The difference looks to be that The Mirror seem to cite 1:8,000 as the lifetime odds of a traffic related death rather than the daily odds. It's a little hard to be certain though as the article is all over the place sometimes giving national statistics, sometimes global ones and sometimes randomly skipping from one country to another; sometimes telling us daily death rates, sometimes annual and some rates for indeterminate timescales. I think that's a problem when journalists report statistics, they like to cherry pick this stuff that looks interesting at the expense of reporting things consistently.
You're right that other article is interesting, though I note that Andrew Shaver shies away from giving any raw data at all. I did wonder if that was a deliberate ploy to head-off arses like me from trying to pick the numbers apart. Then I noticed that he'd linked to that same Mirror article above. This suggests to me that Shaver, like lots of other journos, makes a living from rehashing stuff that they've found on the internet rather than doing the more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding job of going back to original sources. I note that the Mirror article is dated 2008 whilst the Washington Post one is 2015. Why would someone who is a PhD candidate and who earns a living as a political advisor be quoting a seven year old article as current for any reason other than laziness?
The difference looks to be that The Mirror seem to cite 1:8,000 as the lifetime odds of a traffic related death rather than the daily odds. It's a little hard to be certain though as the article is all over the place sometimes giving national statistics, sometimes global ones and sometimes randomly skipping from one country to another; sometimes telling us daily death rates, sometimes annual and some rates for indeterminate timescales. I think that's a problem when journalists report statistics, they like to cherry pick this stuff that looks interesting at the expense of reporting things consistently.
You're right that other article is interesting, though I note that Andrew Shaver shies away from giving any raw data at all. I did wonder if that was a deliberate ploy to head-off arses like me from trying to pick the numbers apart. Then I noticed that he'd linked to that same Mirror article above. This suggests to me that Shaver, like lots of other journos, makes a living from rehashing stuff that they've found on the internet rather than doing the more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding job of going back to original sources. I note that the Mirror article is dated 2008 whilst the Washington Post one is 2015. Why would someone who is a PhD candidate and who earns a living as a political advisor be quoting a seven year old article as current for any reason other than laziness?
Stig, you sound like the kind of chap who may like Sense About Science. (And I suspect maybe even Freakonomics - the books were quality commuter reading, I've yet to give the podcast a go though.)
Cheers for the tip-off LucktReds. I've put Freakanomics on my wish list. Is Sense about Science a book, it seems to be more of a campaign group from what I can see?
Cheers for the tip-off LucktReds. I've put Freakanomics on my wish list. Is Sense about Science a book, it seems to be more of a campaign group from what I can see?
Hah, I can see how that looks a bit confusing - I popped the book on there as an after thought;I really enjoyed it though. SAS is indeed a campaign, but often they come out with pretty interesting bits and bobs.
Although a lot of their focus seems to be medicine, on occasion I've seen them release media-related stuff - breaking down the numbers behind a headline etc (Typically, I've popped on to their site to find an example and failed miserably )
Honestly, the statistics were just a colourful way of illustrating the actual point - fearing death by terrorist is pretty crazy, given that it's quite clearly very far down the list of likely causes of death. So I looked up some death stats instead. Hard to find consistent info for one particular year, but I think this still helps illustrate the point.
UK deaths in 2013: 506,790 Leading cause of Male deaths: heart disease (15.4%) Leading cause of Female deaths: Alzheimer's (12.2%) Deaths linked to terrorism: 1 (0.0002%) Full breakdown of deaths in 2013 available via here.
Other stats: U.K. road deaths in 2015: 1,273 *Source UK cancer deaths in 2014: 163,444 *Source Total UK deaths linked to terrorism since 7/7/05: Three. *Source
I'm totally guessing, but I suspect government funding for anti-terrorism is a bit greater than heart disease, Alzheimer's and cancer research, and road safety awareness. At least relative to the death rate.
Three people in ten years, out of roughly 5m deaths. That's 0.00006% of deaths caused by terrorism. Honestly, I don't feel terrified by that figure.
The girl on the program was interesting. Her attitude REALLY blew my mind. It was her opinion that British values were nothing but colonialism, exploitation and racism. Although I disagree, she is entitled to her opinion and I fully respect that.
She didn't mention how this fitted in with her, or her immediate families history. Either her or a direct descendant woke up one day in an Islamic country or other far away land and said to themselves "I hate this place, I'm moving, not to another city, not another part of the country, not to the oil rich Islamic countries of the middle east, not another Islamic, Arabic or Asian country, nor even an African country. I'm going to uproot myself and any dependants, drag them half way across the world to a country of colonialism, exploitation and racism. What could possibly go wrong?"
If was in her situation Id want some answers from my family. The fact that she didn't have/didn't care what they were totally blew my mind! Its amazing just how some people tick.
More likely that her parents or grandparents were recruited in Pakistan to come and work in England in what were them boom towns in the north west, Midlands or parts of London that were short if labour.
They most likely had a different view of Britain and empire to their daughter/granddaughter and saw the move as an opportunity for a better life which for all its faults it most likely is.
Not to say that her family didn't suffer racism as we know many did but that isn't the full story either.
Point is that most Asian immigrants were invited over to fill vacancies.
That answer just wouldn't fit with her clear and obvious racist views. Your right that her parents probably have different views, it doesn't explain why there daughter feels differently. Sadly the only answer is that she is nothing more than racist scum. The mad thing is that she was touted as a moderate. A very poor representation and example of Muslims.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
Possibly the worst justification for not admitting you were 100% wrong ever.
Poor logic, poor stats, poor analogy, poor attempt at humour to deflect how weak your argument is.
Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments.
that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together.
So quoting sourced, undeniable stats is bad, and making up random large numbers to suit your argument is good?
Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments.
that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together.
So quoting sourced, undeniable stats is bad, and making up random large numbers to suit your argument is good?
Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments.
that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together.
So quoting sourced, undeniable stats is bad, and making up random large numbers to suit your argument is good?
Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments.
that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together.
So quoting sourced, undeniable stats is bad, and making up random large numbers to suit your argument is good?
Yes.
The old 'Ive been proven wrong but i was on a wind up the whole time' number.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how nasty you are to me, I'm not going to change my view.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how nasty you are to me, I'm not going to change my view.
Not even if we get really, really nasty and start calling you names and all that?
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how nasty you are to me, I'm not going to change my view.
Not even if we get really, really nasty and start calling you names and all that?
It's happened before on here bob, though I expect you find that hard to believe.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how nasty you are to me, I'm not going to change my view.
Not even if we get really, really nasty and start calling you names and all that?
It's happened before on here bob, though I expect you find that hard to believe.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how nasty you are to me, I'm not going to change my view.
Not even if we get really, really nasty and start calling you names and all that?
It's happened before on here bob, though I expect you find that hard to believe.
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
No, no matter how much hard evidence and facts you give me, I'm not going to change my prejudices
What is undeniable is; Muslims right now are responsible for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world right now. Though clearly mostly in the Middle East. These deaths are occurring around around a common theme. ie. My version of Islam is better than yours. Ironically most of the victims are other Muslims.
This is where blind faith takes humanity and why I despise religion.
What is undeniable is; Muslims right now are responsible for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world right now. Though clearly mostly in the Middle East. These deaths are occurring around around a common theme. ie. My version of Islam is better than yours. Ironically most of the victims are other Muslims.
These is where blind faith takes humanity and why I despise religion.
You're perfectly entitled to despise all religion, just not Islam!
I think it's more complicated than a theological debate, though that's certainly part of it. Centuries of wars, politics and cultural differences plays a part. Its like saying the Troubles were all about Christianity.
Edit: I'm not trying to be an apologist. Hundreds of thousands of people in Africa and Asia because of Islam. I'm just saying there's more to it than that
Well......I've had a good think about this and this is my take. The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists? Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments. Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods! Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten. You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too? The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
To answer your question (bolded) - when they commit acts of terrorism. It has been demonstrated in this thread that evidence points to the fact that most 'acts' of terrorism are not carried out by muslims.
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
Exactly. The definition of terrorist is 'a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims'. So until you commit an act of terror you are not a terrorist. You might have radical political views, you might be a dick, but you aren't a terrorist. For instance, I really dislike Zooey Deschanel. Like, a lot. The most. I hate her. She is the absolute worst person ever. And if I saw her walking down the street towards me, no-one around, no CCTV cameras anywhere, no chance of ever getting caught, I would smile politely and walk past her. Maybe I'd nod. Just because you don't like something or you subscribe to a view that is against something doesn't make you an active participant in the destruction of it. I know that you don't want to back down on your view for whatever reason but your definition of a terrorist is just factually wrong. Words mean things, they don't change just because you want them to
......if you say anything about Islam in particular, you must cover yourself with a dig at another religion, Christianity if poss, at the same time
Thanks for the tip-off Ib.
Adendum to my recent post:
As were the Christian crusades back in 1095.
Weren't the original crusades pretty decent though? Securing safe passage for Christians and preventing them being attacked whilst they were going on pilgrimages?
(Post by LuckyReds: pointlessly fanning the flames on CharltonLife since 2012(tm))
Comments
You're right that other article is interesting, though I note that Andrew Shaver shies away from giving any raw data at all. I did wonder if that was a deliberate ploy to head-off arses like me from trying to pick the numbers apart. Then I noticed that he'd linked to that same Mirror article above. This suggests to me that Shaver, like lots of other journos, makes a living from rehashing stuff that they've found on the internet rather than doing the more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding job of going back to original sources. I note that the Mirror article is dated 2008 whilst the Washington Post one is 2015. Why would someone who is a PhD candidate and who earns a living as a political advisor be quoting a seven year old article as current for any reason other than laziness?
Although a lot of their focus seems to be medicine, on occasion I've seen them release media-related stuff - breaking down the numbers behind a headline etc (Typically, I've popped on to their site to find an example and failed miserably
UK deaths in 2013: 506,790
Leading cause of Male deaths: heart disease (15.4%)
Leading cause of Female deaths: Alzheimer's (12.2%)
Deaths linked to terrorism: 1 (0.0002%)
Full breakdown of deaths in 2013 available via here.
Other stats:
U.K. road deaths in 2015: 1,273 *Source
UK cancer deaths in 2014: 163,444 *Source
Total UK deaths linked to terrorism since 7/7/05: Three. *Source
I'm totally guessing, but I suspect government funding for anti-terrorism is a bit greater than heart disease, Alzheimer's and cancer research, and road safety awareness. At least relative to the death rate.
Three people in ten years, out of roughly 5m deaths. That's 0.00006% of deaths caused by terrorism. Honestly, I don't feel terrified by that figure.
That answer just wouldn't fit with her clear and obvious racist views. Your right that her parents probably have different views, it doesn't explain why there daughter feels differently.
Sadly the only answer is that she is nothing more than racist scum. The mad thing is that she was touted as a moderate. A very poor representation and example of Muslims.
The well used phrase.... Not most Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims is of course true......world wide they have hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of followers of many different groups/organisations. They may not have carried out acts of terrorism but they are fully signed up members so to speak.....so when pray do they actually become fully fledged terrorists?
Where you Henry (and one or two others), are getting your knickers twisted in quoting the stats in that article are plain to see. Stats are notoriously open to interpretation as we ALL know and are often used very cleverly (and sometimes not so cleverly) to win arguments.
Let's try to make this simple......as then you might just understand what is being said.....after all you did go to Crown Woods!
Let's say for example there's a terrorists organisation called The Preservation of Endangered Hedgehogs Action Group. They have ten members but these ten members then commit 1000 acts of terrorism in a short period of time....making them potentially more dangerous and active than all the Islamic groups put together. That still doesn't mean there are more of them does it.....there's still only ten.
You are using the number of organisations and the number of incidents they are involved in to try to win your argument.....but that still doesn't obscure the fact that there are more Islamic terrorists in the world right now than all the other terrorist organisations put together. And by the way, Islamic fundamentalist terror groups ARE commiting countless vile acts on a daily basis worldwide, or do you deny that too?
The incredibly successful and for ever vigilant anti terrorist squads must love folk like some of you in this thread!
I'm having a lot of fun here Ben......LOL!
Don't sit back and do nothing mate....Join TPOEHAG today....application forms available at your local wildlife park or Hedgehog rescue centre.
Poor logic, poor stats, poor analogy, poor attempt at humour to deflect how weak your argument is.
C'Mon James, admit it
Your opening post on this thread was 'Most muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' followed by some non-descript 'well generally speaking .....'.
It takes strength to change a view based on sound contrary evidence and argument - defending a clearly wrong assertion is a weakness.
argumentdebate?What is undeniable is; Muslims right now are responsible for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world right now. Though clearly mostly in the Middle East. These deaths are occurring around around a common theme. ie. My version of Islam is better than yours.
Ironically most of the victims are other Muslims.
This is where blind faith takes humanity and why I despise religion.
Edit: I'm not trying to be an apologist. Hundreds of thousands of people in Africa and Asia because of Islam. I'm just saying there's more to it than that
Nah, fuck it.
Adendum to my recent post:
As were the Christian crusades back in 1095.
(Post by LuckyReds: pointlessly fanning the flames on CharltonLife since 2012(tm))