Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[Kat Stevens]

Let me see if I'm getting this right.  You're a proclaimed pacifist, shouldn't you be mortified by any loss of life by violent means? You seem to be putting all the deaths of these innocents into the acceptable losses column because the perpetrators were only a few bad apples, never mind that there is a common denominator through them all. If only .25% of all Muslims are merely indifferent, let alone supportive of this kind of behaviour, that's not a few bad apples, that's a crop blight. Some pretty vigorous pruning is called for.

 

[Loachman]

an officer in the RF.

What's an "RF"?

[size=10pt]
a regression of 200 years of enlightenment.

A few who have remained endarkened can wreak a lot of havoc on many who have become too enlightened.

Reality exists between the two states.

[size=10pt]Another problem that I, regrettably, forgot to point out is misleading 'sources' and deliberate disinformation that are rampant online. You can see that the aim is to spread disinformation when the site makes unverifiable claims about the veracity of its work;

And, of course, the mainstream media never mislead, always get the facts right, don't have bias and agenda, never spread disinformation, and always back up their assertions with verifiable sources.

Not from my several decades of observation.

I read a variety of sources. I find more factual detail in a variety of the online sources that you disparage, actually. Many of them match my own observations very closely.

[size=10pt]
Maybe the reason why reports which appear on the list don't appear in reputable media or sources is actually because the report is entirely fictitious; not because, as the site claims, the reputable media refused to report it for whatever reason, i.e. not being newsworthy.

Or because the reports do not fit their agendae. There are many examples of that.

[size=10pt]
Please be sensible, my friend. I seriously hope the basis of your views on Islam and radicalization are not premised on that severely lacking database. Never forget that ideologues who have strongly taken up a weak position are willing to spread disinformation to defend that position, and give it a false sense of strength; always try to verify what you read to guard against that.

Don't presume that any of us are working from a single source, and don't presume that ideologues are restricted to one side of any debate.

[size=10pt]You've picked out conservative handful. That you defend this 'source' concerns me deeply.

Give him time to check some more. I find that a lot of amateur websites do very deep research into subjects that interest them, and many are (to some) surprisingly accurate.

That you defend the mainstream media while dismissing other sources indiscriminately concerns me deeply.

[size=10pt]
I also need to mention some shortcomings in your reasoning. The database and numbers that you have summed up don't actually demonstrate that a majority of Muslims worldwide are extremist or any more violent that any other religious or ethnic group.

The trends seem pretty obvious to me. Wherever Islam spreads in the West, violence follows. Those European countries that have refused to accept "migrants" are not seeing the same rise in violent crime that their more enlightened neighbours are presently enjoying.

It doesn't have to be a majority, anyway. The number of true Nazis was relatively small compared to the bulk of the German population of the thirties and forties, but more than enough of the rest went along because they supported enough of the agenda, wanted to be on the winning side for a change, or out of fear.

[size=10pt]I'd pick up a rifle (after adequate training, needless to say) any day in order to defend you from an immediate threat.

I do not think that you would recognize that threat immediately enough.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Loachman]

The trends seem pretty obvious to me. Wherever Islam spreads in the West, violence follows. Those European countries that have refused to accept "migrants" are not seeing the same rise in violent crime that their more enlightened neighbours are presently enjoying.

[/quote]
Yup. You don't read about many attacks in Poland Austria or Hungary.  Ironically the EU is threatening legal action against them for not accepting their fair share if  migrants.
Europe is fucked.

 

[Loachman]

Some countries remember - and heed - history better than others.

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

 

[ueo]

Altho not terrorism per se, what about the "black" grad ceremony at UofT today? Have not persons of color (not sure of the latest PC term) argued/fought/died for inclusion and equality in white society? Why, then, a separate ceremony beyond the stated "...to get more black students..." Where is all this leading? The partial quote is from an interview with one of the organizers on CBC.

 

[Journeyman]

Altho not terrorism per se, what about the "black" grad ceremony at UofT today?

Per se ??  How the hell is this even remotely terrorism, let alone relevant to "Islamic Terrorism in the West"?
    :stars:

 

[Lex Justitia]

Let me see if I'm getting this right.  You're a proclaimed pacifist, shouldn't you be mortified by any loss of life by violent means? You seem to be putting all the deaths of these innocents into the acceptable losses column because the perpetrators were only a few bad apples, never mind that there is a common denominator through them all. If only .25% of all Muslims are merely indifferent, let alone supportive of this kind of behaviour, that's not a few bad apples, that's a crop blight. Some pretty vigorous pruning is called for.

I'm curious. How would you go about discerning who those .25% who are indifferent, or either tacitly or expressly supportive, are? Also bear in mind that I did not, at any point, take the position that .25% or a 'crop blight' should not concern us and that we should be indifferent to the threat. Not at all. On the contrary, I've laid out recommendations to address them and laid out further recommendations that ensure the ordinary Muslim majorities are not inadvertently alienated by poorly-conceived government policy. (Rather than inadvertently alienating them or using would-be convicts who happen to be Muslim for intel, governments should just allow the community to mobilize their congregations and establishments against radicalization).

The intricacies of the issue need to be appreciated by policymakers and state actors to avoid expanding the 'crop blight.' But to even appreciate this point, one would need to accept that only a fraction of the 1.3 billion suffer from this 'blight.' One who accepts, on the other hand, generalizing will draw up different policy proposals than one who is cognizant of and appreciates realities and instead prefers proportioning to generalizing.

In short, my vehement opposition to generalizing and my demonstrating that generalization is a pervasive response to the problem was by no means an insistence that governments and communities need not act. Remedies are definitely needed; they just need to be carefully tailored around realities.

What's an "RF"?

Reserve Force. That's probably not standard usage; sorry for the confusion.

A few who have remained endarkened can wreak a lot of havoc on many who have become too enlightened.

I don't see how this is a rebuttal. If you're implying that the militants such as Daesh are stuck in pre-Enlightenment, I have never asserted that pre-Enlightenment is not a problem. My comment there was about our response to them; specifically, that we should not regress to Sheridan's level.

I'm intrigued by the expression "too enlightened." What does it mean to be "too enlightened" and what is the standard of measurement? How does one discern that? I hope you're not insisting that Western governments are too enlightened because their response to global terrorism, so far, has been level-headed and meticulously drawn up. An insistence of that kind would be an insult to the lives lost in both world wars defending enlightenment against brutish oppression.

Reality exists between the two states.
And, of course, the mainstream media never mislead, always get the facts right, don't have bias and agenda, never spread disinformation, and always back up their assertions with verifiable sources.

Not from my several decades of observation.

I never made a claim about mainstream media specifically. Your reply is a strawman. The claim was simply that disinformation exists online and it includes misleading reporting--this applies to both mainstream media, even those regarded as reputable sources, and fringe media.

I read a variety of sources. I find more factual detail in a variety of the online sources that you disparage, actually. Many of them match my own observations very closely.

Can't dispute that; but your statement is also meaningless without context. I can't evaluate the reliability of a source outside of context and a claim. I must point out, though, you've admitted to confirmation bias from your last line.

Or because the reports do not fit their agendae. There are many examples of that.

That's possible too. However, you've missed the challenge I made: First, the language used in thereligionofpeace.com's database (the only 'source' I challenged in my recent discussion here) is problematic because it suggests that there are no other explanations for why the entries are not always reported, other than that reputed sources regarded as the mainstream are unreliable.

Second, it is quite possible that many of those entries are fabricated. The source can easily dispel that contention by supplying primary sources or secondary sources for all of its entries. That it has failed to do this suggests that it wants to insulate its reporting from objective and independent review, or that it has deliberately fabricated some entries. Those are the points I made, and those points concern thereligionofpeace.com, not mainstream media.

Regarding your last line: that's indefensible. Are you able to tap into the thoughts of various editors-in-chief of reputable papers and tell me that they chose not to publish something because it doesn't fit into their agenda? You've made a conjecture that can't be proven unless you were to interrogate, in a legal-style deposition, an editor who makes the call on what is publishable and what isn't. Even if you were somehow able to do that; that'd be one example.

Don't presume that any of us are working from a single source, and don't presume that ideologues are restricted to one side of any debate.

I won't make that presumption, but if that's the first 'source' he has cited in his replies to me, I should feel very concerned.

Give him time to check some more. I find that a lot of amateur websites do very deep research into subjects that interest them, and many are (to some) surprisingly accurate.

That you defend the mainstream media while dismissing other sources indiscriminately concerns me deeply

You have a habit of saying there are a lot of this and a lot of that, but not providing an example. And I submit to you that what may seem to be thorough and dependable research on the surface, or facially, could turn out to be flawed and rife with confirmation bias. The danger with amateur researchers is that they aren't well-versed in avoiding confirmation bias and addressing discrepancies without faulty reasoning. This is why I don't attach value to amateur sources, and neither should any intelligence community.

I don't know what you mean by the parenthetical "to some." You mean to those who don't know what to look for—flaws like faulty methodology and confirmation bias? Coming from those, a claim that a source is accurate is a worthless claim.

As I said above in this post, I have not made a claim about mainstream media. What "other sources", as you say, have I dismissed? Jarnhamar cited one 'source'—namely, thereligionofpeace.com—and I attacked only that 'source.' What the devil are you on about?

The trends seem pretty obvious to me. Wherever Islam spreads in the West, violence follows. Those European countries that have refused to accept "migrants" are not seeing the same rise in violent crime that their more enlightened neighbours are presently enjoying.

It doesn't have to be a majority, anyway. The number of true Nazis was relatively small compared to the bulk of the German population of the thirties and forties, but more than enough of the rest went along because they supported enough of the agenda, wanted to be on the winning side for a change, or out of fear.

There's a problem with your analogy to Nazis. The Third Reich held a number of military and public rallies, where Hilter made speeches to mobilize the Germans behind the Nazi schemes, throughout its existence. Among them were the renowned Nuremberg Rallies held annually for over a decade. While I don't know the extent of the turnout to those rallies relative to the population between 1920 and 1939 (and, ergo, cannot conclude that the Third Reich had the support of the majority of Germans), the point is that the Third Reich held public rallies and Daesh and other militant groups do not hold public rallies. That distinguishing feature, alone, weakens your analogy to the Nazis.

Why does majority disapproval not matter when dealing with Islam? Why isn't the same rationale applied to sectarian terrorism by Catholic militants in the IRA, or Protestant militants in the UDA? The latent bias you have against Islam is showing. There is really no way for you to justify your double standard position. You are either unaware of the various political and religious kinds of terrorism that have transpired in the last century or you want to treat Islam differently for some invidious reason. Pick your poison.

I do not think that you would recognize that threat immediately enough.

Much like you wouldn't recognize confirmation bias in your lacklustre replies to this pressing problem? Anyways, that's beside the mark. You don't think I'd recognize an immediate threat fast enough to repel it; you'd be surprised, but whatever you say.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You've picked out conservative handful. That you defend this 'source' concerns me deeply.


I also need to mention some shortcomings in your reasoning. The database and numbers that you have summed up don't actually demonstrate that a majority of Muslims worldwide are extremist or any more violent that any other religious or ethnic group. The reason is that the database doesn't show the number of perpetrators. For all I know (because, as I have just said, I don't know and can't possibly know from that database), a group of forty Muslims perpetrated all of those attacks in that 30-day period. Using that hypothetical, are you going to tell me that 40 is representative of 1.3 billion?

Let's make the hypothetical more realistic. Let's assume one natural person perpetrated each of the 164 attacks in that 30-day period (as the database says). Let's assume it has been that way every month since 1990; that's 89 months as of May. 164 (again, a number from your 'source') attacks for 89 months. Basic arithmetic will yield 14,956 attacks since 1990. Assuming one person perpetrated each, that's 14,956 persons who perpetrated terrorism; is 14,956 a fair representation of 1.3 billion?

Let's make the estimate liberal, let's assume 100 different persons committed each of the 14,956 attacks since 1990—it's a bit of a far-fetched estimate but I'm giving you the benefit—, that leaves us with 1,459,600 persons. Is 1.4 million a fair representation of 1.3 billion? Do you finally see from my perspective? It's a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction that we are looking at, but apparently it is now acceptable to treat them all the same and live in perpetual fear and hunkered-down from the 'other.' A shame we're here, at this point, after centuries of a variety of 'colors' and 'species' of terrorism.

There's an air of aristocratic condemnation, condescension and a certain odour of snooty, dismissive attitude in the last little bit of postings. If a person wishes to carry on like Charles Winchester in MASH, remember, you're not in Boston anymore Toto. Respect the membership and quit talking down your nose at everyone. Nobody is impressed.

 

[Lex Justitia]

I don't know if that was a thinly-veiled threat directed at me for daring to vary from pack; or a warning to others not to oppose the prevailing misconceptions, but it's lamentable. Just as it is to see some approvingly cite George Orwell's work while unwittingly furnishing many of the vices against which it warned.

I didn't intend any disrespect anyhow. As psychiatrist-researchers Jack Gorman and Sarah Gorman have shown, it's normal to have a feel-good response (release of dopamine; the neurotransmitter responsible for pleasure) when reading things that support long-held beliefs (the well-studied confirmation bias phenomena), but feel threatened and double-down on false assertions when those assertions are challenged. All I tried to do was to dismantle misconceptions on this topic; not to threaten or disrespect any member.


It matters to me how people process information and shape their beliefs, because beliefs form the will to create policy and because PR is important to the military. If there are prevailing misconceptions that create an atmosphere of 'Muslim-bashing' in the military; I'd say there is a serious PR lapse.

 

[Lex Justitia]

Some countries remember - and heed - history better than others.

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

The 'Center for the Study of Political Islam' is a one-man show for a reason. Bear in mind that his Ph.D. is in physics and mathematics; he's not exactly an authority on Islam.

Disclaimer: I don't intend disrespect.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Lex Justina]

You have a habit of saying there are a lot of this and a lot of that

[/quote]
Posting on the site for two days and already familiar with members habits?
Hummm

 

[Loachman]

Part I

[size=10pt]I don't see how this is a rebuttal. If you're implying that the militants such as Daesh are stuck in pre-Enlightenment, I have never asserted that pre-Enlightenment is not a problem. My comment there was about our response to them; specifically, that we should not regress to Sheridan's level.

We go to great lengths to avoid innocent, civilian casualties in today's conflicts, unlike our adversaries who intentionally cause them. Our efforts to preserve and protect are noble and correct, especially given that our purpose in fighting where we have been in the last few years is to relieve civilians of their suffering; they are not our enemy. I have stopped and delayed attacks where I could not be certain that innocent people would not be harmed.

One of the results that we have seen is media outrage whenever civilian casualties do occur, despite our best efforts. Too many people fail to understand the nature of war. It is inevitable that civilian casualties will occur. Civilian casualty rates, even among friendly populations as we liberated them (Second World War), were many, many times higher, yet were considered to be acceptable at the time and given the end result. German cities were struck repeatedly, as industries, including the human component, were targeted. Effort was also made to break the will of the German people to continue the fight.

When civilian populations harbour insurgents/terrorists, appropriate effort must be made to separate the two elements. Should the level of support for violence (either directly committing it, or aiding those who do) within a particular community rise to an unacceptable point, what does one do? Wall off that community to insulate it from the larger population under attack, or go in and clean it out? How does one differentiate between perpetrators, supporters, and those who want nothing to do with them (as there is no distinguishing dress, language, culture, or religion between the three), and what does one do with each segment?

The standard practice for dealing with prisoners of war has been to intern them for the duration of the conflict, then release them back to their home countries. Ideological/religious conflicts are not as clear-cut as conventional wars. When does such a conflict end? When can one safely release prisoners, whose core beliefs and motivations will remain as powerful as ever for the rest of their lives? To where would one release them, if they were born in the country which they have attacked?

Hard choices may have to be made at some point, if the level of infiltration and subsequent violence continue to increase. Host populations will eventually reach their breaking point and be faced with either surrender or bloody counterattack. You would be surprised at how quickly "enlightened" societies can descend into darkness when survival - "them or us" - is at stake. Human nature has not really changed over many millennia.

And sometimes an enemy has to be absolutely crushed.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]I'm intrigued by the expression "too enlightened." What does it mean to be "too enlightened" and what is the standard of measurement? How does one discern that?

There was once a monastery inhabited by very enlightened monks on the island of Lindisfarne. One day, in 793, they received some visitors in the form of Vikings. Their enlightenment did not help them very much.

Enlightened societies shun violence. That is not necessarily a bad thing - life should indeed be nonviolent - but reality cannot be ignored. A society that cannot deal with the darkness that still exists will crumble in the face of that darkness when the two eventually meet. A more vigorous society, with a willingness to use violence, will eventually overcome a complacent, soft, "enlightened" one. Even the mighty Roman empire succumbed.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]I hope you're not insisting that Western governments are too enlightened because their response to global terrorism, so far, has been level-headed and meticulously drawn up.

Yes, many Westerners are too "enlightened". The vast majority have led relatively pampered lives, know nothing of conflict, and have never had to face, or even consider, evil. Western response has generally been weak and foolish. Angela Merkel is the face of that.

Failure to deal effectively with sponsors of terror is rampant.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]An insistence of that kind would be an insult to the lives lost in both world wars defending enlightenment against brutish oppression.

How?

And what do you know about defending anything, and what those people would or would not have considered "insulting"?

I was born in England eleven years after the end of the Second World War, in the southeast of Greater London. Memories were still very fresh, and signs of the war were still evident. I played in bunkers. DUKW rides were popular at beaches. The former residential area behind my grandparents' house is still a parking lot, courtesy of one of the last V1 strikes; this particular one was  air-launched by an He-111 over the North Sea. My grandparents' back windows were blown in from the blast. My father's older brother was killed in Burma on 20 May 1944. My grandfather served as an ASDIC (Sonar) operator on a Q-ship in the First World War. Some of my teachers, both in England and Stratford, were veterans, as were a couple of customers on my paper route, my first Company Sergeant-Major (fought through France and Holland, and is approaching 93), CQ and RSM (Korea). I was surrounded by veterans. I listened to their stories, asked many questions, and learned much. I read a bunch of books. I toured battlefields and cemeteries and a concentration camp site. I served for forty-three years, and saw and did a few things and lost some friends and colleagues along the way.

Many of the others here have had similar experiences, some more, some less - but more than you.

It takes rather a lot to piss me off, but that last quoted remark of yours managed to. Your "Taming minds; calming rough waters" line is an arrogant and inaccurate claim in my case. You began to have exactly the opposite effect from your first post.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]
I never made a claim about mainstream media specifically .... The claim was simply that disinformation exists online and it includes misleading reporting--this applies to both mainstream media, even those regarded as reputable sources, and fringe media.

Having reviewed what you wrote, I'll grant you that, but you stated that:

"misleading 'sources' and deliberate disinformation that are rampant online. You can see that the aim is to spread disinformation when the site makes unverifiable claims about the veracity of its work; its 'methodology' page is full of pseudoscience on data collection. On the same page, they even write: "These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta." How do they know? They certainly don't provide primary or even secondary sources (it's literally just a list with date, location, # of casualties, and a 5-word—15-word max.—description of what apparently transpired. Without primary or secondary sources, how do we know the site's administrators are not merely creating fake entries?"

Followed by:

"Maybe the reason why reports which appear on the list don't appear in reputable media or sources".

You did not define "reputable media or sources", and my interpretation was that you consider amateur websites to be unreputable and mainstream media to be reputable.

In my experience, that would be a poor assumption.

[size=10pt]
I must point out, though, you've admitted to confirmation bias from your last line.

That last line was "Many of them match my own observations very closely", for the convenience of readers.

When a claim does not match my observations and experience in that area, I consider it, but will likely reject it either partially or completely. That does not mean that I have a closed mind, or blindly stick to preconceived notions. I constantly question my own assumptions, and often seek contrary opinions. I am well aware of the dangers of misinterpretation.

My career constantly required me to impartially gather information, analyze it, and make a critical decision. Sometimes, I had the luxury of time to consider everything, often I did not, and I spent a fair amount of time in hazardous environments and situations under some pressure. Errors could cost lives, expensive equipment, or embarrassment. I will make no claim regarding perfection, but I am alive, as is everyone for whom I ever had any responsibility, and the only two deaths in which I played a part were entirely justifiable.

I had/have to have confidence in my ability to separate fact from fantasy, else I'd have been non-functional.

[size=10pt]
Regarding your last line: that's indefensible. Are you able to tap into the thoughts of various editors-in-chief of reputable papers and tell me that they chose not to publish something because it doesn't fit into their agenda? You've made a conjecture that can't be proven unless you were to interrogate, in a legal-style deposition, an editor who makes the call on what is publishable and what isn't. Even if you were somehow able to do that; that'd be one example.

"The Cologne assaults were not reported by the national media for days, and The Local says many news outlets started reporting it only after a wave of anger on social media made covering the story unavoidable.[49] This fuelled claims that the media was attempting to cover up crimes by immigrants.[50] Although Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker condemned the assaults, she was strongly criticized for some of her comments and was accused of blaming the victims. Cologne's police chief, Wolfgang Albers, was transferred to provisional retirement for his handling of the situation. The police response and delayed media reaction met strong criticism from German citizens, with some placing blame on the European migrant crisis."

Yes, Wikipedia, I know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany, but that is simply the most convenient summary of that unfortunate event. There are plenty of others, and similar examples of media cover-up.

And, as police and governmental cover-up have been mentioned, I suggest that you look into the Rotherham rape gangs for a good look at the other side of cultural diversity.

I have never taken much interest in American politics until the last Presidential election. I followed that very closely, and found it quite fascinating. I learned much about the US political system, which I had previously thought to be excessively complicated and, in some ways, silly (such as the Electoral College), but developed an understanding and respect for it. I also watched, very closely, the reporting and polling going on. I watched various mainstream media reports, but also a number of small online operations. Over time, I pared back to a few that I watched regularly. I have done the same with post-election issues, especially the left-driven riots.

Every source had/has its biases, to varying degrees. I came to trust only one mainstream source (Fox), and a few small online sites (The Still Report, in particular), but remained critical of all and still watched the mainstream sources that I considered to be out-to-lunch, just as I used to read almost every piece of Soviet information that I could find earlier in my career, no matter how thin the information content or how thick the propaganda content was or how much of a headache slogging through it gave me. One needs to know and understand one's enemy.

I was not, therefore, surprised at all by Mr Trump's victory. I would not have bet upon it at all, as it was never a certainty, but I saw it as a distinct possibility (and said so to many people) based upon the information that I found online, which never appeared in mainstream sources.

A lot of amateurs put a lot more effort into research and analysis than most professionals. It is not a job for them, but a passion. Many are highly specialized in their interests, and very thorough in those areas. One, for example, analyzed anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise (T-shirts, hats, etcetera) sales as a predictor. Eight times more anti-Clinton stuff sold compared to anti-Trump stuff. Collectively, these sites trended towards a Trump victory, even while the vast majority of mainstream sources were predicting (to the point of pre-printing magazines with President Clinton on the cover) and advocating for Clinton. The blatant bias of most of the US press, and its consistent ability to get things wrong, is well-documented, has caused loss of trust and respect, and driven people to alternate sources of information at their expense.

Neither I, nor millions of others, need to interrogate any editors to see and understand what has been happening.

More to follow.

 

[Loachman]

Part II

[size=10pt]
The danger with amateur researchers is that they aren't well-versed in avoiding confirmation bias and addressing discrepancies without faulty reasoning. This is why I don't attach value to amateur sources, and neither should any intelligence community.

When one looks at a variety of sources, backed up with some practical experience, one sees a pattern. I will not dismiss amateurs so quickly, and neither should any intelligence community. Professionals are not always right (as I have seen many times) and amateurs are not always wrong (as I have seen many times).

I do not think that you realize how much confirmation bias you have yourself.

[size=10pt][size=10pt]
I don't know what you mean by the parenthetical "to some." You mean to those who don't know what to look for—flaws like faulty methodology and confirmation bias? Coming from those, a claim that a source is accurate is a worthless claim.

Again, for readers' convenience, the line in question is: "I find that a lot of amateur websites do very deep research into subjects that interest them, and many are (to some) surprisingly accurate."

The "some" are those who are surprised when such amateur sites are proven correct, despite not following the conventions of professional research papers (many of which are also rife with a variety of errors and also display bias).

[size=10pt][size=10pt]
There's a problem with your analogy to Nazis.... the point is that the Third Reich held public rallies and Daesh and other militant groups do not hold public rallies. That distinguishing feature, alone, weakens your analogy to the Nazis.

There's a problem with your basic comprehension.

The difference that you point out is merely one of communication. The Nazis lacked the internet, but would have used it if they had it. Public rallies served their purpose for their time and circumstances.

[size=10pt]
Why does majority disapproval not matter when dealing with Islam? Why isn't the same rationale applied to sectarian terrorism by Catholic militants in the IRA, or Protestant militants in the UDA? The latent bias you have against Islam is showing. There is really no way for you to justify your double standard position. You are either unaware of the various political and religious kinds of terrorism that have transpired in the last century or you want to treat Islam differently for some invidious reason.

Majority disapproval is very nice, but of little practical value given an active minority approval. The peaceful majority are ill-equipped, mentally and technologically, to hinder the violent minority. Their silence or support can be coerced. I apply the same rationale to other terrorist organizations and have no double standard to justify. The difference is one of scope. There are far more radical Muslims at large killing far more people in far more countries today than any other terrorist movements ever have. They are, in that regard, a unique threat.

I have no bias, latent or otherwise, towards Islam as a faith, any more than I have towards Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other faith. I have Syrian, Libyan, and Egyptian neighbours, and we get along fine. They are great people, many with tragic backgrounds from which they are happy to have escaped, and value their new country. I am glad to have them as neighbours.

I am far more aware of other terrorist organizations, thank-you-very-much. I have a professional interest in those, if not a major professional interest.

It has never been my job to decide what faith somebody follows, only to help assure that they can follow the faith of their choosing.

My whole professional life, however, has been geared towards recognizing, understanding, deterring, preparing to deal with, and dealing with threats.

The biggest threat today, which is under-rated by far too many (just as the Nazis once were), is radical Islam. I have no quarrel with those members of that faith who do not seek, violently or otherwise, to overturn our society or cause it harm. I enjoy our freedoms and security as they are (subject to a few possible improvements irrelevant to this discussion).

Much like you wouldn't recognize confirmation bias in your lacklustre replies to this pressing problem?

That's as prime a case of potkettleblackism as I've ever seen, right there.

[size=10pt]
Anyways, that's beside the mark. You don't think I'd recognize an immediate threat fast enough to repel it; you'd be surprised, but whatever you say.

I stand by my remark.

The 'Center for the Study of Political Islam' is a one-man show for a reason. Bear in mind that his Ph.D. is in physics and mathematics; he's not exactly an authority on Islam.

What's this reason? How many men does it take to make a valid show? What does his degree have to do with anything? Does one need a degree in anything to be able to do basic research and produce helpful graphics? Are you disputing the validity of his research and presentation, or merely dismissing it because his degree is in something other than history or Islamic studies? What makes you an authority on Islam, history, terrorism, or anything else of relevance?

You are twenty-four-years old, according to your profile. You display some intelligence, and seem to have some fancy book-learnin' behind you. You have, however, no practical experience, or real understanding of the world yet.

I am very concerned that you profess a desire to represent an organization that you do not now, and may never, understand, to an equally non-understanding public.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tip: look up the meaning of passive-aggressive, and stop arguing like a teenage girl.

Generalization can be misused, but is just a way of describing a pattern.

The number of worldwide militants (of any ideological grounding) may be very small relative to a general population, but large enough to be a problem.  A handful of people can worry a city.  A few cells can worry a nation.

The chief reason people generalize about Islamic militants is because there are enough of them to notice, and they are widespread.  There are not presently any other large religious groups with small numbers of homicidal militants spread throughout the globe, or conducting cleansing operations against minority religions.  Nor do we often witness mobs dancing in the streets - which suggests a voluntary affiliation on the part of the non-militant - when some country suffers a setback. Pointing at the militants and employing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is not a rebuttal.  They decide for themselves what they are and what they represent.

It is not the responsibility of locals to deal with marginalized newcomers and make accommodations.  At some point, "fit in or fuck off" applies.

And this - "I imagine, a lot of Daily Mail readers would solutions that include mass deportation, mass internment, or even, ethnic cleansing (which, I'm sure your call, has been attempted before, regrettably)." - is bullshit.  We could get to that point, but much more provocation is needed.  Meanwhile, your imagination is insufficiently restrained.

 

[Lex Justitia]

@Loachman

Before I reply, I want to officially apologize for the tone in some of my replies. Some of them did seem disrespectful.

It's inexcusable; and while I prefer not to attempt to rationalize or justify the mistake, I feel that I need to, at bare minimum, say that I'm not accustomed to being on a forum with members decades my senior; I often forget there are many with nearly a lifetime's worth of experience--and, if not that much, still greater experience than my own.

I genuinely apologize for the tone.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Dozen killed by a suicide bomber in Quetta Pakistan.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last 30

Covered by Aljazeera, reuters, the daily Star, BBC news, SAMAA TV news Pakistan, Indian Express, news Pakistan.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Tip: look up the meaning of passive-aggressive, and stop arguing like a teenage girl.

Generalization can be misused, but is just a way of describing a pattern.

The number of worldwide militants (of any ideological grounding) may be very small relative to a general population, but large enough to be a problem.  A handful of people can worry a city.  A few cells can worry a nation.

The chief reason people generalize about Islamic militants is because there are enough of them to notice, and they are widespread.  There are not presently any other large religious groups with small numbers of homicidal militants spread throughout the globe, or conducting cleansing operations against minority religions.  Nor do we often witness mobs dancing in the streets - which suggests a voluntary affiliation on the part of the non-militant - when some country suffers a setback. Pointing at the militants and employing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is not a rebuttal.  They decide for themselves what they are and what they represent.

It is not the responsibility of locals to deal with marginalized newcomers and make accommodations.  At some point, "fit in or frig off" applies.

And this - "I imagine, a lot of Daily Mail readers would solutions that include mass deportation, mass internment, or even, ethnic cleansing (which, I'm sure your call, has been attempted before, regrettably)." - is bullshit.  We could get to that point, but much more provocation is needed.  Meanwhile, your imagination is insufficiently restrained.

It's called passive trolling, we see it more and more 

 

[Loachman]

@Loachman

Before I reply, I want to officially apologize for the tone in some of my replies. Some of them did seem disrespectful.

It's inexcusable; and while I prefer not to attempt to rationalize or justify the mistake, I feel that I need to, at bare minimum, say that I'm not accustomed to being on a forum with members decades my senior; I often forget there are many with nearly a lifetime's worth of experience--and, if not that much, still greater experience than my own.

I genuinely apologize for the tone.

I, equally genuinely, accept.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

FBI Criminal compliant against Amor Ftouhi:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

 
Let's test the lousy sources. Name me three news agencies you consider as credible (sorry al Jazeera and abcnews is out) and I'll see if they conve the "bogus" stories on the site I provide. 

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015l

Interesting read.