initially elected on the PHON line and a long time member of the party. Only reason he ended up sitting as an independent is because Hanson told him to hide his power level and he said no.
1 Al_Simmons 2019-03-15
It's because they are fucking retarded. Imagine releasing a statement criticizing the dead because they happened to be Muslims thinking it will get you followers, after a mass shooting was carried out at a Mosque.
That's peak retardation.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
It’ll get him followers. Just not the kind that can vote in Australian elections.
1 HardIsLife 2019-03-15
Wow, too radical for me.
1 HardIsLife 2019-03-15
Dude is firing on all cylinders on Twitter too https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1106463420067438592?s=20
1 Tyestor 2019-03-15
holy fuck he's going hard.
i live in queensland. should i vote for him in the next election?
/r/drama, vote below.
1 MG87 2019-03-15
That is one homely motherfucker
1 Al_Simmons 2019-03-15
Holy shit, this guy is a classic retard.
1 Mistr_MADness 2019-03-15
Damn they’re mad
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
“Leftists may condemn mass murder, but can they condemn this image???”
1 arandomloser21 2019-03-15
God damn I should've invested in dramacoin more.
1 heretobefriends 2019-03-15
"I condemn this
H O W E V E R"
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
This is the senator that called for a "final solution" australias immigration issues.
1 captainpriapism 2019-03-15
why would you want a solution that wasnt final youd have to do another one afterwards
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
Isosceles Equilateral right and
1 Lolokayeveryone 2019-03-15
Obtuse
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
Check out the big brains on Brett.
1 Lolokayeveryone 2019-03-15
Brad*
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001844/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t7
You lose.
1 Lolokayeveryone 2019-03-15
Oh wow TIL
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
To be fair this isn't my first Brett/Brad rodeo.
1 MyFatCatHasLotsofHat 2019-03-15
https://www.instagram.com/elarapictures/p/BoQ3RYIFEGB/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1m4v2dfcg6hs4
1 Lolokayeveryone 2019-03-15
Scalene
1 Momruepari 2019-03-15
Your old flair was the only way I could recognize you
1 King-Achelexus 2019-03-15
If they didn't exist then they wouldn't get shot. Clearly we know who's to blame.
1 rentalong 2019-03-15
The entirety of his statement aside from that line is pretty much him giving reasons why he doesn’t condemn the shooting.
What a truly remarkable piece of shit, it’s actually almost impressive how much of a deranged asshole this guy is
1 seenten 2019-03-15
He was elected; what does that tell you about the constituents?
1 dootwthesickness_II 2019-03-15
Dude, Straya is basically Texas but with fewer guns.
1 kabutoredde 2019-03-15
yes yes well done muslims well done muslims,
H O W E V E R
1 Al_Simmons 2019-03-15
It's funny because I kinda agree at some points. But right after a shooting, blaming the victims, is tasteless as fuck.
It's funny because I really hate the Islamic religion, but that doesn't mean I agree with murdering the followers1. Everyone has a right to live.
1 [deleted] 2019-03-15
[removed]
1 gaynazifurry4bernie 2019-03-15
Based and 'roo-pilled
1 Plupsnup 2019-03-15
God, he is such a fucking nutjob
Sucks to have him represent my state
1 nahmate77 2019-03-15
How did someone like this get elected in the first place
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
Because he told the people the truth.
1 nahmate77 2019-03-15
What is the truth? Can you give me context, I’m from the States
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
That we need an ethnic cleansing.
1 BlairResignationJam_ 2019-03-15
Mayocide NOW
1 nahmate77 2019-03-15
I came here looking for actual information and all I got was this fucking retard smh
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
Y I K E S
1 nahmate77 2019-03-15
The response to this on r/drama has been good you’re the only person acting autistic.
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
Faggots seriousposting all over the subreddit just shows they're no different from the mouth-breathing idiots that you find on the defaults.
1 nahmate77 2019-03-15
Wow you really want to show people that you are socially inept don’t you. This could be used in a case study one day..
1 Snowayne2 2019-03-15
Ur a fagot
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
gottem
1 Snowayne2 2019-03-15
Lol ur a fagot2
1 Matthew94 2019-03-15
:(
1 Snowayne2 2019-03-15
Ilu anyway
1 istural 2019-03-15
You seem to deny the light of radical centrism. Perhaps you should leave.
1 FrontierFrance210 2019-03-15
🙋🏼♂️👍🏻 👁👁 🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️👎🏻🙅♂️ Serious posting... get the fuck out.
1 sevgee 2019-03-15
This. Mayos need to go.
1 egb924 2019-03-15
The guy literally didn't get elected. The person who had his seat before got deported cause they found out he hadn't given up his british citizenship so. So he pretty much got it automatically cause like 16 people voted for him.
1 orangetato 2019-03-15
FNQ is basically Australia's Alabama
1 Scramble187 2019-03-15
Queensland is to Australia what the South is to America.
1 Redactor0 2019-03-15
This is one of Pauline Hanson's guys? The worst part of the American two-party system is that it tends to exclude ultraspergs from having an entertaining role in politics.
1 sangbum60090 2019-03-15
Nah he's independent
1 YungCamus 2019-03-15
He was but once he got into parliment he left her group and became an independent...
1 SuperElf 2019-03-15
yeah, Fraser and One Nation is going to get crucified by the media and government come tomorrow morning.
RIP in Peace his political career
1 Wheretheflowersgrow 2019-03-15
I thought they didn't get along?
1 0o-0-o0 2019-03-15
AU politicians are fairly cucked I wouldn't be surprised if he is 'forced' to apologize.
1 throwaway_999912 2019-03-15
🤢عليك أن تعود
1 0o-0-o0 2019-03-15
too many invaders and serious posts in this thread
1 WholesomeDrama 2019-03-15
المتأنق مايو الإبادة الجماعية
1 Dildokin 2019-03-15
bad take
1 iprobablyneedahobby 2019-03-15
What a cunt.
1 naekhx 2019-03-15
christ
1 KickBackAndRalax 2019-03-15
Fucking Queenslanders
1 captainpriapism 2019-03-15
lmao i told you guys australians were hilariously racist
1 -Dionysus 2019-03-15
"That wasn't very nice, but usually it would have been muslims, and that's terrible. "
Hottest of takes.
1 Plexipus 2019-03-15
Holy shit he's basically saying "if those Muslims didn't want to get mass murdered they shouldn't have immigrated this way"
1 JollyOllyMansFatDick 2019-03-15
Isn’t that the policy of like 15 South African political parties
1 Hardyman13 2019-03-15
If only my great-great-granparents didn't cause Apartheid 🤔
1 Alpha100f 2019-03-15
The truth is that Islam IS like any other faith. Hell, even fucking buddhists have history of violence and barbaric practices.
1 Anaseb 2019-03-15
except for early fire and brimstone Christians.. yeah nah.. atleast for consistency sake Islam is a bit special. Islam only had it's hippy phase early, and no where near where the expansions were going on.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Islam tends to take it to the next level, across many different regions.
Like yeah, the guy is a moron, but Islam is more dangerous than other religions.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2019-03-15
Yeah we need to make no mistake. Islam is probably the worst religion on Earth currently. But the reason it's the worst is because it is used to justify violence and terrorism. So if you commit violence and terrorism against them then you are just as bad
1 MoabChile 2019-03-15
True based centrist take 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
1 OysterCookie 2019-03-15
a baste centrist would be for killing both muzzies and gamers, not no killing
1 Snowayne2 2019-03-15
That's not true. Islam just happens to be the prominent faith in regions that breed extremism.
1 DrZerglingMD 2019-03-15
Well what do people expect them to do when they can only fuck camels and sheep and touching yourself seems to be forbidden?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Even in western countries this is true.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim
1 KokomoOReily 2019-03-15
I know what you're trying to say, but Muslim terrorists are pretty far right
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
yeah but they’re logged as “far-right YES muslim”
1 KokomoOReily 2019-03-15
Fair enough
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Do you have a source for that?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Well I got a straightforward one for the US lol
Australia’s had four Islamist “terror” incidents ever, not counting a failed conspiracy, and only one actually killed somebody. NZ’s never had a successful Islamist attack, only protest bombings.
On the other hand, Wikipedia claims this demonstrates that in the UK, most 21st century terrorist incidents have been Islamist, but going case-by-case shows them about even with far-right extremists (7 incidents each by my count) and actually BEHIND left-wing extremists due to all the bombs they set up between 2000 and 2008.
Trying to find stats for the other usual suspects is a clusterfuck: Germany has had dozens of terror attacks per year since the 70s and doesn’t poll by motive, so wading through that is a shitshow, but all colors of ideology are well represented. It’s a sin to ask questions in France, so they don’t publish stats.
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Lol there’s a couple of problems with your link buddy. First off, it ONLY includes right wing and Islamic examples of terrorism. It does not include any other types of terrorism. Funny thing is the definition of terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims”. Now, if that study was to include the informal politics of non-white gangs (like it did with with white gangs) and other forms of terrorism, suddenly the numbers would change. Weird how It counts attacks such as “white man kills homeless man as part of gang initiation” but doesn’t include: “African American teen kills teen girl after raping her as part of a gang initiation”. Guess it’s easy to say most terrorism is “right-wing” when you don’t include the same acts committed by non-white people. Very convenient 🤔🤔https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/06/18/gruesome-killing-of-baltimore-teen-part-of-gang-initiation/amp/
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find any statistics for Australia that were specifically separated out by religion or race but looking at the U.S. it most likely would be similar. I was certainly able to find more than a couple of Islamic attacks from recent years though.
I personally don’t count Wikipedia as a credible source because it is too easy to edit and has had past credibility issues in regards to editing.
Also, go ahead and see what percent of Muslims who follow Islamic practices in the United States and look at that chart again. (1.1% of the population making up more than half the fatalities overall for that set of years? And that’s not even considering the population has grown since most of those attacks🤔🤔🤔🤔). For comparison, whites make up about 65% of the overall US population. Imagine if the Muslim population was bigger. Proportionality wise kinds of proves this guys point; although it was really obtuse of him to bring it up right after a bunch of innocent people lost their lives.
Second, here’s USA crime statistics that shows who is committing the mass majority of murders as a whole (take in mind that Hispanics are mixed in with Caucasians in these statistics). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
Lastly, if you are trying to point out the violence problem, these terrorist attacks reported in your first link are a drop in the bucket compared to the “terrorist acts it didn’t count. Interpretation is just as important as important as the statistics themselves.
1 AntiGoogleAmpBot 2019-03-15
Non Google Amp link 1: here
I am a bot. Please send me a message if I am acting up. Click here to read more about why this bot exists.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-15
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Wouldn’t accounting for more types of terrorism just reduce the share occupied by Islamists?
In what way?
Are you implying Columbians or Koreans can’t be right-wing?
Neither of those sound like terrorism from the description you provided, but it’s at least plausible for the former.
I agree, which is why I’m looking specifcally at the primary sources linked on Wikipedia rather placing much stock in their interpretations of those sources.
Who gives a fuck about that? It’s a conversation about terrorism. Most murders are performed either out of rage/fear or for financial gain.
I did
Come on lol, you know that’s entirely because of a single incident. Two if you count Miami.
It doesn’t mean they’re more likely to murder than neo-Nazis. It means they’re more likely to murder COMPETENTLY.
Sure, if you count Arabs and... like 25% of Hispanics? Weird figure.
Then they’d have even fewer murders per capita. What are you getting at?
I’m not, so we should be good here
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-15
Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim
You are saying right here that most “western terrorism” is far right right based off that link you posted, which, I already deconstructed how your link does not illustrate this. Did you forget that you posted this?
Wouldn’t accounting for more types of terrorism just reduce the share occupied by Islamists?
Yes, it would. With that being said, proportionality wise how small the Muslim population was at the times of most of those attacks (under 1%) compared to how many attacks they conducted was still proportionally more than most other races. What counts here is that there were so little Muslims yet they were practically keeping up with right-wing “terrorism” in that link. Less than 1% of the population just behind the amount of attacks committed by 65% of the population? Are you fucking kidding me?
Now, if that study was to include the informal politics of non-white gangs (like it did with with white gangs) and other forms of terrorism, suddenly the numbers would change.
In what way?
Um oh boy, are you completely unaware of the black and Mexican gang violence problem in America? Going back to my example, if the link you provided were to include non-white gang acts like it did for white gang acts, it wouldn’t be a neat page worth of information like it was with the “right-wing” terrorist acts. Remember, the link you posted defined “gang violence” as terrorism.
For starters, 13% of African Americans commit approximately 50% of murders total (in the US). It’s even less when you take out the elderly, children, and women. The majority of those murders are gang related, and counted as “terrorism” according to your link. That same link did not include these statistics at all though, hence, why I pointed it out in my previous comment.
Are you implying Columbians or Koreans can’t be right-wing?
Sure they can, but they weren’t included in that link. Only two types of “terrorists” were included in that link.
Neither of those sound like terrorism from the description you provided, but it’s at least plausible for the former.
That isn’t my definition of terrorism, that first example is a case of “terrorism” I pulled straight off of your link. How in the fuck is it plausible for the former? Tell me why two identical acts committed for the same reason would make one a terrorist but not the other?
I agree, which is why I’m looking specifcally at the primary sources linked on Wikipedia rather placing much stock in their interpretations of those sources.
Bro, you posted a link that had over 1000+ pages talking about Iraq. I don’t know where you pulled your “sources” from or if you expected me to read the 1000+ pages to find the specific examples you posted.
Who gives a fuck about that? It’s a conversation about terrorism. Most murders are performed either out of rage/fear or for financial gain.
Apparently you do because again, your link provided examples of white gang violence under it’s examples of right-wing “terrorism”. Your very first post was saying that most instances of terrorism in the west are right-wing when your link obliviously is leaving out the same actions committed by non-white people. The crime statistics I provided show the murder rate by race. Now, right off the bat we can see that other racial gang groups vastly outnumber whites: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics#anchorregm Gang violence committed by non-white gangs vastly outnumbers white gang violence (and all the other examples of right-wing terrorism for that matter).
What in the actual fuck? I am only showing you examples of statistics that would be counted as “terrorism” by your link. If you don’t think acts committed by gangs should count as terrorism, then you shouldn’t have used a link that quantified gang violence as terrorism and base statements off of it. If you would like to use a source that shows only acts that count as “terrorism” according to you to prove your point, then go ahead, no one is stopping you. You are arguing against the link you provided.
Come on lol, you know that’s entirely because of a single incident. Two if you count Miami.
Lol 😂 are you fucking serious? Proportionality is what I was pointing out here. Islamic incidents are barely trailing behind right-wing acts of “terrorism” in your group. Less than 1% of the population committing acts (that, remember, is including white gang violence) at a rate of 65% of the population. That’s a fucking lot. To put it into perspective, if white people were to murder at the same rate, THOUSANDS would be dead versus dozens from those “terrorist attacks”.
Actually, according to you, since gang violence doesn’t count as “terrorism” the “right-wing” terrorism in the link you provided would drop to near 0, actually putting the 1% ahead of the 65%. Holy shit
It doesn’t mean they’re more likely to murder than neo-Nazis. It means they’re more likely to murder COMPETENTLY.
YES IT FUCKING DOES. Omg, you really don’t understand what a proportion is, do you?
Sure, if you count Arabs and... like 25% of Hispanics? Weird figure.
I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Caucasians are approximately 65% of the overall U.S. population. This most be a red herring because this sentence makes no sense. Please speak English and provide sources.
Then they’d have even fewer murders per capita. What are you getting at?
Are you serious? There’s no fucking way you could be serious. Read through my previous comments explaining “proportionality”. This is either a straight up lie or willful ignorance.
Lastly, if you are trying to point out the violence problem
I’m not, so we should be good here
But you are trying to say most acts of terrorism in the west are right-wing, which, I proved is an incorrect statement in the course of this comment. FFS🤦🏼♀️
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-15
OUT!
OUT!!!
OUT!!!
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
But I said that my link doesn’t illustrate that up front. It illustrates that being the case for the US specifically.
Hang on, I thought “Islam isn’t a race”
Anyway yeah, they’re disproportionately likely to be either the perpetrator or the victim of political/separatist violence, that’s how maligned groups tend to fare
No they’re not lol, they’re 1/3 as common.
What? All attacks are committed by less than 1% of the population lol. And significantly so.
I’m aware. Are you under the impression they perform “terrorism” more frequently than far-right groups? And if so, based on what?
Wtf are you talking about lol? Where does it claim “the majority” of murders or gang-related murders are “counted as terrorism”?
Are you just making shit up?
The suggestion that only white supremacists were accounted for is blatantly false. They just happen to be responsible for the MAJORITY of far-right terrorism.
Yes, but you didn’t include any details demonstrating that killing said homeless person was politically motivated (though that was implied), meant to intimidate a mass of people and foster notoriety. Without those details mentioned, it doesn’t sound much like terrorism, does it?
Because they’re not committed for the same reason? Really not that difficult to understand.
It includes three acts of violence committed by gangs, none of which were part of the territorial/power disputes or extortion that make up the majority of gang violence, you dope.
It doesn’t just include ANY act of violence by a white gang.
Which makes them responsible for more gang violence. Not more terrorism.
No, you just seem to assume these three terrorist incidents constitute the entirety of white supremacist gang violence, when that obviously isn’t true.
Again— unless there are over 10.73 million right-wing radicals in the US, they’re committing terror at a higher proportional rate.
Just to reiterate, they don’t include white gang violence. White gangs just happen to commit acts of terror sometimes.
And being “white” isn’t an ideology lol, so using all white people as your pool of potential terrorists seems a bit silly lol. That “white” figure probably includes most of the Islamists, actually, Arabs are typically counted as white.
seriously nigga none of that shit is “gang violence” lol, only 3 incidents even mention a gang. did you just see the word “gang” and assume that was the entire list?
While I maintain this is not significant anyway, that’s not quite true. Non-Hispanic Whites, including Arabs, account for 60.7% of the population.
Hence, to get 65% you’d need to include Arabs and “like 25% of Hispanics.”
Are you slow or something? I mean, you know Muslims aren’t actively driving the average up, right?
The deaths per capita of Muslims has been overwhelmingly driven by just a couple notable attacks, after which measures were taken to greatly reduce the possibility of them being recreated.
When outliers are pruned, murders performed by the Muslim population occur at a MUCH lower rate than the statistical average influenced by said outliers. This makes it overwhelmingly likely than an uptick in the concentration of Muslims
Because they are lol
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Lol dude, look at your first comment again. You said “most western terrorist attacks” and then backtracked and said “U.S. specifically”. Which is it since you can’t make up your mind?
<Hang on, I thought “Islam isn’t a race” lol
Holy shit are you going for a Darwin Award here? It isn’t. But you would have to be retarded to not acknowledge the amount of Muslims that follow Islam. It’s so closely correlated that the Pew Research Center doesn’t even bother differentiating between the two:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
Dude, in your first statement you even referred to the Islamic extremists as “Muslims”. You are literally backtracking and contradicting your own statements once again😂
Again, please provide sources otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass.
Dude, again please learn what “proportionality” means.
Source or any proof whatsoever? Again, according to the one and only link you provided with such information, it defined any “right-wing” attacker as a white person who held some or all the following beliefs: belief in a need to be prepared for an attack (“preppers”), fiercely nationalistic, suspicious of centralized federal authority, anti-global, belief that one’s way of life is under attack or changing, reverent of individual liberty, etc. do you realize how vague of a definition that is? Someone would not even need all the beliefs listed to be considered “right-wing”. ** By this definition, libertarians would count as “right-wing”. **You do realize that by counting just white libertarians alone that makes up way more than 1% of the of the population, right? That doesn’t even come close to counting the percent of the population that would fall under “right-wing” according to your link. But, let me guess, you thought they would use some kind of blaring, foaming-at-mouth, neo-nazi description for “right-wing” people, right? My fucking sides
Are you going to finally admit that you’re grasping at straws trying to prove “right-wing” terrorism is the biggest western terrorist threat or actually provide at least one source? Just one, that’s all we’re asking for. Even one that is close to your point.
Again, I’m not sure I can dumb this down to your comprehension level dude. I’ve already explained this several times. Based off of your link you used to assert your point, it listed examples in of white gang violence under its “scopes and definition” section (page 29 and beyond) of “right-wing” terrorism. The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs and were not included. Again, based on your link, did you even bother reading through it or did you just find something with the right “buzzwords” and post blind? I don’t understand how to explain something that you used to make your own assertions.
Please, read your source that you linked or provide a source that at least comes close to resembling some kind of point.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted. There is no way you actually read your own link because this is literally in black and white on that link. You got to be playing me.
Lol the majority of Americans were defined as “right-wing” according to your link. Go ahead and read the definition for what counts as “right-wing” that I copied and pasted from your link. It’s actually really sad how you keep making assertions without providing any further links (or any proof, for that matter) and defending your problematic link.
Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? Jesus Christ you really aren’t able to assemble any kind of logic, are you? Where is that implied? Nobody is getting that from this source but you. Perhaps since it’s the only source you provided you keep grasping onto it hoping it will at some prove your point.
You used this link as proof to assert “what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim”. That is your links definition of terrorism, not mine. If it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
It’s quite astonishing how how you simultaneously use your link as a reference and argue the sources pulled straight from it at the same time. Amazing.
Ok, so explain how a gang initiation is different from a hang initiation? Peak smooth brain reasoning here.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted anyone, NEVER happened. And I and everyone else pointing out how you are wrong are all dopes, right. I would say “provide a source” but it’s pretty clear that you are making stuff up.
I literally don’t know how to dumb this down so you understand your own link. Like, I already copied and pasted statements and explained the problem with it. You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there. There’s like nothing else I could say that the source has already disproved for you. 🤦🏼♀️
You can’t make up your mind whether gang violence does or does not count according to your own statements. You keep going back and forth on this. Stick to one premise and decide whether you want to use it or not.
Sure, white gangs commit acts of terror sometimes. I’m not sure who the “they” is that you’re referring to here. I already went over who are defined as “right-wing” earlier in this post according to that source.
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism. It’s also more than “3” that have gang references. Aryan Brotherhood is a gang btw. And, using your own logic, “there doesn’t seem to be enough information” to absolutely conclude that none of the other white supremacists in the link were part of racial gangs either.
Provide a source then, because I’ve already provided several that show otherwise.
🤦🏼♀️there’s hardly any Muslims you dolt. Smdh
What measures? Source?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Do you understand the concept of outliers?
I haven’t “lied” once lol. You’ve just yet to say something even remotely convincing.
Surely you understand that introducing more links would just complicate things? You haven’t even managed to understand the first one yet.
Who the fuck thinks the KKK is a major terrorist threat, much less one to countries that aren’t America? It’s a lot easier to argue with strawmen, I guess.
You wanna know a secret, though? There is no terrorist threat. At least not presently.
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Oh Jesus, you literally keep changing your mind on what your point is so there is no pointing out anything for you if you don’t even have any beliefs you stand behind.
I would post a compare and contrast but I’m feeling lazy.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
I’m pretty sure that’s just a problem with your reading comprehension.
My claim is still that more western terrorists are far-right and non-Islamist than Islamist
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Lol dude, look at your first comment again. You said “most western terrorist attacks” and then backtracked and said “U.S. specifically”. Which is it since you can’t make up your mind?
<Hang on, I thought “Islam isn’t a race” lol
Holy shit are you going for a Darwin Award here? It isn’t. But you would have to be retarded to not acknowledge the amount of Muslims that follow Islam. It’s so closely correlated that the Pew Research Center doesn’t even bother differentiating between the two:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
Dude, in your first statement you even referred to the Islamic extremists as “Muslims”. You are literally backtracking and contradicting your own statements once again😂
Again, please provide sources otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass.
Dude, again please learn what “proportionality” means.
Source or any proof whatsoever? Again, according to the one and only link you provided with such information, it defined any “right-wing” attacker as a white person who held some or all the following beliefs: belief in a need to be prepared for an attack (“preppers”), fiercely nationalistic, suspicious of centralized federal authority, anti-global, belief that one’s way of life is under attack or changing, reverent of individual liberty, etc. do you realize how vague of a definition that is? Someone would not even need all the beliefs listed to be considered “right-wing”. ** By this definition, libertarians would count as “right-wing”. **You do realize that by counting just white libertarians alone that makes up way more than 1% of the of the population, right? That doesn’t even come close to counting the percent of the population that would fall under “right-wing” according to your link. But, let me guess, you thought they would use some kind of blaring, foaming-at-mouth, neo-nazi description for “right-wing” people, right? My fucking sides
Are you going to finally admit that you’re grasping at straws trying to prove “right-wing” terrorism is the biggest western terrorist threat or actually provide at least one source? Just one, that’s all we’re asking for. Even one that is close to your point.
Again, I’m not sure I can dumb this down to your comprehension level dude. I’ve already explained this several times. Based off of your link you used to assert your point, it listed examples in of white gang violence under its “scopes and definition” section (page 29 and beyond) of “right-wing” terrorism. The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs and were not included. Again, based on your link, did you even bother reading through it or did you just find something with the right “buzzwords” and post blind? I don’t understand how to explain something that you used to make your own assertions.
Please, read your source that you linked or provide a source that at least comes close to resembling some kind of point.
Are you fucking kidding me dude? Page 29 and beyond, of the fucking link you posted. There is no way you actually read your own link because this is literally in black and white on that link. You got to be playing me.
Lol the majority of Americans were defined as “right-wing” according to your link. Go ahead and read the definition for what counts as “right-wing” that I copied and pasted from your link. It’s actually really sad how you keep making assertions without providing any further links (or any proof, for that matter) and defending your problematic link.
Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? Jesus Christ you really aren’t able to assemble any kind of logic, are you? Where is that implied? Nobody is getting that from this source but you. Perhaps since it’s the only source you provided you keep grasping onto it hoping it will at some prove your point.
You used this link as proof to assert “what? most western terrorists are far-right, not Muslim”. That is your links definition of terrorism, not mine. If it doesn’t sound like terrorism to you, why are you pulling your statistics from it and referring to it like it proves your point?
It’s quite astonishing how how you simultaneously use your link as a reference and argue the sources pulled straight from it at the same time. Amazing.
Ok, so explain how a gang initiation is different from a hang initiation? Peak smooth brain reasoning here.
Yes, because NO non-white gang has ever had territorial/power disputes or distorted anyone, NEVER happened. And I and everyone else pointing out how you are wrong are all dopes, right. I would say “provide a source” but it’s pretty clear that you are making stuff up.
I literally don’t know how to dumb this down so you understand your own link. Like, I already copied and pasted statements and explained the problem with it. You want everyone to take some implied message from your one link that just isn’t there. There’s like nothing else I could say that the source has already disproved for you. 🤦🏼♀️
You can’t make up your mind whether gang violence does or does not count according to your own statements. You keep going back and forth on this. Stick to one premise and decide whether you want to use it or not.
Sure, white gangs commit acts of terror sometimes. I’m not sure who the “they” is that you’re referring to here. I already went over who are defined as “right-wing” earlier in this post according to that source.
Scroll up, I already went over how “right-wing” terrorists were defined early according to that link.
Again, you seem to go back on forth on what you personally count as terrorism. It’s also more than “3” that have gang references. Aryan Brotherhood is a gang btw. And, using your own logic, “there doesn’t seem to be enough information” to absolutely conclude that none of the other white supremacists in the link were part of racial gangs either.
Provide a source then, because I’ve already provided several that show otherwise.
🤦🏼♀️there’s hardly any Muslims you dolt. Smdh
What measures? Source?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
You were responding to my second comment. There’s nothing I could’ve linked that breaks down terrorist motivations in all “western” countries.
...you mean 100%? That’s what “Muslim” means lol. That’s not a race either.
Not sure what you think that Pew page shows. And you know you have to get killed or sterilized to win a Darwin Award, right?
Because they are, you absolute fucking retard. How do you expect to argue about Muslims if you don’t even know what “Muslim” means?
Done. Same deal in Europe, too.
Again, how many white nationalists do you think there are in the US?
It’s common fucking sense, but alright. Here’s the data for all violent crime, including things that you probably wouldn’t consider “attacks” and repeat offenses from the same people. Notice how it never even reached half a percent.
This still holds no matter what subsection of the population you look at.
“Libertarians” as they’re called in America are right-wing (though many if not most of them would not fit the definition in the document). They’re just not radicals or far-right, like all the people who are actually listed in the document.
No, it just so happens those are most of the terrorists. Again, look at who is ACTUALLY committing the attacks.
Pretty ironic to see this coming from the guy who saw the word “gang” and immediately assumed all white gang violence was counted lol.
Who also interpreted me explaining the difference as the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.
Now here’s my chance to ask YOU for a source, because that sounds like bullshit to me. Just how common do you think killing homeless people or attacking groups on the basis of race is in gang initiations?
Well you can start by actually reading some of the attacks, instead of looking for keywords and making ridiculous assumptions based upon them.
The majority of Americans aren’t “prepared for an attack” or “fiercely nationalistic” lol. Do you live in Montana or something?
Again though, I don’t care about all right-wingers
NO. That’s why MOST white supremacist gang violence is not listed as terrorism.
Because you described it in a way that specifically omits anything that makes it sound like terrorism. Christ, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?
Killing a rival gang member is discriminate and intended to establish notoriety with that rival gang. Killing a random homeless guy is indiscriminate and is intended to establish notoriety with a DEMOGRAPHIC.
Are you actually retarded? I specifically said those AREN’T terrorism.
I did. Again, three incidents were “gang-related.”
And you’ll notice it doesn’t include any typical cases of gang violence, because AGAIN, not all white gang violence is counted in the document. Only terrorist violence.
How many times do I have to repeat this to get it into your head?
But it fucking doesn’t? You’re stretching their claims WAY past what could be considered reasonable without understanding why they made the designation.
BAHAHAHAHA
That’s not exactly relevant to what I’m saying, now, is it? All of these cases of terrorism, save for the Oregon incident, fit into a MUCH narrower ideological group, one that’s much more clearly connected to the incidents in question.
That group, which I’m referring to as “FAR right,” is what I’m arguing should be considered for the sake of proportionality.
While I think this is a bit too broad personally, the US defines terrorism as unlawful acts of violence that indiscriminately jeopardize human life for the sake of political or social intimidation.
It’s typically conducted for the sake of ideology and infamy.
Okay. White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
And no you haven’t lol. What sources?
there’s like 35 million of em in America alone, babe
Homeland security? The TSA? Closing the Canadian border? The PATRIOT Act? The bump stock ban? Any of this ringing a bell?
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Um no, I was responding to all of your statements. If you don’t believe that, then why’d you say it? Again with the contradictions. This was your entire point I was responding to and that you have not defended.
No, it isn’t but you keep making certain assertions and then arguing against your own assertions so I used your words. You keep changing your mind on Muslims not meaning followers of Islam or not.
Then read it. That was a joke.
Dude, again using your words, and I’m the retard😂
Dude, those were the statistics for only hate crimes🤦🏼♀️. Not sure if you understand that that is only one type of crime. I already provided an overall crime rate for the U.S.
Not sure how many types I have to type this but that link you provided did not define “right-wing” acts of terror as acts only committed by white nationalists. That list of what defined a “right-wing” terrorist was vague enough to cover most of the white population of America.
Dude, this is the fucking link I used earlier! Are you fucking kidding me? Did you have a stroke or something? Dude, you literally paraphrased me. Copying and pasting from my earlier posts is not providing sources FFS🤦🏼♀️
You do realize that liberal libertarianism is a thing, right? And this is just one group that could count under that definition, not all.
🤦🏼♀️ we already went over this. I’m done typing the same shit over and over.
😂go ahead and point out where I said that dude. Omg you can’t make this shit up. You are making shit up that never happened. Go ahead and quote me🤣
I ALREADY PROVIDED A SOURCE. Did you even bother opening any of them?
This is what you have been doing the entire time, hence why I have used your own quotes several times.
Again, someone would only need one of those qualities to qualify. These are 2 items on a long list of things.
Your profile would beg to defer: u/grungebot5000
Lol but yet, you don’t provide any links stating otherwise. Paraphrasing your own words: the link uses too vague of examples to truly define why incidents maybe listed and some are possibly not. Again, you are inserting your own ideas in here that are not explicitly stated anywhere in any of your statistics or sources. Sorry, but I’m not going to assume anything and I only care about the facts and statistics, making shit up is your forte buddy. You don’t seem to realize how I am pulling from your link, it’s not my definitions🤣
So, hold up, no non-white gangs have ever killed someone who is not a rival gang member? That’s fucking hilarious.
Google results for terrorism:”the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
So, no non-white gang ever uses violence and intimidation for political gangs. Righttttt buddy.
Dude, at least 4 included references to a gang and that’s not counting the one using Aryan Brotherhood, which is a gang. And, to point out what you said earlier, there’s not enough details to tell whether the other ones were gang related/associated or not.
Dude, I don’t think you’re comprehending that the link you sourced had a very vague definition on what it counted as “terrorist” violence. You even said yourself that there are not much details.
But yet you admit that the only previously provided source from you “didn’t have much details” 🤔 so, which is it, we make up our own definitions or use your source that you admitted was flawed?
Nice, you don’t bother to counter because it’s accurate.
Yes, everyone got what YOU considered “far-right”. But as I said in my previous statements, what your link used as a definition was different. I went by the descriptions of “far-right” from your link, where just by counting libertarians alone would make it more than 1% of the population. The word used for most of these examples was “white supremacist”. Now, there have been other racial supremacy groups
Everything gangs do is for “social” intimidation . Politics defined is:the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Every gang is fighting for power and governance over terroritories. That is their entire point. In some countries gangs are more prevalent and more politically involved country governance like in Mexico:https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5324888/mexico-violence-murders.
That link is leaving out a bunch of incidents it would count as terrorist attacks by its definition.
Another problem with that link is that it only counts certain incidents and the fatalities, but doesn’t include attempts or non-fatalities, so it wouldn’t even be an accurate summary for either types of terrorism by itself. Not all terrorist attacks result in fatalities.
And when I said source I meant one relevant to your points. None of which have been.
Do you need glasses? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/
3.45 does not even come close to 35 million.
No sign of proving your point that most western terrorists are right-wing unless you provide some sources that show either your definition of terrorism or a complete set of terrorism statistics.
Here’s also a video that talks about the radicalization of Muslims in a handful of countries: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
I do believe that, but I’m basing that belief on the disproportionate amount of far-right violence coming out of the US and Germany, two of the four countries with the most notable examples of Islamic terror (the other two having much lower terrorism rates overall). But my link only discussed the US.
The hell are you talking about? I’ve known what “Muslim” means just about my entire life, I wouldn’t argue it meant something else.
I did. It doesn’t weigh in on the number of Muslims who “follow Islam,” bc that would be fucking retarded. They’d be polling for a tautology.
What fucking words? Because it seems to me you’re trying to cover for your lack of basic understanding with poor reading comprehension.
I didn’t say anything about “all crime.” I said “political/separatist violence.”
That being said, immigrant groups usually do have lower violent crime rates overall. Though there are occasional exceptions.
They constituted the wide majority, though.
Again, I disagree, but it’s irrelevant anyway. It doesn’t matter who COULD have been considered right-wing. What matters is the types of right-wingers who ACTUALLY commit terrorism.
Then you’ve obviously read it, and understand that it supports my claim that under 1% of the population commits attacks.
Why not? If we already have the source, why bother adding redundant info?
Ok
“Omg, so, when a white person kills someone as part of a gang initiation it’s always for political reasons? ”
“Less than 1% of the population committing acts (that, remember, is including white gang violence) at a rate of 65% of the population”
“The same acts committed by non-white gang groups would vastly outnumber any Caucasian based gangs”
This clearly demonstrates an inability to differentiate between normal white gang violence and terrorism committed by white gangs.
The word you’re looking for is “differ,” and you’re being deliberately dense. I think Libertarian economic policy is harmful, that doesn’t mean I think Libertarianism has anywhere near as high a radicalizing potential as white supremacism, Islamism, or Christian Identarianism.
I said this about your summation of it, not about the source itself.
Five then. Do you still not understand that not all gang violence is terrorism?
Did I fucking say that? You asked about gang initiations.
Do you think every non-gang-member victim of white gangs is considered “terrorism”? Because it’s obviously not, as the article I linked shows.
Gangs are very rarely considered political organizations by any establishment. Yes, they’re all “political” in the broadest sense of the word “politics,” but they have no involvement or investment in the dominant political systems, which don’t consider them politically “valid” organizations.
The considerations of the state define whether something can be considered terrorism. Otherwise, our police violence and military invasions would be considered terrorism as well.
Non-white “political gangs”? In the US? What the fuck are you talking about lol?
I guess the Crips used to be political, but that was 50 years ago.
No, it’s because you’ve been doing what you accused me of the entire time, as I’d already explained. That’s why I quoted one of your misunderstandings of what gang activity is considered terrorism there.
Well, most of what they do, but I could have been more specific, fair enough! I said “social” to refer to sociopolitical areas beyond the government. Matters of religion, demography, social acceptability, etc.
Yeah, but that doesn’t exactly factor into the Islamist vs. far-right race, now, does it? Much less the American statistics.
Yeah, I meant 3.5 million. I’m jetlagged, sue me.
I’ve demonstrated that they’re leading in the US and Germany and are neck-and-neck in the UK. Should I go through each and every “western” country? Do we count Central America, or just the first world? Is Australia “the west”?
And I’m going by each nation’s definition of “terrorism,”, though my personal definition is rather close to the US DoD’s, just with an added qualifier for motivation (seeking some sort of notoriety) and choice of target (essentially indiscriminate, with symbolic value).
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
Also, that wasn’t a link to Wikipedia either, to be nit-picky.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
wat
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Should we jump into per capita or are you going to admit muslims are more likely to be terrorists, even in the western world?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
They’re more likely than most groups, but probably not more likely than political extremists- of course, we’d need an actual total number of white right radicals to determine how likely they are per capita to commit acts of terror.
But consider than there are only a few hundred radical right and white supremacist groups in the US, while there are well over 2,000 mosques.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
It depends on how you want to define "radical" I'm willing to bet by total number far righties greatly outnumber Muslims in the US.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
well based on who’s committing the terror, we could go by just open white nationalists, vocal white supremacists, anti-muslim organizations, and as a bonus, members of revolutionary libertarian groups.
is that gonna be over 10.73 million they’d need to be less dangerous than US Muslims per capita? honestly I think they’d clock in at under a million or two. you could add all 5 million NRA members, including Michael Moore and Matt Groening, to em and still not reach your quota.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
There are only like 3.5 mil Muslims in the US broski.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Where are you getting the 10.73 million number for them to be less dangerous?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
That would be just over three times the Muslim population of the US, which they’d have to reach to have a lower terror-per-capita rate.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Fam, muslims have a higher death toll in the US than rightoids currently and are less than 1% of the population.
No, they would not need to 3 times the number to have a higher per capita rate, they already do.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Lol why are you looking at death toll? Thag just speaks to their competence, not their likelihood of being a terrorist.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
Uh, considering how easy it is to actually kill someone in an attack, you should look at death totals.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
More fatal attacks? Where are you getting that?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
More people have died in Islamists terror attacks in the US since 9/11 than right-wing terror attacks since 9/11.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
That doesn’t mean they’ve been involved in more fatal attacks. It means they’ve killed more people PER attack.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
How are they more competent dude? They're just more likely to sperg out and shoot a bunch of people.
Like, this isn't even controversial, muslims in the western world are more likely to carry out these types of attacks.
Have you not seen France? Sweden? The UK?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
When rightoids set out to kill a bunch of people, they usually fail to kill more than a couple. Say what you will about Islamists, when they set out to commit horrifying acts of destuction of innocent life, they know how to rack up a K/D.
I couldn’t find French stats.
What about Sweden?
What about Norway? They’ve got the biggest discrepency in Europe.
The UK’s got a pretty good trade between the far-right and islamoids, with the biggest attack beloging to the latter iirc. The funny thing is, by the UK’s definition of “terrorism,” most terror attacks this century have actually been LEFToid.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
How many people in France have died to right-wing terror attacks compared to muslim?
Did you miss the truck attack?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack
Norway has an islam problem too, tbh.
Again, you're confusing random acts of political violence with actual domestic terror attacks. Muslims are carrying out very serious attacks at a much higher rate than the general population.
How many rightoids are flying over to fight in Syria?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Again, I can’t find French stats, but Muslims probably have the edge again because a small number of their attacks claim an extremely disproportionate number of deaths.
Again, this doesn’t mean they’re more likely to attack people. It means if one sets out attack people, they’ll be able to kill more people on average. A statistic that’s due almost entirely to just a couple incidents.
I heard about it. If one attack is enough to demonstrate a country has a problem, then what about Canada? Or New Zealand?
Who’s killed more people in Norway? Islamists, or White Nationalists? The answer may surprise you, it’s not even close.
The latter claim a higher numbe of attacks AND a much higher number of deaths per attack. Remember, the most deadly mass shooting of all time was an Islamophobic attack by a Norwegian White Nationalist.
Not that deaths per attack is a valid way to measure the radicalizing potential of an ideology, that’s kind of my broader point. But if it were, there’d still be plenty of Western countries where rightoids had the edge.
I’m not. I was simply deferring to the UK’s legal definition. The US’s is different in that it puts more of a focus on the danger to human life, but that would only disqualify many of the Irish Nationalist attacks (primarily the “left-wing” ones), which often only succeeded in property destruction.
Unlike in the other nations, per capita, British Muslims actually are more likely to be terrorists (at least based on publicly listed incidents), as British culture is far too passive to produce homegrown radicals who aren’t all talk.
To get a bit off topic though, they’re not more likely to commit (and are FAR more likely to be the recipient of) hate crimes, which kill a lot more people than terrorism in Britain and most places.
Why would they? They have drones.
And the Syrian Civil War doesn’t exactly easily lend itself to far-right recruitment lol.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-15
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/038/094/0a1.jpg
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
He’s a huge fan of not providing sources that prove his point...
1 Snowayne2 2019-03-15
And Muslims in Western countries don't exist in a vacuum and neither do members of other faiths.
Btw, why are you talking about this subject even though you have no education in it? Isn't that a big nono for you? 🤔
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
I know enough about Islam to know it's cancer.
1 nahnotreallytho 2019-03-15
Yes it is true. And it's called Tanzil.
Islam's holy book is literally a holy object descended from heaven, and as such, it's much, much harder to reform. There will never be a New Testament Quran.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
are you familiar with the Five Books of Moses
1 nahnotreallytho 2019-03-15
Yes.
Of Moses, meaning, Written By Moses.
Again, Islam believes the Quran to literally exist in other planes of being, that it is a celestial object, already written, that Muhammed directly transcribed it, not that he wrote a book after talking about some cool shit with god.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
On behalf of God and the visions granted by Him.
The Qu’ran was written by Muhammad under similar circumstances.
From the Talmud, describing the narrative and instructions of the Torah: “God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears.”
According to any reasonable reading, but not according to the Bible or Talmud.
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2019-03-15
The Qur'an itself is relatively chill in comparison to the hadith. I know people will pull out this verse and that verse to say it is evil but honestly it's not a very nice book if you wilfully ignore the verses that say "lol, nah bro don't actually do all the nasty shit, it doesn't actually mean what you think it means and it's only written in there like that so God can find out which one of you bitches is fucking crazy. Be fucking chill and don't spread corruption on the earth you dip.".
The hadith however represent an irredeemable problem. They will never be chill and need to be abandoned .
1 Alpha100f 2019-03-15
Not having secular state to contain the retardation of faith officials.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
and that something is called “geopolitics”
yeah, because that’s how terrorists work lol
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-15
No, it's called the religion.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
nah that’s silly
1 1337Pwnzr 2019-03-15
Non-whites.
1 adityawizkid 2019-03-15
Yeah imagine going to war against an entire country of people living there to reclaim the land bc your religious leader said your dusty book said God wants you to.
Oh wait
1 kaufe 2019-03-15
This is because of history and politics. The current state of islamist extremism (AQ and IS shit) did not exist before the 1970s and most political scientists say it's the result of 3 things: moneyed Saudis getting rich and spreading Wahhabism, Islamic revolution in Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There easily can be an alternate universe where none of this shit happens because the British gave Arabis to the more moderate Hejaz (as they promised) instead of the Wahhabi Sauds.
1 Do1t4AlexBowman 2019-03-15
Yep, but which group commits 99% of terrorism annually?
1 FakeBartReagor 2019-03-15
Imagine being this fucking retarded. LMAO
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2019-03-15
"My delusion is better than your delusion!"
1 AFellowCanadianGuy 2019-03-15
Donald posters are loving this guy for speaking the truth!
And they wonder why people say they are sa hun for radicalization.
1 Pastelitomaracucho 2019-03-15
This guy totally subscribed to PewDiePie
1 carthoris26 2019-03-15
Absolute legend.
Has he named the Jew yet?
1 Fuck--Journalists 2019-03-15
He's a zionist
1 carthoris26 2019-03-15
Ah, just a boomer then.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
what if he’s a Zionist in the “send all jews to Israel” model
1 LittleBigPerson 2019-03-15
Please.
1 unrulyfarmhand 2019-03-15
God damnit every single time. How can someone be both woke and sleep?
1 Momruepari 2019-03-15
ban video games
1 copo31 2019-03-15
Maybe (and it's a big maybe and doesn't mean i agree or disagree with him) he has a point, but he is insane to have said it on a formal statement
1 Dildokin 2019-03-15
This is like my mate who blamed Trudeau for the Quebec terrorist
1 CanuckLiberty 2019-03-15
Careful he's a hero
Islam calls for the death of all nonbelievers daily, this is what they deserve
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
Islam doesn’t do shit “daily,” it’s not a guy
1 CanuckLiberty 2019-03-15
Except it does, you just don't live in the middle east, it's a shithole religion and is 1000 years behind the world. China is smart, they're reeducating the savages
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
you’re right, so why would I worry about the ME statist brands of Islam? that desert shit ain’t what Islam is in my county, or that of anyone else in this thread
1 CanuckLiberty 2019-03-15
Because we’re importing them in insane amounts, they’re bringing their shithole problems here
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
But they’re literally not lol
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-15
lol what a fucking dunce
1 pissekuk 2019-03-15
This but unironically.
1 dildosaurusrex_ 2019-03-15
Alexa, what’s the worst possible take in response to this situation?
1 mouthtalk 2019-03-15
Holy fuck
1 standingpretty 2019-03-15
They don’t care what you actually posted, just where
1 adityawizkid 2019-03-15
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Make your cherry picking less obvious dumbfuck.
1 IndieJammer 2019-03-15
You have to be genuinely retarded to believe this.
1 Galfritius 2019-03-15
I’d bet money he’s a Christ cuck