If your first reaction on hearing about a terror attack in your city....

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

99% of the time these facts and figures are pulled from people's arseholes or from something they read on Facebook.

Also.. this image kind of sums things up fantastically .. found on Reddit & while is aimed at a certain subreddit, it is true of people here too & the logic they have.

Actually the opposite. Stats about Islamic beliefs are sourced generally from reputable organisations like pew.

It's the left leaning posters who then choose not to believe.

Some stats.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2455

RayM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's terrorism

It may or may not be coherently linked to x y or z fair enough, but visiting violence on random civilian targets in order to cause fear and disruption in the everyday populace is pretty much the dictionary definition.

I can't change that soz

Whether or not it meets the dictionary definition of terrorism, it seems unfortunate to label it as such. Especially when that's exactly what the perpetrators want us to do. Terrorism enjoys a certain level of 'gravitas' that 'lone murderer' doesn't.

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A protest isn't a suitable metric. I'm not saying that extremism isn't a problem, nor that it equally applies to people of different faiths and none. The fact that so many people from the Muslim community are radicalised is a serious issue. All I am saying is that the community as a whole can't be blamed for the actions of these individuals who act alone or in small groups.

Youre fighting a strawman then?

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean, if we're throwing random statistics out there - given the population of Ireland and the number of IRA members, you could argue that an Irish person is more likely to be a terrorist than a Muslim.

But then again you wouldn't say that because it would be a ludicrous claim.

Back in 1920 you could have said that statistically speaking an Irish person was likely to be supportive of the IRA, or at least ambivalent. Even if you are talking about the PIRA, you'd still be right to say that a large segment of society (at least north of the border) was tacitly supportive from the 1970s onwards, if they had not been, it would not have survived.

Beyondgone

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean, if we're throwing random statistics out there - given the population of Ireland and the number of IRA members, you could argue that an Irish person is more likely to be a terrorist than a Muslim.

But then again you wouldn't say that because it would be a ludicrous claim.

Ludicrous, but probably true. I can't say that I'd find a figure of 10-15% of Muslims being in some way "radicalised" sounds even vaguely "off the wall". That does still add up to an awful lot of radicals. And radicals, of any creed, are generally a menace. Religion, remember, is like alcohol. It's fine in moderation.

A Little Pony

RayM wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with terrorist attacks is that they bloody work, essentially

I wish we'd stop describing and reporting them as 'terrorist attacks'. In so many cases, the perpetrator is a lone angry nutjob with a crap life, who latched on to Islamic extremism (if he wasn't a Muslim, it would have been something else). Calling a twat who kills people with a truck a 'terrorist' gives him a level of notoriety that maybe he doesn't deserve.

I don't buy into that argument for the simple fact that ISIS and Islamic terrorists urged followers to use this technique to use cars or trucks to mow people down. And what happens? Islamic terrorists start using those vehicles to murder people. We saw it in Germany, we saw it in Sweden and we saw it in London.

It fundamentally tells me something is going on, ISIS has infiltrated Europe with members and the ideology is spreading. Its a huge problem and its a matter of time before something happens again in the UK or the ROI.

Widdershins

RayM wrote: »

Whether or not it meets the dictionary definition of terrorism, it seems unfortunate to label it as such. Especially when that's exactly what the perpetrators want us to do. Terrorism enjoys a certain level of 'gravitas' that 'lone murderer' doesn't.

The media are supposed to report truthfully and accurately, not massage the facts to accommodate sensitivities or pre-empt the hypothetical result of reporting truthfully. They don't always live up to their responsibility in this aspect, so I wouldn't be calling for more of that.

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A protest isn't a suitable metric.

That begs the question concerning what metric we actually do use. Saying "the vast majority" is not particularly useful. After all, it is a given, and it doesn't actually provide a useful platform with which to work.

In an actual survey produced by Channel 4, 4% of Muslim respondents stated they sympathised with suicide bombers (with some qualification). Only 1% said they actively agreed with suicide bombers. But, more important was that 47% felt that someone who was homosexual should not allowed become a teacher or 23% who were supportive of the introduction of Sharia Law.

Those are minorities, to be sure, but they are statistically significant minorities, I'm sure you can agree.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't say any deaths were irrelevant.

Sigh. Edit: maybe you didn't realise I was originally replying to Harry Palmr

A Little Pony

Widdershins wrote: »

RayM wrote: »

Whether or not it meets the dictionary definition of terrorism, it seems unfortunate to label it as such. Especially when that's exactly what the perpetrators want us to do. Terrorism enjoys a certain level of 'gravitas' that 'lone murderer' doesn't.

The media are supposed to report truthfully and accurately, not massage the facts to accommodate sensitivities or pre-empt the hypothetical result of reporting truthfully. They don't always live up to their responsibility in this aspect, so I wouldn't be calling for more of that.

If the media reported the truth to what is really happening in Europe/UK it would start a riot. The Rotherham case being a perfect example of systematic rape and child abuse for years covered up by the security forces so as to not offend or get called racist.

pangbang

having done all of 15 minutes research, I appears as though that 10 to 15% estimate is challenged, the lower estimates have it at just 1%, but none higher than 15%.

Its quite difficult to research the topic and find very particular numbers. I'm not going to undertake research to that extent unless someone wants to pay me! So take the number with a cautionary pinch of salt (but don't be foolish enough to disregard it altogether). In any case, a minority of appx 1.6 billion people is gigantic.

I think its a common tactic of the those left-leaning to demand proof, sit back and wait for an answer they were never going to accept anyway.

As for the OT, I think the reaction of those categorised on the right is borne out of frustration. How many times do people have to unnecessarily die before someone does something about it?

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

That begs the question concerning what metric we actually do use. Saying "the vast majority" is not particularly useful. After all, it is a given, and it doesn't actually provide a useful platform with which to work.

In an actual survey produced by Channel 4, 4% of Muslim respondents stated they sympathised with suicide bombers (with some qualification). Only 1% said they actively agreed with suicide bombers. But, more important was that 47% felt that someone who was homosexual should not allowed become a teacher or 23% who were supportive of the introduction of Sharia Law.

Those are minorities, to be sure, but they are statistically significant minorities, I'm sure you can agree.

Of course I can agree. I never claimed that there were no problematic attitudes within the Muslim community.

Pkiernan

Once you remember that the far left just simply don't care that people are killed by immigrants their ravings start to make sense.
They want to look at everything objectively, notwithstanding that few things are more subjective than having your children run over in front of you, just so the left can assuage their white guilt.

ancapailldorcha

pangbang wrote: »

having done all of 15 minutes research, I appears as though that 10 to 15% estimate is challenged, the lower estimates have it at just 1%, but none higher than 15%.

Its quite difficult to research the topic and find very particular numbers. I'm not going to undertake research to that extent unless someone wants to pay me! So take the number with a cautionary pinch of salt (but don't be foolish enough to disregard it altogether). In any case, a minority of appx 1.6 billion people is gigantic.

I think its a common tactic of the those left-leaning to demand proof, sit back and wait for an answer they were never going to accept anyway.

As for the OT, I think the reaction of those categorised on the right is borne out of frustration. How many times do people have to unnecessarily die before someone does something about it?

So you were happy to throw out this statistic about 1.6 billion people when you thought people would just blindly accept it and now that you've been called on it you're talking about the difficulty of measuring these sorts of attitudes with such a large sample size? Sorry but that BS and it's exactly the reason I asked for proof. Otherwise, I'd end up accepting an absurd argument.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

having done all of 15 minutes research, I appears as though that 10 to 15% estimate is challenged, the lower estimates have it at just 1%, but none higher than 15%.

Its quite difficult to research the topic and find very particular numbers. I'm not going to undertake research to that extent unless someone wants to pay me! So take the number with a cautionary pinch of salt (but don't be foolish enough to disregard it altogether). In any case, a minority of appx 1.6 billion people is gigantic.

I think its a common tactic of the those left-leaning to demand proof, sit back and wait for an answer they were never going to accept anyway.

As for the OT, I think the reaction of those categorised on the right is borne out of frustration. How many times do people have to unnecessarily die before someone does something about it?

Isn't it ludicrous to say that wanting proof is a tactic? I mean, surely this is just common sense... & then to claim that we are left-leaning because we just want evidence of claims.

pangbang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you were happy to throw out this statistic about 1.6 billion people when you thought people would just blindly accept it and now that you've been called on it you're talking about the difficulty of measuring these sorts of attitudes with such a large sample size? Sorry but that BS and it's exactly the reason I asked for proof. Otherwise, I'd end up accepting an absurd argument.

Yes, I saw a video, it seemed reputable and stuck in my memory. And then I truthfully explained that I saw it in a video, then went and found the video, then di a few minutes researching the numbers. And yes, its a very complicated thing to research. I owned upto it being difficult, I owned upto not having the research to back it all up. I advised people to take it the information with caution.

As I said before, it seems to be a common tactic, namely to demand proof on a messageboard on a complicated topic, and then sit back and say nothing, then proclaim yourself.

So seeing as I couldn't 100% back up the video I posted, how about something startling. How about you tell me what YOU think the percentage is???

And don't worry, I'll be asking for tons of proof that I reasonably expect within minutes before the conversation moves away from the point at hand.

Go....lets hear your answer or guess.

pangbang

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't it ludicrous to say that wanting proof is a tactic? I mean, surely this is just common sense... & then to claim that we are left-leaning because we just want evidence of claims.

I'll be more specific then. Simply demanding proof while at the same time offering up nothing yourself is a tactic. Is that better?

ancapailldorcha

pangbang wrote: »

Yes, I saw a video, it seemed reputable and stuck in my memory. And then I truthfully explained that I saw it in a video, then went and found the video, then di a few minutes researching the numbers. And yes, its a very complicated thing to research. I owned upto it being difficult, I owned upto not having the research to back it all up. I advised people to take it the information with caution.

As I said before, it seems to be a common tactic, namely to demand proof on a messageboard on a complicated topic, and then sit back and say nothing, then proclaim yourself.

So seeing as I couldn't 100% back up the video I posted, how about something startling. How about you tell me what YOU think the percentage is???

And don't worry, I'll be asking for tons of proof that I reasonably expect within minutes before the conversation moves away from the point at hand.

Go....lets hear your answer or guess.

You describe it as a tactic. Your claim was that there is basically 1 person for every 2 EU citizens who want to kill us all. That is a highly extraordinary claim and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for that. I was going to offer you an apology for being so blunt earlier but then I read the latter half of this post.... I have no way of knowing by the way, that's my answer.

Irish Praetorian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you were happy to throw out this statistic about 1.6 billion people when you thought people would just blindly accept it and now that you've been called on it you're talking about the difficulty of measuring these sorts of attitudes with such a large sample size? Sorry but that BS and it's exactly the reason I asked for proof. Otherwise, I'd end up accepting an absurd argument.

If I might be so bold as to take up the question of statistics, I think the first stop has to be Pew polling on the matter, giving a generalized view of opinions on the Shariah amongst Muslims worldwide.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

ancapailldorcha

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If I might be so bold as to take up the question of statistics, I think the first stop has to be Pew polling on the matter, giving a generalized view of opinions on the Shariah amongst Muslims worldwide.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

That's fair enough. Pew has a good reputation for this sort of thing as far as I am aware.

pangbang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You describe it as a tactic. Your claim was that there is basically 1 person for every 2 EU citizens who want to kill us all. That is a highly extraordinary claim and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for that. I was going to offer you an apology for being so blunt earlier but then I read the latter half of this post.... I have no way of knowing by the way, that's my answer.

But then you start to se the real problem, yes? There is one side of an issue that is burdened with proof for everything, every minute detail....while the other side has nothing to say, nothing to do, and is then in a position to claim victory.

That's not a good thing.

From that article -

How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said in 2016 that they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.

So if vast majorities of Muslims are generally unfavourable of ISIS, then surely it would make it quite hard for them to be all terrorists/potential terrorists?

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If I might be so bold as to take up the question of statistics, I think the first stop has to be Pew polling on the matter, giving a generalized view of opinions on the Shariah amongst Muslims worldwide.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Actually if the mods can excuse me for quoting myself, this is perhaps the most comprehensive polling on global Muslim attitudes to-date:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Now how the extent to which you categorize radical is probably dependent on individual attitudes. If you think wanting to see the Shariah implemented as the law of the land is radical, you could argue perhaps two thirds of Muslims world-wide are radical. If you are a bit more discerning and argue only those who argue for killing apostates is the gold standard of radicalism then you could say only one-third are radical, again it really depends on what metric you consider appropriate.

ancapailldorcha

pangbang wrote: »

But then you start to se the real problem, yes? There is one side of an issue that is burdened with proof for everything, every minute detail....while the other side has nothing to say, nothing to do, and is then in a position to claim victory.

That's not a good thing.

You make the claim, you back it up. I did not make such a claim and would not unless I had seen something I could use to substantiate it.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

I'll be more specific then. Simply demanding proof while at the same time offering up nothing yourself is a tactic. Is that better?

If your claim is as ludicrous as suggestion 15% of 1.6bn ppl are radicalised then i think there's a very good purpose in everyone queueing up to call you out tbh

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

From that article -

So if vast majorities of Muslims are generally unfavourable of ISIS, then surely it would make it quite hard for them to be all terrorists/potential terrorists?

The INLA take a rather dim view of the IRA, does that mean they do not/did not qualify as Republican terrorists?

[Just to clarify the point I am making is not that everyone who dislikes X is a terrorist, it's that it is possible to favour some terrorist groups and not others, or even more problematically, to have fairly reprehensible views without necessarily wanting them enforced violently.

pangbang

Deleted User wrote: »

If your claim is as ludicrous as suggestion 15% of 1.6bn ppl are radicalised then i think there's a very good purpose in everyone queueing up to call you out tbh

So what number are you going to put forward? 2%? 0.5%? 10.2678%?

And all the proof to back it up please.

I can, simply using some common sense, believe a guess of a few percent. A few percent of 1.6 billion people is a huge number.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

So what number are you going to put forward? 2%? 0.5%? 10.2678%?

And all the proof to back it up please.

I can, simply using some common sense, believe a guess of a few percent. A few percent of 1.6 billion people is a huge number.

ACP has already responded correctly here.

The opposite of a guess is not another guess.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

My first reaction is to remember more Americans have died getting out of the bath than from terrorist actions in the last 15 years. I do not react "politically" but with the power of statistical probability

That sounds a bit high, considering 9/11.
Link?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And I said "Some posts". It isn't a counter narrative, it is a series of incidents by a tiny minority which certain people will use to tar a demographic over 1.5 billion people.



It does but not to the same extent. Anyone calling for gun control will usually be shouted down pretty quickly while anyone touting the usual snide digs at multiculturalism will always find support from others and bring it up every time there is a terrorist attack.

??? We already have gun control, I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Of course people here are going to care more about events in Europe, and even European lives. My point was in relation to the right wing narrative which arises after such events, which is that all Muslims are terrorists.

I've never read that statement on Boards, until you posted it.

I've no idea where you get such a notion, because it's so obviously crazy that I really can't see anyone being daft enough to post it - so, it's pretty irrelevant here.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Actually the opposite. Stats about Islamic beliefs are sourced generally from reputable organisations like pew.

It's the left leaning posters who then choose not to believe.

Some stats.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2455

Some pretty horrendous stats, there!

But, never mind - sure everybody loves Europe, it's not like some of these nutjobs are actually killing anyone.... Oh, wait...
Some of them actually are - and some others are sheltering them...

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If your claim is as ludicrous as suggestion 15% of 1.6bn ppl are radicalised then i think there's a very good purpose in everyone queueing up to call you out tbh

The stats on suicide bombings. Justified in order of

Always
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Don't know
(always or sometimes)

I've bolded the always or sometimes.

Pakistan

1

2

4

89

4

3

Indonesia

1

5

12

81

2

6

Nigeria

2

6

7

78

7

8

Jordan

3

9

32

53

3

12

Tunisia

5

7

6

77

6

12

Turkey

3

13

17

54

14

16

Senegal

11

7

14

50

18

18

Egypt

10

15

34

39

2

25

Malaysia

5

22

12

58

3

27

Lebanon

9

24

25

41

2

33

pangbang

And besides the admittedly hard to "prove" statistics (from left or right), what do all those "queueing up" have to say about the analogous points of Nazi Germany, imperial japan etc. Surely you don't need proof of such a thing and can take it on qualitative grounds?